PDA

View Full Version : future limitations of PowerPC Macs?




Cox Orange
Jan 10, 2011, 08:43 AM
Hello,

one thing can be said: as long as it serves your needs, it is not obsolete (or limited).
If you still work with old external hardware and old software under, lets say Tiger, you won't see the need to upgrade, but there is one thing I started thinking about, that could bring one's PowerPC to the end.

If one thing will get a problem, it will most certainly be ending support for web-applications (e.g. browsers that keep up with todays data demands).

What do you think?
Where, what kind of and how will limitations for PowerPC Macs be met and make a change to the Intel platform necessary?

Something to read, if you like to:
(most recent) http://lowendmac.com/misc/10mr/tiger-browser-prospects.html
http://gigaom.com/apple/browser-choice-thins-for-power-pc-mac-users/
http://lowendmac.com/misc/10mr/mb1028.html



Strimkind
Jan 10, 2011, 09:08 AM
Tiger is becoming less and less supported. Firefox is ending support for tiger in the next revision (4). Apple has not added anything for over a year (or two) now for tiger.

Now I think Leopard is the only way to be on a PPC if you want to run anything current. Eventually many others will phase out any support for Leopard, as most game makers already have.

The lack of support by the Mac App store is another nail in the coffin.

I'd give Leopard another 2 years maximum, and Tiger is already on its way out. Panther is long gone (try finding a current web browser for it).

DSPalpatine
Jan 10, 2011, 10:00 AM
PowerPC is a diminishing market. Apple has continued to support PowerPC with Leopard, as Safari 5 and iTunes 10 are both available for PPC. However, when Leopard reaches its EOL status, I doubt there will be any further development for this platform. I'm not as worried about the web app angle, at least not for a few years. Web apps tend to be written toward a lowest-common denominator specification, so I can't imagine Safari 5 and Firefox 3.6 will leave you high and dry for at least a few more years.

Aside from some PPC enthusiasts or businesses that must run legacy applications and have not ported to Intel, I doubt that we will see much more development for this platform. I think of my dog's groomer as a good example: for years, they had a G4 Power Mac (Yikes, I believe), running OS 9 and an ancient version of Filemaker Pro. It had all of the customer data in it, and ran fine, performing only the tasks required of it. The last time I took my dog in, however, a shiny new iMac was sitting in its place, running Snow Leopard and a new version of Filemaker. I asked the owner (who is a Mac-head herself) why she switched, and she responded although the G4 was still running, she was worried about the machine dying, given its age. For her, more than the software, it was the age of the hardware that was a concern. As these machines get older, more things will break, and although some of us LOVE to tinker and have no problem diagnosing faulty RAM or a bad HDD, a lot of people just want a machine that works, and have no interest in repairing a 5-6 year old computer.

Personally, when Leopard no longer receives security updates and application support (Safari, iTunes), I'll probably look to replace the G5 iMac with something newer.

Ktscheinqe
Jan 11, 2011, 05:12 AM
I've mostly just read stuff, rather than tried, but maybe somebody has tinkered with some of these:
ppc builds of linux distros. the browser versions would be current. early g4 probably needs graphics card upgrade. need at least 512mb ram
beos? i think the newer versions were x86, and they were circa 2000 (some enthusiast patches extended a couple years, i think). so, ppc builds are even older? so, you'd have to like beos.
aros? afaik, project has still not reached official release. i don't recall much that i read.
morphos. payware kin of aros.

Queso
Jan 11, 2011, 05:15 AM
morphos. payware kin of aros.
That's an interesting option. Turn your Mac into an Amiga :cool:

MacHamster68
Jan 11, 2011, 04:42 PM
on the browser site is a great option and that is
TENFOURFOX (http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/)
it made even youtube running stutter free at 240p on my iMac G3
all it needs is OSX tiger as thats what this browser is made for NOW not 10 years ago , these guys there are great , because it gives even a old G3 iMac the use back Apples safari and mozilla denies it
so far no crashes whatsoever as its beta software, that gives hope that not everybody out there seems to think PPC architecture is only good for the dump , its still possible to surf the web, watch dvd's or downloaded movies , use office ...use older photoshop ,what more do you want from a computer ...honestly most people surf the web when the computer is in use , its only Apple who wants you to believe you absolutely need a intel processor ... to open google

what happened to THINK DIFFERENT Steve ?

Nameci
Jan 11, 2011, 06:37 PM
on the browser site is a great option and that is
TENFOURFOX (http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/)
it made even youtube running stutter free at 240p on my iMac G3
all it needs is OSX tiger as thats what this browser is made for NOW not 10 years ago , these guys there are great , because it gives even a old G3 iMac the use back Apples safari and mozilla denies it
so far no crashes whatsoever as its beta software, that gives hope that not everybody out there seems to think PPC architecture is only good for the dump , its still possible to surf the web, watch dvd's or downloaded movies , use office ...use older photoshop ,what more do you want from a computer ...honestly most people surf the web when the computer is in use , its only Apple who wants you to believe you absolutely need a intel processor ... to open google

what happened to THINK DIFFERENT Steve ?

I agree, PPC is not yet dead. Still alive and still kicks some @$$!

macgeek18
Jan 11, 2011, 11:29 PM
I agree, PPC is not yet dead. Still alive and still kicks some @$$!

You also have a Dual 1.42Ghz G5 and a 2Ghz G5 some of the better PPC processors. My 800 and 867 PowerPC Macs are on their way out to useless.
Even with maxed out RAM.

tom vilsack
Jan 12, 2011, 02:05 AM
try camino as your browser,mactubes for utube...

if you consider most people basically use computers for internet...ppc mac offer great value ....if you max them with ram,newer harddrives and a few tweaks....they run just great.

why overpay the apple tax for something like a macbook pro just to surf the net?...or overpay for some win comp that leaves you open to virus,spyware,keyloggers just to surf the net.

ppc= great value safe internet computers win win....

Nameci
Jan 12, 2011, 07:04 AM
You also have a Dual 1.42Ghz G5 and a 2Ghz G5 some of the better PPC processors. My 800 and 867 PowerPC Macs are on their way out to useless.
Even with maxed out RAM.

Well, I really try to look for them. They are great value for the money.

iThinkergoiMac
Jan 12, 2011, 05:05 PM
I agree, PPC is not yet dead. Still alive and still kicks some @$$!

My 3 year-old MacBook is faster than the G5 listed in your sig (according to the benchmarks, at least). Don't get me wrong, I love PPC Macs and the G5 was an amazing machine.

But the notion that PPC Macs still have significant performance in today's world is just misleading. Any Mac you can buy new today is faster than the fastest PPC Mac ever was.

alust2013
Jan 12, 2011, 05:09 PM
My 3 year-old MacBook is faster than the G5 listed in your sig (according to the benchmarks, at least). Don't get me wrong, I love PPC Macs and the G5 was an amazing machine.

But the notion that PPC Macs still have significant performance in today's world is just misleading. Any Mac you can buy new today is faster than the fastest PPC Mac ever was.

Not necessarily. A G5 quad will smoke the current mini and macbook in CPU-heavy apps, but otherwise, PPC is a good bit slower.

Nameci
Jan 12, 2011, 06:01 PM
My 3 year-old MacBook is faster than the G5 listed in your sig (according to the benchmarks, at least). Don't get me wrong, I love PPC Macs and the G5 was an amazing machine.

But the notion that PPC Macs still have significant performance in today's world is just misleading. Any Mac you can buy new today is faster than the fastest PPC Mac ever was.

Your 3 year old mb is a core duo machine am i right? while the ppc g5 is a single core machine. Dual cores makes a difference. But compared to machines of its age it is still better. Maybe it is just me. But in terms of build quality, they are much better than PC's, IMO.

datamonger128
Jan 12, 2011, 06:15 PM
I recently got my first "new" PPC Mac in a long time, a Power Mac G5 Dual 1.8GHz (June 2004). This thing, with it's 2GB DDR and ATI Radeon 9600 XT 128MB graphics card, keeps up with nearly any of the newer PCs that I've used. I used to have a self-built AMD Athlon 64 X2 2GHz system with 3GB DDR2, Radeon HD 4650 1GB, and Windows 7 Professional 64-bit and my G5 performed far better than it. So far, the only PC that I've used that can best my G5 in my opinion is my friend's Asus G73 gaming notebook.

chrismacguy
Jan 12, 2011, 06:24 PM
Your 3 year old mb is a core duo machine am i right? while the ppc g5 is a single core machine. Dual cores makes a difference. But compared to machines of its age it is still better. Maybe it is just me. But in terms of build quality, they are much better than PC's, IMO.

You are correct. It should be noted that whatever benchmarks say, a Dual 2.0+ G5 is still, in terms of performance (real-world) is pretty close to a 2.0 C2D (Heck Id take a Dual 2.0G5 over my 1.83CD iMac anyday)

Corbin052198
Jan 12, 2011, 07:40 PM
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ubuntu_releases#Ubuntu_7.04_.28Feisty_Fawn.29):
Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn), released on 19 April 2007,[36][37][38] was Canonical's sixth release of Ubuntu. Ubuntu 7.04's support ended on 19 October 2008.[39] Ubuntu 7.04 included several new features, among them a migration assistant to help former Microsoft Windows users transition to Ubuntu, support for Kernel-based Virtual Machine, assisted codec and restricted drivers installation including Adobe Flash, Java, MP3 support, easier installation of Nvidia and ATI drivers, Compiz desktop effects, support for Wi-Fi Protected Access, the addition of Sudoku and chess, a disk usage analyzer (baobab), GNOME Control Center, and Zeroconf support for many devices.[15][40] Ubuntu 7.04 dropped support for PowerPC architecture.

Many people think that Ubuntu Linux does not support PPC, but in fact it is a community-supported version. I am running the latest release (10.10) on my iBook G3 and it is blazing fast.

I think the future of PPC Macs lies in the hands of Linux. As for web standards, Firefox works on PPC Linux. A little slow, but it has HTML5! :D

iThinkergoiMac
Jan 12, 2011, 08:26 PM
Your 3 year old mb is a core duo machine am i right? while the ppc g5 is a single core machine. Dual cores makes a difference. But compared to machines of its age it is still better. Maybe it is just me. But in terms of build quality, they are much better than PC's, IMO.

Just as a technicality, it's a Core2 Duo. But, yes, it's a dual core. Not all G5s were single core... the latest generation of G5s were dual core processors, making the dual processor G5 a quad core machine!

You're absolutely right, for it's age, the G5 is a fantastic machine.

Nameci
Jan 12, 2011, 08:28 PM
Just as a technicality, it's a Core2 Duo. But, yes, it's a dual core. Not all G5s were single core... the latest generation of G5s were dual core processors, making the dual processor G5 a quad core machine!

You're absolutely right, for it's age, the G5 is a fantastic machine.

Just to clarify my imac g5 is a single, so it definitely could not match a same ghz intel c2d machine. but for being a g5 and running leopard it still is a snappy computer with respect to current standards.

Besides that, c2d were more recent than g5's. a p4 is a match with the g5's.

chrismacguy
Jan 13, 2011, 08:37 AM
Besides that, c2d were more recent than g5's. a p4 is a match with the g5's.

OR rather - no match for the G5s - My friends single 1.6 G5 can for pretty much everything outperform the DELL 2.8P4 I used to keep kicking around to code on - just no comparison.

SkyBell
Jan 13, 2011, 08:51 AM
See my signature. ;)

Eventually, yes it will no longer be feasible for most people to use PowerPC machines as their daily workhorse. How many people do you see still using their 68k Mac? Yep, that's PowerPC not too far from now.

But, as others have pointed out, for the time being, late model PPC machines are still quite useful. My own workhorse is my 1.42 GHz eMac. Running Tiger. :) I couldn't be more pleased with this setup, it's fast, simple and easy. Eventually, I will have to do away with it, I'm sure, as Apple progresses further and further away from the architecture.

But, for now at least, PPC still has a flicker of life in it. :cool:

Nameci
Jan 13, 2011, 09:27 AM
See my signature. ;)

Eventually, yes it will no longer be feasible for most people to use PowerPC machines as their daily workhorse. How many people do you see still using their 68k Mac? Yep, that's PowerPC not too far from now.

But, as others have pointed out, for the time being, late model PPC machines are still quite useful. My own workhorse is my 1.42 GHz eMac. Running Tiger. :) I couldn't be more pleased with this setup, it's fast, simple and easy. Eventually, I will have to do away with it, I'm sure, as Apple progresses further and further away from the architecture.

But, for now at least, PPC still has a flicker of life in it. :cool:

not a flicker imo, but still more life left on it... :D

In-Correct
Jan 13, 2011, 02:29 PM
I don't know of any computers that are perfect. Or operating systems. Or even web browsers. :(

As for the future of PowerPC :apple: macs, it all depends on the people who use them and what they do with them and what they want to do with them. :cool: If people are still interested in their PowerPC macs, then there will be communities of people and also software developers. :p

The main concern is the hardware. If the logic board fails, then I would not know what to do. :confused: I don't think there are any replacement logic boards. I still use Mac OS 9 mostly. :D It does more than what most people think. All iPods except for the 1st generation "can't" connect to it, there isn't a Safari Browser, there isn't any known equivalent to Flash Player, and I am not sure how to connect some printers and scanners to it. That is about it. Whatever else that Mac OS 9 can't do, I would not know because I have never done any of that. I use computers for file storage, organizing, online backup, web browsing, typing, scanning, printing, ..... not much that I use them for. I am impressed with Mac OS 9. I know that it is 10+ years old, but it is still impressive to me that you can fit an operating system on an 800 MB hard drive with a less than 233 mhz processor. (and with faster processors and more RAM, Mac OS 9 is even faster!!) :eek: It is the most stable compared to anything else that I know of. It is simple. It is also built on a microkernel. There is After Dark, iText, and a-Dock.

....with Classilla web browser. I think the people behind Classilla are also designing something I think it is called Ten Four Fox.

So I use the simple, fast, no-nonsense operating systems compared to others. :)

For those on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard (not any reason to have earlier editions of OS X :rolleyes: ) there is Camino browser, and that TenFourFox.

I am only 22 and so I don't have that many systems yet. I only have G3s, 1400, and an IBM with Windows XP. I do not bother installing Mac OS X on the G3s. I don't like Windows anything, :mad: but I have it for work-related "needs".

I will get G4s, G5s, and intel later, but I will never throw away my older systems... :cool: and I am much more likely to get an Amiga/Amiga Clone with Amiga OS and its spin offs before I get newer macs. :D And I won't be using the newer macs more than the older macs. The newer macs are overpriced, and Apple has more interesting things. They have iPods, iPads, iPhones, QuickTime, iTunes, iTunes Store, iOS... I will use new macs for sync-ing ipods for example.

So I don't think that there will be a complete end to PowerPC Macs, unless they all break. And then that would mean that the Apple hardware, even the PowerPC, is not as reliable as they say. There may be some things that the hardware and software can't do, but I have not seen any computer system that can do anything and everything, efficiently.

iThinkergoiMac
Jan 13, 2011, 04:02 PM
Besides that, c2d were more recent than g5's. a p4 is a match with the g5's.

The Pentium 4 is a closer match to the G4 than the G5.

iThinkergoiMac
Jan 13, 2011, 04:10 PM
If the logic board fails, then I would not know what to do. :confused: I don't think there are any replacement logic boards.

One word: eBay.

The newer macs are overpriced

So were the older Macs. In fact, Apple's pricing is better now than it was. The original iMac was $1,300, while the current iMac is $1,200. That's only $100 difference, however once you factor in inflation the cost of the original iMac rises a decent amount.

The only reason PPC Macs are affordable now is because they're old. There's nothing wrong with that either.

chrismacguy
Jan 13, 2011, 05:11 PM
The Pentium 4 is a closer match to the G4 than the G5.

Technically, yes. Chronologically no. Technically the G5s match were the relatively short-lived Pentium D series...

Nameci
Jan 13, 2011, 09:26 PM
Technically, yes. Chronologically no. Technically the G5s match were the relatively short-lived Pentium D series...

CMIIW, P4 came out at the same time of the PPC G5 am I right?

macdudeguy
Jan 14, 2011, 05:02 AM
The Power Mac G4 debuted in August of '99 but didn't really ship until closer to the end of the year.

The Pentium 4 debuted a year later, in November of 2000.

The Power Mac G5 debuted 3 years later in summer of 2003.

The Pentium D debuted in summer of 2005.

Cox Orange
Jan 14, 2011, 06:12 AM
I think the future of PPC Macs lies in the hands of Linux. As for web standards, Firefox works on PPC Linux. A little slow, but it has HTML5! :D

Well, I would not like to use Linux just to use my PPC longer... My hope is that there will still be enthusiasts, that will write more recent all-day-use software (e.g. browsers) in the future.

Btw, how much experience/knowledge in coding does one have to have, to change firefox to newer needs? (sorry for this quiet naive question, I do not have any knowledge of coding, but I remember that there were a lot of Guys writing small programms in java, CC+ and Pascal, when I was a schoolboy, long ago.)

chrismacguy
Jan 14, 2011, 06:39 AM
CMIIW, P4 came out at the same time of the PPC G5 am I right?

The P4 is more closer to the G4, the G5 (970FX) kinda sits above the P4 but below the Pentium D technically, however the 970MP G5 was close to the Pentium D (hence why I linked the Pentium D and the G5 - as on a technical level, they were pretty evenly matched)

MacHamster68
Jan 15, 2011, 08:33 AM
fact is microsoft as good or bad as windows might be as operating system supports computers back to the early 90's of the last century and you can still buy win xp while apple cant even support 5 year old computers people payed lots of money for , but while you can still get a brandnew disc windows xp from the pc maker of your pc , you cannot even get a leopard disc from apple so you cant even upgrade to the latest operating system that would run , thats not what i call support



linux is free and a totally different matter

chrismacguy
Jan 15, 2011, 08:41 AM
fact is microsoft as good or bad as windows might be as operating system supports computers back to the early 90's of the last century and you can still buy win xp while apple cant even support 5 year old computers people payed lots of money for

and by support i mean getting a operating system for them and not only updates for existing ones , apple could have easy kept full support and sale of OSX tiger , as it runs on both PPC and intel Mac's , just like microsoft still sells
windows xp , sure microsoft would prefere if you upgrade to win7 if possible, but they dont force you to like apple to buy a brandnew computer every couple years

linux is free and a totally different matter

1. You can still buy Mac OS 9 if you look.
2. Apple could support them, but they dont want too. Same as MS not supporting Windows 7 on Pentium IIIs (not the slow ones anyway)
3. No-one is forcing you to upgrade past Panther if you dont want too.

MacHamster68
Jan 15, 2011, 10:37 AM
1. You can still buy Mac OS 9 if you look.
2. Apple could support them, but they dont want too. Same as MS not supporting Windows 7 on Pentium IIIs (not the slow ones anyway)
3. No-one is forcing you to upgrade past Panther if you dont want too.


1 where at a apple store do i get OS9 ?,
ebay is not a reseller for apple products and i do not want scratched damaged leopard discs for 80 from someone who has found one in his shed
2. but MS xp still runs on them without problem and fully supported
3. wrong if i want OSX and want to run latest apps or sync the newest iphone ipad or ipod i have no choice other then upgrading to snow leopard , the reason i have none of such things , even use on my iMac core duo osx tiger, because of apple talk as it makes it simple to setup a network and linux boxes can connect too as they understand apple talk ,and only use one feature of snow leopard time machine , the only feature i do find worth to have, but why it cant be integrated into osx tiger is beyond me

i dont have knowledge of any app that would not run on windows xp with sp3 where you would need to upgrade to win7 , games excluded , but thats only because i dont think a computer should be used for such things like gaming , there are other things that work way better called games consoles , which i find amusing ,because in games consoles the ppc architecture is at work

chrismacguy
Jan 15, 2011, 11:04 AM
1 where at a apple store do i get OS9 ?,
ebay is not a reseller for apple products and i do not want scratched damaged leopard discs for 80 from someone who has found one in his shed
2. but MS xp still runs on them without problem and fully supported
3. wrong if i want OSX and want to run latest apps or sync the newest iphone ipad or ipod i have no choice other then upgrading to snow leopard , the reason i have none of such things , even use on my iMac core duo to osx tiger because of apple talk and only use one feature of snow leopard time machine , the only feature i do find worth to have

1. Call Apple up, and if your lucky they sell you a copy - I bought a copy of OS9 from them in 2008.
2. MS XP is only supported as MS had to reset the development of Vista.
3. You cant do everything from Vista on XP - Look at DreamScene, or BitLocker, or Avalon - none of those are XP compatible. You cant run the latest version of many windows apps on XP - they provide an XP compatible version, just as many OS X developers (even Apple on their supports page) let you download older versions of apps (iMovie 3.03 for instance is still available from Apple) If you want to run the latest versions of every Windows app you need 7. You are just being silly if you think otherwise.

macdudeguy
Jan 15, 2011, 11:52 AM
The P4 is more closer to the G4, the G5 (970FX) kinda sits above the P4 but below the Pentium D technically, however the 970MP G5 was close to the Pentium D (hence why I linked the Pentium D and the G5 - as on a technical level, they were pretty evenly matched)

The NetBurst Pentium D and the 970 were evenly matched technically? Are you out of your mind?

Every PowerPC ever shipped in a Macintosh has had a significantly higher IPC than anything that's ever fallen from the NetBurst tree.

chrismacguy
Jan 15, 2011, 04:01 PM
The NetBurst Pentium D and the 970 were evenly matched technically? Are you out of your mind?

Every PowerPC ever shipped in a Macintosh has had a significantly higher IPC than anything that's ever fallen from the NetBurst tree.

They are as closely matched in terms of architecture as its possible to be between x86 and the PowerPC G5 970MP processor die. I am not out of mind, you are just pointing out (a) the obvious that you cant really compare 2 architectures and (b) not adding much as you havent come up with a better comparison. (Incidentally last time I checked Im not out of my mind).

Anyway, here are the reasons I chose the Pentium D as a rough x86 comparison to the G5:
The Pentium D is a Dual-Core CPU, so is the 970MP core that shipped about the same time. The Pentium D is also 64-bit like the G5. Good luck trying to find a closer Match in terms of target market and chronological timescale than the Pentium D, as there isnt one, unless you want to go down the Opteron route, but even they dont match as they were only really found in Servers and maybe a few high-end workstations, never in a consumer machine unlike the iMac G5. PowerPC is obviously superior, noone is arguing with that, Im just saying the Pentium D is as close to a G5 as you can get. (I know full well the G5 manages to do a heck lot more per clock, but that applies to every intel processor as the architectures differ massively, both in origin (PowerPC from POWER - a high-end server architecture, x86 - from a more consumer oriented chip (4004 and 8008 roots), and in application.

goMac
Jan 15, 2011, 04:10 PM
The NetBurst Pentium D and the 970 were evenly matched technically? Are you out of your mind?

Every PowerPC ever shipped in a Macintosh has had a significantly higher IPC than anything that's ever fallen from the NetBurst tree.

I was at WWDC05 so I got to see the (at the time) Pentium 4 Macs and G5 running side by side, and I got to use them myself in labs. As strange as it sounds, the Pentium 4 was quieter, had less fans, and kicked the crap out of the G5 in terms of speed. And this was on the incomplete version of OS X for Intel.

By the end of the G5's life, the Pentium 4 was faster. Unless you had a quad G5.

chrismacguy
Jan 15, 2011, 04:15 PM
I was at WWDC05 so I got to see the (at the time) Pentium 4 Macs and G5 running side by side, and I got to use them myself in labs. As strange as it sounds, the Pentium 4 was quieter, had less fans, and kicked the crap out of the G5 in terms of speed. And this was on the incomplete version of OS X for Intel.

By the end of the G5's life, the Pentium 4 was faster. Unless you had a quad G5.

And whats worse is hes complaining about me comparing the Pentium D (in effect a Dual P4 on a chip), which could give a G5 a run for its money at the same clock speed (The P4 Macs were 3.6Ghz Models I believe, or at least thats what the Transition Kit was specced as)

goMac
Jan 15, 2011, 11:32 PM
And whats worse is hes complaining about me comparing the Pentium D (in effect a Dual P4 on a chip), which could give a G5 a run for its money at the same clock speed (The P4 Macs were 3.6Ghz Models I believe, or at least thats what the Transition Kit was specced as)

3.6 ghz hyperthreading P4s.

chrismacguy
Jan 16, 2011, 05:54 AM
3.6 ghz hyperthreading P4s.

aaaahhh yes... one day I shall have to try and find one for my collection, just a shame Apple took em all back really... (or at least, took nearly all of them back)

MagicBoy
Jan 16, 2011, 06:05 AM
3.6 ghz hyperthreading P4s.

Just out of interest - Single or dual core?

Transporteur
Jan 16, 2011, 06:08 AM
Just out of interest - Single or dual core?

P4's are always single core.

MagicBoy
Jan 16, 2011, 06:11 AM
P4's are always single core.

Technically you're correct, however the Pentium D is a member of the Pentium 4 family and that's a dual Core CPU.

OK, it was a bodge with a pair of single core dies tied together but it presents to the system as a dual-core CPU.

Transporteur
Jan 16, 2011, 06:20 AM
Technically you're correct, however the Pentium D is a member of the Pentium 4 family and that's a dual Core CPU.

OK, it was a bodge with a pair of single core dies tied together but it presents to the system as a dual-core CPU.

Yes, but it was called Pentium D, not Pentium 4, and there was and is no dual core CPU branded Pentium 4.

MagicBoy
Jan 16, 2011, 06:24 AM
Pedantic much?

Transporteur
Jan 16, 2011, 06:32 AM
Pedantic much?

Your question was related to a P4, so if you don't like the answer, you might have to reconsider your question!

goMac
Jan 16, 2011, 09:43 PM
Just out of interest - Single or dual core?

Single core. I didn't really try much in the way of multithreaded testing, actually, but it doesn't really matter as the first Intel processors were dual core anyway.

Technically you're correct, however the Pentium D is a member of the Pentium 4 family and that's a dual Core CPU.

OK, it was a bodge with a pair of single core dies tied together but it presents to the system as a dual-core CPU.

The Pentium D was a Pentium 4. I would consider them part of the same family.

Nameci
Jan 16, 2011, 10:04 PM
So far Leopard is running fluid on my PowerMac G4 1.42GHz Dual with maxed out RAM. And I don't have any interest on upgrading to a newer software, Adobe CS4 is running very well. It still get the job done. It could be well enough for the next couple of years, before I have to let it retire and give to my daughter... :D Maybe in the next couple of years there will still be developers who will support these PPC Macs. They are a great, stable and reliable machines, so why dump them in the trash bin?

macdudeguy
Jan 17, 2011, 12:35 PM
And whats worse is hes complaining about me comparing the Pentium D (in effect a Dual P4 on a chip), which could give a G5 a run for its money at the same clock speed (The P4 Macs were 3.6Ghz Models I believe, or at least thats what the Transition Kit was specced as)

I'm not going to lay the burden on myself of posting benchmarks, since you're the one who's making the claim;

Please provide evidence to support your claim that the Pentium D was clock-for-clock competitive with the 970MP or any other G5 variant.

You're exemplifying the term 'revisionist history'.

chrismacguy
Jan 17, 2011, 12:55 PM
I'm not going to lay the burden on myself of posting benchmarks, since you're the one who's making the claim;

Please provide evidence to support your claim that the Pentium D was clock-for-clock competitive with the 970MP or any other G5 variant.

You're exemplifying the term 'revisionist history'.

Your not going to provide benchmarks because it would prove my point. Im not going to provide benchmarks, because there arent any comparing a Pentium 4 to a G5 directly under the same operating system, so there arent any which are valid. you can believe what you want to believe, but your completely wrong. The evidence is simple, Take a Pentium 4 Intel Transition kit (3.6 P4), which well say is probably equivalent to a 2.0Ghz Pentium D for properly mutli-threaded applications (I shall ignore single core apps as their just plain behind the times). As confirmed above, the 3.6 P4 system could outperform the Dual 2.0 and 2.3 G5 systems of the time. Your exemplifying the term 'not understanding how CPUs insides work when comparing 2 architectures'.

MacHamster68
Jan 17, 2011, 01:49 PM
pur benchmarks dont say anything really , if you run apps on a PPC Mac that had been made to run on them they will perform today as good as they performed 5 years ago and even 5 years ago there had not been many apps on the market that could make any use really of dual core processors, even worth the new intel iMacs have trouble with old PPC apps,even apples own like final cut (yes of course you can upgrade for lots of money ), try to run office 2004 a simple program that even my iMac g3 can handle and you will find that even a modern i7 iMac wont be able to handle it even with rosetta ,you cant even run OS9 games proper , sheepshaver is just a bad compromise ,classic was far superior

chrismacguy
Jan 17, 2011, 02:36 PM
pur benchmarks dont say anything really , if you run apps on a PPC Mac that had been made to run on them they will perform today as good as they performed 5 years ago and even 5 years ago there had not been many apps on the market that could make any use really of dual core processors, even worth the new intel iMacs have trouble with old PPC apps,even apples own like final cut (yes of course you can upgrade for lots of money ), try to run office 2004 a simple program that even my iMac g3 can handle and you will find that even a modern i7 iMac wont be able to handle it even with rosetta ,you cant even run OS9 games proper , sheepshaver is just a bad compromise ,classic was far superior

Well under rosetta on my Mac Pro I can load all my PPC applications except SoundTrack Pro 1 just fine (It broke with 10.6.4) They also work fine on my White macBook (2.1 C2D) - so maybe it just depends on the application.

el-John-o
Jan 17, 2011, 03:34 PM
Windows XP is supported by software developers, not microsoft, really. The fact is, Vista was such a flop, software dev's continued to make software that ran on it, which is why even the latest games included DX9 support. BUT, if you wanted DX10 features, you'd need to go to Vista, Vista was so bad many would prefer to play the DX9 version.

A current software developer has every right and ability to produce PPC Apps that run on Mac System 7.5, or more practically, PPC Apps running on Leopard. They don't, but that's not because of Apple, the resources are still there for PPC.

Another factor into why Windows XP has a (VERY unusually long) lifespan, was IBM / Lenovo. They REFUSED to install Vista on their machines, they included XP Pro on all machines until Microsoft finally said you CAN'T sell a brand new machine running XP, their licensing REQUIRED Windows 7, but honestly, Windows 7 is a good OS, and an improvement over Windows XP. Vista was a flop.

I, too, would like to see long-lived support for PowerPC, but you can always find good uses. I have a 366MHz Pentium III Laptop that I use as a file server / FTP server, works great! Now, my 250MHz third-party mac stays in my closet, can't find a use for it. But man, Apple only allowed third parties to make Macs for a short time, I'm hanging on to it!

-John

macdudeguy
Jan 17, 2011, 04:16 PM
Your not going to provide benchmarks because it would prove my point. Im not going to provide benchmarks, because there arent any comparing a Pentium 4 to a G5 directly under the same operating system, so there arent any which are valid. you can believe what you want to believe, but your completely wrong. The evidence is simple, Take a Pentium 4 Intel Transition kit (3.6 P4), which well say is probably equivalent to a 2.0Ghz Pentium D for properly mutli-threaded applications (I shall ignore single core apps as their just plain behind the times). As confirmed above, the 3.6 P4 system could outperform the Dual 2.0 and 2.3 G5 systems of the time. Your exemplifying the term 'not understanding how CPUs insides work when comparing 2 architectures'.

So you're saying something completely contrary to anything that has ever been demonstrated, refusing to foot the bill on providing evidence to support the claim and doing it on the premise of that evidence not being valid because of operating system differences (what?!) Oh, and then capping it all off by resting on conjecture about what a highly clocked, single-core dev kit system would be were it a dual-core Pentium D... which it wasn't.

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend all day arguing with somebody who is almost certainly a teenager, or at least resorts to insults, flame baiting and poor grammar as if he were.

Cheers mate.

chrismacguy
Jan 17, 2011, 04:27 PM
So you're saying something completely contrary to anything that has ever been demonstrated, refusing to foot the bill on providing evidence to support the claim and doing it on the premise of that evidence not being valid because of operating system differences (what?!) and capping it all off by spewing conjecture about what a highly clocked, single-core dev kit system would be were it a dual-core Pentium D...

Sorry, but I'm not going to spend all day arguing with somebody who is almost certainly a teenager, or at least resorts to insults, flame baiting and poor grammar as if he were.

Cheers mate.

1) At least Im an adult. If anybodies a teenager its you.
2) My grammar is perfectly fine thankyou very much, I just dont waste it when im on my mobile.
3) OS Differences affect the "speed" of a machine in massive ways, to consider anything else is ludicrous. For instance, even "cross-platform" benchmarks dont report the same on a Mac under OS X as they do on the same Mac under Bootcamp. If someone had benchmarked a Hackintosh based on the pentium D then we could let Geekbench settle this, since the G5 will never run Windows natively (shame really as I did like the PPC version of NT - certainly better than VirtualPC 3).
4. That conjecture is based of solid geekbench scores between a 3.6Ghz Pentium 4 HT, and a machine that is as-close-as-possible (Same RAM, same graphics etc) just with a Pentium D inside, and a 2.0 Pentium D gets as close for multi-threaded apps (If we use linear interpolation it shows its actually more like a 2.04Ghz Pentium D, but since this is an untestable theory, I thought Id stick to nice big round numbers for simplicity).
5. The Dev Kit isnt highly clocked really. The Pentium 4 shipped at 3.6Ghz (And it was overclocked to a stable 4.25Ghz before everyone went to the Pentium D and eventually Core Duo architectures.) Im not saying PowerPC is bad, Im saying that the closest x86 processor to the G5 is the Pentium D (for reasons Ive outlined time and time again, but you keep ignoring as your so hung up on benchmarks, which is silly since they never tally directly to real world usage anyway). I had a Dual 2.0G5 as an editing machine for years, I would quite happilly have traded it for a Pentium D running OS X, shame Apple switched too late for that to happen.

macgeek18
Jan 17, 2011, 04:43 PM
Whoever mentioned MacTubes thank you as you gave my g4's new life again. :D My PowerMac has a purpose again. :)

chrismacguy
Jan 17, 2011, 04:45 PM
Whoever mentioned MacTubes thank you as you gave my g4's new life again. :D My PowerMac has a purpose again. :)

Thank goodness I have a Mac Pro... I tried Youtube on my Dual 867, and it wasnt a brilliant experience...

MacHamster68
Jan 17, 2011, 04:50 PM
sure some PPC Mac apps had been developped to run on ppc Mac's
and Apple did give us rosetta which should translate the code so a intel based Mac can make sense out of it , but they said in the same sentence that even some ilife versions would not work , the problem doesnnt effect people who buy a brandnew Mac as ilife comes included in a set of disc's , but on the used market its still common to keep the disc's and only sell the system , and that leaves the new owner to buy brandnew ilife and install disc's just for example if he buys a used intel , and the new owner does need to buy a lot of apps brandnew like for example office because office 2004 which i for example have but does not run on intel , but why should i buy a office 2011 version , there is nothing wrong with office 2004 (for my needs anyway) , thats why for me the PPC Mac's have a bright future , as i refuse to pay the price for the newest office for example or final cut or similar , because i own older versions and they do the job perfectly , photoshop for example has not changed a lot really, ok the GUI has changed and is more flashy now then it was 5 years ago , but thats not a argument that will convince me to upgrade for several 100' pound and final cut is even more expensive ,

ok some might say now "stop crying, just go to the next torrent site and download what you want", but i have still the opinion that there are some developers who don't swim in money , who have spend countless hours to get a app working , and these guys deserve something for their work , i even donate when i find freeware that really works for me , so i own all the software on my now 15 Mac's and 14 of them are PPC based , i even have most software multiple times , means for each Mac i own the software that is running on it , near all my ppc Macs run Tiger and i have a tiger disc for each , only because of the above reason , if i eventually in the future want to downsize and sell one the new owner gets disc's for all the installed software

but i am different anyway as i class a Mac without install disc as faulty , and i am one who has the opinion a Mac should look futuristic and not be mistaken for TV , so i will continue to use PPC Mac's and for example there is still software out there that is still developed for PPC ,
PPC might be sleepy a bit , but is far from dead
and as you know i like to compare with cars , sure a Mini from 2011 has a higher performance then a Mini from 1970 , but the old one will still bring you from A to B , and with regular service will continue to do so for the next years to come , same for PPC Mac's, only if YOU expect the performance of a brandnew one then you might get disappointed

macgeek18
Jan 17, 2011, 04:51 PM
Thank goodness I have a Mac Pro... I tried Youtube on my Dual 867, and it wasnt a brilliant experience...

Thank goodness for my iPod and Thinkpad for serious YouTubing. :)

chrismacguy
Jan 17, 2011, 04:59 PM
sure some PPC Mac apps had been developped to run on ppc Mac's
and Apple did give us rosetta which should translate the code so a intel based Mac can make sense out of it , but they said in the same sentence that even some ilife versions would not work , the problem doesnnt effect people who buy a brandnew Mac as ilife comes included in a set of disc's , but on the used market its still common to keep the disc's and only sell the system , and that leaves the new owner to buy brandnew ilife disc's just for example if he buys a used intel , and the new owner does need to buy a lot of apps brandnew like for example offce because office 2004 which i for example have does not run on intel , but why should i buy a office 2011 version , there is nothing wrong with office 2004 (for my needs anyway) , thats why for me the PPC Macs have a bright future , as i refuse to pay the price for the newest office for example or final cut or similar , because i own older versions and they do the job perfectly , photoshop for example has not changed a lot really, ok the GUI has changed and is more flashy now then it was 5 years ago , but thats not a argument that will convince me to upgrade for several 100' pound and final cut is even more expensive ,

ok some might say now "stop crying, just go to the next torrent site and download what you want", but i have still the opinion that there are some developers who don't swim in money , who have spend countless hours to get a app working , and these guys deserve something for their work , i even donate when i find freeware that really works for me , so i own all the software on my now 15 Mac's and 14 of them are PPC based , i even have most software multiple times , means for each Mac i own the software that is running on it , near all my ppc Macs run Tiger and i have a tiger disc for each , only because of the above reason , if i eventually in the future want to downsize and sell one the new owner gets disc's for all the installed software

Office 2004 runs on my MacBook just fine, as it does on a relatives MacBook Pro. Out of the between 10 and 15 Macs I own, all but 3 are PPC, And since I collect them, I dont worry about selling them, each has the OS they originally shipped with installed, excluding my PB with 10.5, my MDD with 10.4 and my G4 AGP with 10.4. Software wise I keep to my Intel Macs for productive work, but I still have Final Cut Pro installed on my G4/450 for instance, so Im not advocating ditching them.

MacHamster68
Jan 17, 2011, 05:19 PM
the only thing i could get to work of office was word , powerpoint kept crashing or better did not even load was only bouncing for hours, and i know how to install apps on a Mac, but never mind there is neo office and it runs on both ppc and intel

chrismacguy
Jan 17, 2011, 05:25 PM
the only thing i could get to work of office was word , powerpoint kept crashing or better did not even load was only bouncing for hours, and i know how to install apps on a Mac, but never mind there is neo office and it runs on both ppc and intel

hmm odd, I just checked, and PowerPoint 2004 seems to work fine for me under Rosetta - its perfectly possible that your install is just slightly different (different Office version, different configs - the weirdest things can make rosetta behave differently)

MacHamster68
Jan 17, 2011, 07:59 PM
odd yes , but another reason which makes my iMac g3 still usable every day :D

macgeek18
Jan 18, 2011, 12:09 AM
PowerPC Mac's are great. They were the best in there day. Intel Mac's are great. It just depends on what your using them for. I have learned that my G4 iMac still rocks the web and iTunes 8 is just fine for basic needs. :)
Still, my iMac G4 is probably the last PPC Mac I buy. Unless it's a PowerBook G4. ;)

Ungibbed
Jan 18, 2011, 01:04 AM
I still have a love affair with my PowerBook G4, still looking near new aside from the paint finish on the left palmrest. Obviously, for PPC native apps and games, my 1.5 Ghz G4 still runs like a champ and I've upgraded the HDD to a 320GB.

While I have the 15" model, it feels like the near perfect road warrior. I do have a new unibody MBP, but I just have that fear of getting a single ding or a scratch on it. Another love affair is the matte screen. Sure the black glass looks awesome on the new MBP, the much thinner screen bezel and matte screen on my older G4 still look great and with the dedicated ATi 9700 made for some great gaming on WoW and Halo.

Sadly, despite running leopard and having it's specs at it's peak, WoW left this machine struggling and is technically unsupported by Blizzard (I remember when my 12" iBook G4 1.33 ran the game beautifully)

Overall, despite it's age, I still love my old monster even if it's getting slower and slower compared to the much newer Intel based Macs.

SimonUK5
Jan 18, 2011, 01:57 AM
I honestly can see PPC dieing soon. Right now i'm using a 500Mhz G4 with 1.25gb Ram. And its fine. I've been using it for youtube,spotify, web browsing, and i also type'd half an essay in WriteRoom on it last night. Its just as quick as my windows pc for these tasks apart from youtube, but even that still runs alright! I have yet to try macTube's yet though. I also need to try edt photos from my Canon 1d mark1 DSLR-circa 2001

When this get's slow, i'll try pick up a beefy'er G4.

When Tiger gets outdated, i'll move to panther.

I don't need a High spec machine! Sure i'd like one, but this is fine!

Any Thoughts?

Nameci
Jan 18, 2011, 02:15 AM
They don't get slow, newer ones are just getting faster. It is just the end user's appreciation of things.

Future limitations of PowerPC Macs? Software support. But we will still be good up until a couple of years.

cocacolakid
Jan 18, 2011, 07:01 PM
This thread is supposed to be about the future of PPC Macs, not an ongoing argument about P4's and G5's.

raysfan81
Jan 18, 2011, 08:20 PM
Windows XP is supported by software developers, not microsoft, really. The fact is, Vista was such a flop, software dev's continued to make software that ran on it, which is why even the latest games included DX9 support. BUT, if you wanted DX10 features, you'd need to go to Vista, Vista was so bad many would prefer to play the DX9 version.

A current software developer has every right and ability to produce PPC Apps that run on Mac System 7.5, or more practically, PPC Apps running on Leopard. They don't, but that's not because of Apple, the resources are still there for PPC.

Another factor into why Windows XP has a (VERY unusually long) lifespan, was IBM / Lenovo. They REFUSED to install Vista on their machines, they included XP Pro on all machines until Microsoft finally said you CAN'T sell a brand new machine running XP, their licensing REQUIRED Windows 7, but honestly, Windows 7 is a good OS, and an improvement over Windows XP. Vista was a flop.



Honestly Vista wasn't good in the beginning but after all of the updates and service packs came out it was just fine. For me at least it ran as fast as XP and looked 1,000x better. XP is really getting on my nerves now though. It looks old and is old at the programming level as well. Time for people to move on to Windows 7.

MacHamster68
Jan 18, 2011, 10:12 PM
i dont see vista as a flop ,if it wouldn't be for vista i possibly would have never made the move to linux and in the end to OSX , so i see vista as a great operating system to get people to try alternative operating systems , but i am not so sure if that was the intention of microsoft when they developed vista :confused:

but what has that to do with the question of "has PPC a future"

answer : a lot , at least in my case , as i do not swim in money and would never ever buy a computer on a loan or credit card the only Mac's in reach had been PPC Mac's and still are for most switchers to Mac , as you might see on ebay at the moment the demand is much higher for ppc Mac's then before , because the PPC Macs are still perfectly usable , within their limitations (and for normal computer users these limitations are beyond their needs anyway ) and there is the design , iMac G3/ G4 , eMac's and PowerMac G4's design just bring a smile to your face when you got one on your desk and it never gets boring to look at

and to get rid of some limitations get tenfourfox (http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/) it made it possible to watch absolute stutter free youtube on my iMac G3 700mhz , ok only at 240p but honestly who needs more for watching some funny or less funny things at youtube
it made one thing clear PPC still has a bright future if people like these who develop apps like that get a bit support

and it shows one thing ,it is not only adobe and their flashplayer's fault like apple wants you to believe , it is the fault of apples safari and other browsers made for OSX and other apps , not coded with PPC in mind to make people buy intel Mac's, as i had a hackbook msi wind with a single core atom @1.6ghz , it showed me in direct comaprison that there is not a huge speed difference to a eMac 1.42 for normal usage , and more and more people buy nettops with atom processors because they realised for browsing, office and watching a dvd (what most do on a computer) and even for home usage of photoshop or final cut you do not need a intel i3 /i5 /i7 powered desktop


and for gaming you still need a windows pc or games console anyway so the point of "you cannot play modern games on a PPC Mac" is no point as you need to install windows on your intel Mac which transforms it into a PC made by apple and even a i7 iMac has still limitations (graphics card) when it comes to gaming

crammedberry
Jan 19, 2011, 12:29 AM
The intel macs do have a HUGE advantage, and their prices these days are relatively affordable, considering the PPC macs at one point cost up to 3x as much...

As far as gaming, although in the PPC and early intel era your statement holds true, that is no longer the case... I have played some games in OSX that I used to play on windows on my macbook pro... after they were -fully- ported, not emulated, and they ran much much smoother than the pc version... in fact there is no longer a need to run windows at all and I'm considering doing away with my windows partition since the I no longer have a need for it now that games run in OSX... microsoft is quickly loosing relevance, and with the flow of games into OSX, it'll only make windows less of a necessity

The graphics cards in the current intel iMacs are actually extremely capable... they run circles around my nVidia GeForce 8600 GT... and they leave my poor old first gen iMac core duo in the dust, lets not even get into how they completely trash my PPC macs...

Ungibbed
Jan 19, 2011, 01:01 AM
The intel macs do have a HUGE advantage, and their prices these days are relatively affordable, considering the PPC macs at one point cost up to 3x as much...

As far as gaming, although in the PPC and early intel era your statement holds true, that is no longer the case... I have played some games in OSX that I used to play on windows on my macbook pro... after they were -fully- ported, not emulated, and they ran much much smoother than the pc version... in fact there is no longer a need to run windows at all and I'm considering doing away with my windows partition since the I no longer have a need for it now that games run in OSX... microsoft is quickly loosing relevance, and with the flow of games into OSX, it'll only make windows less of a necessity

The graphics cards in the current intel iMacs are actually extremely capable... they run circles around my nVidia GeForce 8600 GT... and they leave my poor old first gen iMac core duo in the dust, lets not even get into how they completely trash my PPC macs...

You do make some great points here...

1. I remember paying over three times as much for my PowerBook G4 than I did buying the latest 13" MacBook Pro. Still, it runs very well despite it's age

2. On the gaming front, my PowerBook still performed better in some games especially when I saw the first consumer MacBook (core duo with the intel GMA 950 and even the later X3100 when the Santa Rosa platform released).

The MacBook Pro didn't fare much better early on as most Mac games were still native PPC. Better GPU and Processor aside, the PPC still had the lead in Mac gaming.

3. With OSX early on, many Mac games ran much faster when booting into Mac OS 9, one great example of this long ago was the Mac version of American McGee's Alice. This however, is no longer an issue as a Intel binary of the Alice .app is now out.

4. After buying my new 13" Pro, I'm rather impressed with the Nvidia 320m, for being a shared graphics solution, it is amazingly smooth with every game I've tried on it so far. :cool:

SimonUK5
Jan 19, 2011, 01:59 AM
Also the fact that Bilzzard games are still alright with PPC anyway, the only games i really play, run on an 300mhz imac g3! Starcraft2 and Diablo 2 both run great on pretty much any PC or mac, in OS X. For me until i physically can't run my app's anymore i'll stick with what ever i can get for cheepest. As i said before, as soon as the G4 i have now is too slow, i'll get a faster one. As soon as thats to slow, I'll get a G5. And when that is to slow, then maybe i'll switch to Intel.

MacHamster68
Jan 19, 2011, 03:15 AM
of course that depends on the games you play ,i still like to play asteroids on my commodore sx64 too :D or starcraft on my iMac G3 , i dont count framerates as a hobby

but i was actually refering to gamers ,and if you ask them about gaming they will tell you they want to be able to play games like crysis which is still a benchmark at highest possible settings for any setup , no matter if they want to really play crysis , but they want their setup to be able to play it and as i build gaming rigs for mates and close friends as a hobby ,but just got a mail from a mate which i converted to Mac, he bought a iMac i7 ,and a PowerMac G5 and on monday i received a email
with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNq6KLziPJM&NR=1&feature=fvwp) from him with text like that "hello can you build me something like that again , i love my new iMac i7 and its lovely big screen ,but the fps are disappointing , i want a gaming rig again can you build me one where i can use 2 x27"apple cinema displays on "
some people are addicted to framerates and if they dont get over 200 of them they are starving to death

because of that i was refering to limitations of the i7 iMac for "gaming"

but if you are in a clear state of mind and still with both feet on the ground you can happily enjoy games even on a iMac G3 like i do

SimonUK5
Jan 19, 2011, 05:40 AM
of course that depends on the games you play ,i still like to play asteroids on my commodore sx64 too :D or starcraft on my iMac G3 , i dont count framerates as a hobby

but i was actually refering to gamers ,and if you ask them about gaming they will tell you they want to be able to play games like crysis which is still a benchmark at highest possible settings for any setup , no matter if they want to really play crysis , but they want their setup to be able to play it and as i build gaming rigs for mates and close friends as a hobby ,but just got a mail from a mate which i converted to Mac, he bought a iMac i7 ,and a PowerMac G5 and on monday i received a email
with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNq6KLziPJM&NR=1&feature=fvwp) from him with text like that "hello can you build me something like that again , i love my new iMac i7 and its lovely big screen ,but the fps are disappointing , i want a gaming rig again can you build me one where i can use 2 x27"apple cinema displays on "
some people are addicted to framerates and if they dont get over 200 of them they are starving to death

because of that i was refering to limitations of the i7 iMac for "gaming"

but if you are in a clear state of mind and still with both feet on the ground you can happily enjoy games even on a iMac G3 like i do

Under Windows in Bootcamp, there shouldn't be any problems with framerate? Anything over 60fps the human eye can't see anyway! I know there are some driver issues with bootcamp still but it really shouldn't effect the framerate in anyway, not that you would see anyway!

MacHamster68
Jan 19, 2011, 06:16 AM
gamers with humen eye's and sense for reality ? most of them would see 60fps as torture and file a case ,because they believe 60fps are against the geneva convention :D

but you are right for normal humans even 15 fps are playable ,

like you do not need office 2011 and a intel iMac 27" i7 to write a letter , clarisworks and a iMac G3 running OS9 are more then sufficient for that purpose

different people measure in different ways when it comes to computing
some want the overkill computer even if they only surf on websites and email things that can be perfectly displayed on a iMac g3 /ibook G3
without any noticeable speed difference , but they want the iMac i7 /or MacBook Pro even if its only for telling everybody "hey look what i can afford "
i accept the fact a professional film cutter , who does it for a living , needs a fast modern Mac (newest MacPro )and he needs the newest version final cut pro 7 , because for him every second is translated into cash
but human x who just cuts a holiday video once a year can happy live with a PPC mac and iMovie or with final cut pro 3 or 4

i for example sit in front of my iMac G3 now and do not care at all if Word 2004 needs to bounce 5 times before it's loaded now , but others think even 2 times bouncing is already to slow and therefor unusable , and i absolute do not sit here with a stopwatch to know exactly how much time is needed to move a document from one folder to the other , and i would never dump my sweet little iMac G3 only because OSX tiger needs some seconds longer to boot compared with my core duo iMac running OSX tiger too on my sharing partition because of apple talk


for me speed(how long to move documents or folders,boottime) is not really a meassure to declare a computer as usable and worth to have or declare it as ready for the dump

ok i use a intel iMac core duo , but only because i had a bad experience with a G5 iMac but i just liked the design and because it did cost less then usual and was internally new (thanks to the previous owner who did get everything renewed under apple care), ok yes i upgraded the harddrive with a 10000rpm velociraptor 600gb , but only because i got that drive for far less then the rrp

chrismacguy
Jan 19, 2011, 06:56 AM
gamers with humen eye's and sense for reality ? most of them would see 60fps as torture and file a case ,because they believe 60fps are against the geneva convention :D

but you are right for normal humans even 15 fps are playable ,

like you do not need office 2011 and a intel iMac 27" i7 to write a letter , clarisworks and a iMac G3 running OS9 are more then sufficient for that purpose

different people measure in different ways when it comes to computing
some want the overkill computer even if they only surf on websites and email things that can be perfectly displayed on a iMac g3 /ibook G3
without any noticeable speed difference , but they want the iMac i7 /or MacBook Pro even if its only for telling everybody "hey look what i can afford "
i accept the fact a professional film cutter , who does it for a living , needs a fast modern Mac (newest MacPro )and he needs the newest version final cut pro 7 , because for him every second is translated into cash
but human x who just cuts a holiday video once a year can happy live with a PPC mac and iMovie or with final cut pro 3 or 4

i for example sit in front of my iMac G3 now and do not care at all if Word 2004 needs to bounce 5 times before it's loaded now , but others think even 2 times bouncing is already to slow and therefor unusable , and i absolute do not sit here with a stopwatch to know exactly how much time is needed to move a document from one folder to the other , and i would never dump my sweet little iMac G3 only because OSX tiger needs some seconds longer to boot compared with my core duo iMac running OSX tiger too on my sharing partition because of apple talk


for me speed(how long to move documents or folders,boottime) is not really a meassure to declare a computer as usable and worth to have or declare it as ready for the dump

ok i use a intel iMac core duo , but only because i had a bad experience with a G5 iMac but i just liked the design and because it did cost less then usual and was internally new (thanks to the previous owner who did get everything renewed under apple care), ok yes i upgraded the harddrive with a 10000rpm velociraptor 600gb , but only because i got that drive for far less then the rrp

See, I only use a Mac Pro because I need it for Final Cut Pro 7 and Wolfram Mathematica - otherwise Id be quite happy doing most of what I do on a PowerMac G4 (And in fact do do a lot of my stuff on my 2 G4s) - although I disagree with your statement about needing a G3 to write a letter. You can do it on a Mac 128K :p

macgeek18
Jan 19, 2011, 11:52 PM
i dont see vista as a flop ,if it wouldn't be for vista i possibly would have never made the move to linux and in the end to OSX , so i see vista as a great operating system to get people to try alternative operating systems , but i am not so sure if that was the intention of microsoft when they developed vista :confused:

but what has that to do with the question of "has PPC a future"

answer : a lot , at least in my case , as i do not swim in money and would never ever buy a computer on a loan or credit card the only Mac's in reach had been PPC Mac's and still are for most switchers to Mac , as you might see on ebay at the moment the demand is much higher for ppc Mac's then before , because the PPC Macs are still perfectly usable , within their limitations (and for normal computer users these limitations are beyond their needs anyway ) and there is the design , iMac G3/ G4 , eMac's and PowerMac G4's design just bring a smile to your face when you got one on your desk and it never gets boring to look at

and to get rid of some limitations get tenfourfox (http://www.floodgap.com/software/tenfourfox/) it made it possible to watch absolute stutter free youtube on my iMac G3 700mhz , ok only at 240p but honestly who needs more for watching some funny or less funny things at youtube
it made one thing clear PPC still has a bright future if people like these who develop apps like that get a bit support

and it shows one thing ,it is not only adobe and their flashplayer's fault like apple wants you to believe , it is the fault of apples safari and other browsers made for OSX and other apps , not coded with PPC in mind to make people buy intel Mac's, as i had a hackbook msi wind with a single core atom @1.6ghz , it showed me in direct comaprison that there is not a huge speed difference to a eMac 1.42 for normal usage , and more and more people buy nettops with atom processors because they realised for browsing, office and watching a dvd (what most do on a computer) and even for home usage of photoshop or final cut you do not need a intel i3 /i5 /i7 powered desktop


and for gaming you still need a windows pc or games console anyway so the point of "you cannot play modern games on a PPC Mac" is no point as you need to install windows on your intel Mac which transforms it into a PC made by apple and even a i7 iMac has still limitations (graphics card) when it comes to gaming

Thank you, your post just made e makeup my mind on getting a PB G4 12" 1.5Ghz. Thanks as it is going to be fun to have and a nice mac to add to the collection.

SimonUK5
Jan 20, 2011, 06:23 AM
Thank you, your post just made e makeup my mind on getting a PB G4 12" 1.5Ghz. Thanks as it is going to be fun to have and a nice mac to add to the collection.

I had a 12'' G4, and it was a very very nice machine until the GPU crapped out and i sold it(still selling) it for parts. :( Did everything i wanted it to :( and it was such a great size. Hopefully i can pick up another Powerbook soon :)

laptoplover2
Jun 2, 2013, 08:53 PM
I think that in the future Linux is going to be your only choice on a PowerPC Mac. I'm sure that our amazing Linux developers won't fail us and will pull off something ridiculously great. Linux MintPPC sounds like a great distro and Ubuntu PPC sounds promising as well.

In the mean time, I don't think Tiger or Leopard are totally dead yet, Tiger is on my iBook G4 and Leopard is on my 2006 MacBook. Both can run OmniWeb, a very, very fast and modern browser, and the latest version of Flash Player. YouTube plays great on both of them. Panther can still get older versions of Camino and Opera which aren't too horrible but it's sort of finished now. Either way for now PowerPC isn't going anywhere. Let's give it another 2 years though and see. I hope they survive cause I'm madly in love with my iBook.

Imixmuan
Jun 3, 2013, 04:53 PM
...you aren't really running the latest flash player. You are running a flash player from 2010 with major, known security holes that has been likely hacked to "look" like a new flash player. You might just get by with that, or you might not. Most sane people on PowerPC are moving away from Flash.

MintPPC. Developer has said he may not have enough time for another build. Which wouldn't be the end of the world, as its based on Debian, so theoretically you could just update Debian underneath the Mint11 desktop environment into perpetuity.

LubuntuPPC is what I am using right now. Its not OS X, but very good, and gives me luakit, the best browser on earth.

DescentOS is a newish distro, developer is working on a PowerPC release. I might just buy a new fast machine to "check it out".

Raw Debian is the most stable longterm option for PowerPC.

Omniweb for Tiger and PowerPC is end of life, hasn't been updated in Donkey's Years. Camino is now history, gone for good. Your best bet on OS X is Leopardwebkit or tenfourkit, if you insist on staying with Tiger. Install Leopardwebkit from the shell, and your Omniweb will then have access to a truly up to date webkit. Tenfourfox is at the wall again, blindfolded and waiting to be shot by Mozilla, hopefully Kaiser can pull off another programming miracle and get us past Tenfourfox 24. If not he'll keep security parity for as long as he can. I mean, we still have Classilla thanks to him. But that is where we are headed, without, as you say, a few very talented and dedicated developers.

wobegong
Jun 3, 2013, 09:48 PM
Omniweb for Tiger and PowerPC is end of life, hasn't been updated in Donkey's Years. Camino is now history, gone for good. Your best bet on OS X is Leopardwebkit or tenfourkit, if you insist on staying with Tiger. Install Leopardwebkit from the shell, and your Omniweb will then have access to a truly up to date webkit. Tenfourfox is at the wall again, blindfolded and waiting to be shot by Mozilla, hopefully Kaiser can pull off another programming miracle and get us past Tenfourfox 24. If not he'll keep security parity for as long as he can. I mean, we still have Classilla thanks to him. But that is where we are headed, without, as you say, a few very talented and dedicated developers.

Roccat (http://runecats.com/roccat.html) ??

I'm using this and very impressed, no crashes and no sites so far it cannot handle - it auto updated last night to v3.3 so it's certainly very actively being developed.