PDA

View Full Version : PPC ideas...




VoidSlaad
Dec 16, 2010, 11:00 PM
As you can tell from my previous posts, I am a hardware guy. That being said, I cannot claim to be a "Wintel", "Mactel", "Lintel", "MacPPC", "LinuxPPC" or any such thing. I probably would be an Apple guy if Apple had not switched to x86 family CPU...how boring. Now all that remains is a software/OS battle, not who can implement a better PC hardware design. Microsoft Windows versus Apple MacOS versus Linux distros. (Personally, Linux as a whole has won because there is no computer,microcontroller, etc. that it cannot be implemented on. "Linux is Legion, for it is many...".) Anyway, I think it would be pretty cool if Apple would allow a branch to grow from their Apple tree, resulting in a continuation of the PPC Mac (using CPUs such as the one in the PS3 for example) and MacOS/PPC. They could have parallel computer developments both competing against Windows...any thoughts?



tom vilsack
Dec 16, 2010, 11:18 PM
Market Cap: 294.68B

#2

i dont think they need are help ;-)

QuarterSwede
Dec 16, 2010, 11:23 PM
PPC was great in it's day but Intel really just came up with a more power sipping design and that enabled them to have much higher speeds. Then adding multiple cores just wiped the floor with PPC.

From what I understand PPC has had some major inroads since Apple dropped it. It's a case of too little, too late now.

Personally, I don't care how boring a CPU architecture is as long as it gives me the best performance and power efficiency. Currently Intel is easily at the forefront.

VoidSlaad
Dec 16, 2010, 11:29 PM
It does not have to be PPC necessarily. There are plenty of other CPU architectures around...how about MIPS? ARM?

QuarterSwede
Dec 16, 2010, 11:36 PM
It does not have to be PPC necessarily. There are plenty of other CPU architectures around...how about MIPS? ARM?
ARM is great for mobile devices because it has decent speed/power efficiency. It's not so great for full scale CPU's though because the speed just isn't there.

Not sure about MIPS/RISC in CPU's. I don't know enough about the architecture to say why it wouldn't do well in the desktop/laptop class.

VoidSlaad
Dec 16, 2010, 11:36 PM
I suppose my issue is that there is hardly any difference between Apple and Microsoft at the hardware level, and certainly not enough to justify purchasing an Intel Mac, which in my eyes does not make it a Mac at all...unless mere aesthetic appeal and the fact the machine runs MacOS makes a machine a Mac. Aesthetics are superficial, plenty of Wintel machines look appealing these days...so I suppose just install MacOS on any (in general) computer and it is now a Mac?

QuarterSwede
Dec 16, 2010, 11:39 PM
I suppose my issue is that there is hardly any difference between Apple and Microsoft at the hardware level, and certainly not enough to justify purchasing an Intel Mac, which in my eyes does not make it a Mac at all...unless mere aesthetic appeal and the fact the machine runs MacOS makes a machine a Mac. Aesthetics are superficial, plenty of Wintel machines look appealing these days...so I suppose just install MacOS on any (in general) computer and it is now a Mac?
OS X is what makes a Mac, a Mac. It really has to do with the total package but in my opinion it has ZERO to do with what architecture it's on. I'm very happy Apple went with Intel because most of their low end machines are much faster than even the fastest G5 ever was.

VoidSlaad
Dec 16, 2010, 11:46 PM
So, when OS XI comes out, that will make a Mac a Mac too? Or perhaps a hacked OS9 makes a Mac as well...I am not trying to sound sarcastic...much...but to you it IS the OS/software. To me, it would have to be the whole package, the OS and the hardware combined...not merely one or the other.

QuarterSwede
Dec 16, 2010, 11:51 PM
So, when OS XI comes out, that will make a Mac a Mac too? Or perhaps a hacked OS9 makes a Mac as well...I am not trying to sound sarcastic...much...but to you it IS the OS/software. To me, it would have to be the whole package, the OS and the hardware combined...not merely one or the other.
I guess my question is, why do you think it shouldn't be on Intel? What's the rational reason for that thought?

VoidSlaad
Dec 16, 2010, 11:59 PM
I am not saying that Intel is bad, but there is not a whole lot of variety in the desktop/laptop market...x86 family architecture (and derivatives/variations) mostly. I would like to have more variety, as a consumer and a tech guy. There is just so much possibility with other CPUs (and GPUs, DRAM, VRAM), but rarely seen because one architecture is leader, but not necessarily the best. Does that sound unreasonable?

QuarterSwede
Dec 17, 2010, 12:09 AM
I am not saying that Intel is bad, but there is not a whole lot of variety in the desktop/laptop market...x86 family architecture (and derivatives/variations) mostly. I would like to have more variety, as a consumer and a tech guy. There is just so much possibility with other CPUs (and GPUs, DRAM, VRAM), but rarely seen because one architecture is leader, but not necessarily the best. Does that sound unreasonable?
It does make sense but I think Intel's x86 architecture is clearly the best desktop/laptop architecture currently. They've stepped up to the plate time and again when another architecture has starting making inroads.

It sounds like you'd rather things focus more on hardware like in the old days. Those days are gone I'm afraid. If you want to get excited about it again you'll have to look at the mobile space where all the hardware action and innovation is currently. At least there ARM is leading. ;)

Nameci
Dec 17, 2010, 12:18 AM
I still stick my my PPC architecture Macs, I just love them. "Think different". Remember these lines?

VanneDC
Dec 17, 2010, 02:48 AM
dont count PPC dead yet, ive herd rumours Apple isnt /that/ happy with its Intel counterparts, and is looking to a 12 core cell cpu/gpu solution over the coming years from IBM.

occams razor
Dec 17, 2010, 06:14 AM
I run osx on my jailbroken ps3 so suck it lol

raysfan81
Dec 17, 2010, 03:55 PM
Uhh AMD ftw? :) No but seriously, I love PPC and I understand what the op is talking about. Theres just something about knowing that no other (personal )computer being manufactured is running on the PPC platform. Its Unique.

munkery
Dec 17, 2010, 06:04 PM
Are not ARM and PowerPC similar in that both are part of RISC chip architecture family?

I thought ARM was more power efficient that Intel per processor speed?

VoidSlaad
Dec 17, 2010, 06:47 PM
PPC and ARM are both RISC, I think at least mostly. What is funny is I do not think that most CPUs are purely any one architecture. For example, the first Pentiums were merely scalar CPUs, then with MMX Intel incorporated vector processing, turning the CPU into superscalar. Many instructions that were added to the x86 design are those of RISC and VLIW architectures, so modern x86 CPUs are not pure CISC chips...I do not think PPC (or ARM, MIPS, etc) are pure RISC chips. I think Transmeta's Crusoe and Efficeon were pure VLIW, running x86 instructions through their patented code morphing tech...Nvidia, I believe, owns the patents to that now. I guess the point I am trying to make is that most architectures can achieve the same end result the programmer desired, it boils down to how each chip achieves the goal and efficiency/speed/power consumption.

VoidSlaad
Dec 17, 2010, 06:50 PM
One more thing too...I do know of a computer that uses a PPC arch...the upcoming (maybe) Amiga X1000.

InuNacho
Dec 17, 2010, 08:44 PM
dont count PPC dead yet, ive herd rumours Apple isnt /that/ happy with its Intel counterparts, and is looking to a 12 core cell cpu/gpu solution over the coming years from IBM.

Yea I've heard something like that before, but from the way 10.6 is designed we probably aren't going to see anything like that anytime soon.

QuarterSwede
Dec 17, 2010, 08:48 PM
Uhh AMD ftw? :) No but seriously, I love PPC and I understand what the op is talking about. Theres just something about knowing that no other (personal )computer being manufactured is running on the PPC platform. Its Unique.
I get it too but you have to remember that unique doesn't always mean better. Currently it just isn't.

VoidSlaad
Dec 17, 2010, 10:14 PM
You are correct, unique is not necessarily better, but neither is "tried and true." Off topic, but I have finally got my little iMac G3 700/SE Graphite up and running online...right now in fact. I was being "OS blind" and thought MacOS handled wifi connecting the same as WinXP...It was a forehead slapping moment...All I had to do was click "Apply." My only problem now is that I am navigating w/o a mouse. My Linksys WUSB600N is plugged into one USB, my keyboard in the other (obviously I do not have a iMac keyboard nor a USB hub). Now I have to plug juggle every so often.

VoidSlaad
Dec 17, 2010, 10:43 PM
It just dawned on me...I can use a virtual keyboard, which I am using right now...problem alleviated for now.:cool:

MacHamster68
Dec 18, 2010, 05:27 AM
ppc Mac hm yes in these days it was the whole package , but now for me its only OSX so far ,
just trying MorphOS on one of my eMac's and i am surprised
to see that there is a OS out there that runs on PPC platform (Mac mini G4 , eMac, powerMac G4 ,powerbook g4 ) and still gets developed in 2010
and it is surprisingly fast compare to OSX

still waiting for the AMIGA x1000
the X1000 brings to the table is a dual-core 1.8GHz PPC RISC CPU, ATI Radeon R700 graphics, 2GB RAM, a 500GB HDD, 7.1 channel audio and a 22x DVD drive. There are also up to 10 USB 2.0 ports and 2x PCIe x16 along with Gigabit Ethernet. On top of this is 'Xorro' a customised PCIe x8 slot which can directly influence the X1000's CPU.

As standard a 'Xena' programmable 500MHz board is slotted into Xorro to boost system performance

VoidSlaad
Dec 18, 2010, 09:42 AM
Is/was going to install linux on this iMac...but how is MorphOS? How well will it run on such old hardware? Plus, compatibility issues? I have enough problems with Windows, Linux, and MacOS just trying to get my hardware up and running...I do not think I am up for any more insanity-inducing OS nonsense, my plate is full...

MacHamster68
Dec 18, 2010, 09:49 AM
the thing with morph os is there is to my knowledge so far not much software available apart a massive amount of amiga games and apps which run under morphOS, but all essentials are there anyway
installing it was easier then installing linux and a lot quicker up and running under 5 minutes from inserting the disc until desktop appears , and like i said its booting faster and apps opening quicker then in OSX , at least on my eMac 1.42 ghz 2gb ram and 64mb vram ati 9600


here a guide
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSR0maRU9QM

iThinkergoiMac
Dec 18, 2010, 10:23 AM
I suppose my issue is that there is hardly any difference between Apple and Microsoft at the hardware level

Actually, there's a major difference between Apple and Microsoft at the hardware level: Apple makes hardware and, with the exceptions of the Zune and XBox 360, Microsoft doesn't. :p

and certainly not enough to justify purchasing an Intel Mac, which in my eyes does not make it a Mac at all...unless mere aesthetic appeal and the fact the machine runs MacOS makes a machine a Mac. Aesthetics are superficial, plenty of Wintel machines look appealing these days...so I suppose just install MacOS on any (in general) computer and it is now a Mac?

As others have said, it's about the total package. For one thing, you can't just install OS X on any PC and have it work properly. The quality of Apple's computers are much higher than those from companies like Dell that sell similarly specified computers at half the price. My PowerBook G4 is going on 7 years old and still runs like a dream. I don't know of a single PC laptop that anyone I know has had that, at 7 years old, runs that well.

You get what you pay for. You pay a lot for Apple's products, but you also get a lot. Some of it may not matter to you, and that seems to be the case.

This conversation reminds me of one I had with my boss yesterday at work. He likes his Macs and he was talking about how he doesn't use probably half the features it has, but he likes it because "it's so d*** reliable." That's what it comes down to for a lot of users, and is where Windows often fails to deliver.

VoidSlaad
Dec 18, 2010, 09:54 PM
[QUOTE=iThinkergoiMac;11590461]Actually, there's a major difference between Apple and Microsoft at the hardware level...

I erred. What I meant to say is Apple computers and (Win)tel computers at the hardware level. Intel x86 family derived CPU, compatible motherboard, RAM, etc. Only thing different at hardware level is EFI (Mac) and BIOS (Wintel), and that has been more or less rendered irrelevant as there are EFI dongles and other "hacks" so that one can build their own "Mac." Microsoft never seemed to break and actually code Windows for Apple's previous PCs, but Apple has (understandably I suppose...profit=good, being broke=bad) by coding for Microsoft's core platform, Intel-based CPUs.