PDA

View Full Version : the PowerPC Fanclub




MUCKYFINGERS
Jan 20, 2006, 10:25 PM
who here still loves powerpc because they just work great? :)

okay this is a useless thread but i wanted to stand tall for my love for the great PowerPC processor.



nfs2
Jan 20, 2006, 10:41 PM
I love the power PC because i wont be getting an intel mac for at least a year.

smharmon
Jan 20, 2006, 10:53 PM
who here still loves powerpc because they just work great? :)

okay this is a useless thread but i wanted to stand tall for my love for the great PowerPC processor.


I know I haven't posted in a long while... BUT

My 486 "worked great" also. Does the intel procs just beat the pants of the powerpc... yes...

johnnybluejeans
Jan 20, 2006, 10:57 PM
The whole Intel vs. PowerPC thing seems to be a rehash of the AppleII vs. Macintosh days..

DeSnousa
Jan 20, 2006, 11:00 PM
I really don't care what chip is used as long as Apple continues to do the great thing they have alway's done. Great hardware and OS. Also along as this new intel chip does not mean a crack to running osx on windows.

MUCKYFINGERS
Jan 20, 2006, 11:00 PM
i love intel as the next PC guy and have several intel based machines at home, but ppc still holds a place in my macintosh using career.

smharmon
Jan 20, 2006, 11:04 PM
We have too much emotion tied up in our apple products... I know I do!!! But, we have tried to justify the PowerPC for sooo long, and it is nice to see apple move on to something better. I often feel like I have to admit defeat because I have defended the processors and I think others feel the same way. In a way It IS defeat though... the G5 wouldn't couldn't and never will be in an Apple notebook, I am just glad to be getting some up to date hardware releases.

belvdr
Jan 20, 2006, 11:12 PM
i love intel as the next PC guy and have several intel based machines at home, but ppc still holds a place in my macintosh using career.

At least you still have AIX.

cliffrouse11bas
Jan 20, 2006, 11:24 PM
I love my old G4 Ibook, but I have to admit it is a little behind time. For $999 what can I expect. I am ready for my new 20" Imac Intel Core Duo.

sixstorm
Jan 20, 2006, 11:28 PM
I've had a great experience with my iBook G4, very nice for a laptop that does so much. I'm actually going to my local (45 min drive) Apple store to see just how fast the difference really is.

solvs
Jan 21, 2006, 01:39 AM
PowerPC, specifically the G4 and G5, are good chips but are woefully underdeveloped. Motorola dropped the ball on what could have been an amazing chip. IBM had it's chance, but it blew it too. The P4 sucks, but the Pentium M isn't too bad. It was partially based on the better parts of the P3. What Apple is using now, and will use in the immediate future are also derivatives of that technology. So they should be pretty good. Personnally, I'm an AMD fan, but there are plenty of reasons why Apple didn't choose them that have been discussed ad naseum here.

If there was a better developed chip out there that was PowerPC based that Apple could count on, they would have gone with that.

Macmadant
Jan 21, 2006, 01:47 AM
i love powerpc it's sort of got a ring to it "G5" i love saying that but we can't call the ppowermac "G5" anymore :( :( :(

ibilly
Jan 21, 2006, 02:29 AM
The G5 is far superior to the intel core series at equivalent clocks. The dual core versions of each processor are much faster. IMO, the heat/energy consumption thing is the only thing that the core duo has that trumps the G5. I'm also pretty sure that the G5 is a lot cheaper.

So I guess you could say that I'm on the PPC side...

Macmadant
Jan 21, 2006, 02:47 AM
The G5 is far superior to the intel core series at equivalent clocks. The dual core versions of each processor are much faster. IMO, the heat/energy consumption thing is the only thing that the core duo has that trumps the G5. I'm also pretty sure that the G5 is a lot cheaper.

So I guess you could say that I'm on the PPC side...

i knew that all along the only reason they moved was the lack of a laptop G5, its more of apples privite battle with ibm than speeds, i mean they got on the wrong side of steve, and humiliated him by not delivering a 3 ghz powermac, they would have reached 3ghz eventually we all know that

iMeowbot
Jan 21, 2006, 05:17 AM
The whole Intel vs. PowerPC thing seems to be a rehash of the AppleII vs. Macintosh days..
And people used to earnestly debate the relative merits of integer and Applesoft BASIC, and then the ][ vs. /// ... Blech, Teh Steve is right, Apple's DNA hasn't changed :p

awulf
Jan 21, 2006, 10:38 AM
The PowerPC is a better design for many reasons:

RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) i.e. PowerPC vs CISC (Complex Instruction Set) i.e. Intel:
• RISC have a much simpler instruction set, making the hardware much simpler, faster and cheaper.
• CISC are easier for compilers to translate a high level programming language to machine code, also makes programs smaller in size.

The x86 is backwards compatible all the way back to the 8086 from 1978, which makes the x86 awfully complex. The PowerPC 601 is from 1991, which is relatively new.

Also the PowerPC has a much simpler instruction set compared to the x86, so programming in assembly is much simpler on the PowerPC.

If as much R&D money were to be poured in the the PowerPC as it has been into the Intel, the PowerPC would be much more powerful, more power efficient and cooler than the Intel, but unfortunately Motorola and IBM aren't willing to spend that money on the PowerPC.

iGary
Jan 21, 2006, 10:40 AM
*Proudly throwing up in his mouth a little bit™ for 7 months*

cube
Jan 21, 2006, 11:33 AM
Apple moves to x86. Intel removes hardware-based x86 emulation from Itanic.

What does that tell you?

FFTT
Jan 21, 2006, 12:06 PM
I'm suddenly reminded of what smog control engineering did to muscle cars after 1967.

The Intel switch is a good move for portables, still I can't help but wonder how we'll feel if and when IBM releases their Power5 dual cores.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7095/cobrabonillaky2dt.jpg

superbovine
Jan 21, 2006, 02:26 PM
who here still loves powerpc because they just work great? :)

okay this is a useless thread but i wanted to stand tall for my love for the great PowerPC processor.

once the change over is complete your'll wonder how you lived without an x86.

macmanmatty
Jan 21, 2006, 05:56 PM
Make me a member!!! :D In about 3 weeks I will buy a quad to replace my once again shipping damaged powermac.:D :D

Rend It
Jan 21, 2006, 06:48 PM
PowerPC, specifically the G4 and G5, are good chips but are woefully underdeveloped. Motorola dropped the ball on what could have been an amazing chip. IBM had it's chance, but it blew it too. The P4 sucks, but the Pentium M isn't too bad. It was partially based on the better parts of the P3. What Apple is using now, and will use in the immediate future are also derivatives of that technology. So they should be pretty good. Personnally, I'm an AMD fan, but there are plenty of reasons why Apple didn't choose them that have been discussed ad naseum here.

If there was a better developed chip out there that was PowerPC based that Apple could count on, they would have gone with that.

I hope I don't incite a riot, but there's still hope in the PowerPC platform for things besides embedded apps:

PWRficient Processors from PA Semi (http://www.pasemi.com/processors/)

Yeah, I know they won't sample until later this year, but if they can do what they say at only 5-13 W, who knows? Maybe Apple will switch back, or even better, just start using whatever chip does the job best, since OS X apps will soon be universal binary. Oh, and yes these do have an SIMD vector unit (i.e., Altivec).

spencecb
Jan 21, 2006, 07:30 PM
I hope I don't incite a riot, but there's still hope in the PowerPC platform for things besides embedded apps:

PWRficient Processors from PA Semi (http://www.pasemi.com/processors/)

Yeah, I know they won't sample until later this year, but if they can do what they say at only 5-13 W, who knows? Maybe Apple will switch back, or even better, just start using whatever chip does the job best, since OS X apps will soon be universal binary. Oh, and yes these do have an SIMD vector unit (i.e., Altivec).

Going along with this idea, wouldn't it be possible for Apple to keep using Intel and PowerPC if they continue to embed the Universal Binary in their Developer's tools? That way the companies that are profficient at writing code for Intel chips will be able to make software for the Mac and have it compatible with PowerPC, and those of us that won't be able to buy a new Mac in the next couple years will be assured contiued support for our PowerPC based Macs.

Just a thought, but I believe it is one that is quite "do-able" and one that Apple should keep in mind.

MUCKYFINGERS
Jan 21, 2006, 07:46 PM
once the change over is complete your'll wonder how you lived without an x86.

i have a couple of x86 windoze boxes at home but i'm still more satisfied with the performance and reliable of my macs than with them. but of course, im sure x86 will make it more enjoyable.

BornAgainMac
Jan 21, 2006, 08:24 PM
I would like to see the PowerPC chip in a Dell type case for cheap. Perhaps to run Linux.

dmw007
Jan 21, 2006, 09:04 PM
I really don't care what chip is used as long as Apple continues to do the great thing they have alway's done. Great hardware and OS.

Well said DeSnousa, could not have said it better myself! :)

jhu
Jan 21, 2006, 10:03 PM
The PowerPC is a better design for many reasons:

RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) i.e. PowerPC vs CISC (Complex Instruction Set) i.e. Intel:
• RISC have a much simpler instruction set, making the hardware much simpler, faster and cheaper.
• CISC are easier for compilers to translate a high level programming language to machine code, also makes programs smaller in size.

The x86 is backwards compatible all the way back to the 8086 from 1978, which makes the x86 awfully complex. The PowerPC 601 is from 1991, which is relatively new.

Also the PowerPC has a much simpler instruction set compared to the x86, so programming in assembly is much simpler on the PowerPC.

If as much R&D money were to be poured in the the PowerPC as it has been into the Intel, the PowerPC would be much more powerful, more power efficient and cooler than the Intel, but unfortunately Motorola and IBM aren't willing to spend that money on the PowerPC.

inevitably there's always the "risc vs. cisc" mention despite the fact that the powerpc has at least as many instructions as current x86 processors, thus making them stray quite a bit from risc. in addition current x86 processors from amd and intel convert x86 instructions into one to three simpler instructions making them stray quite a bit from cisc. basically, the only thing that is fundamentally different from x86 and powerpc is that x86 processors have an x86 decoder.

eXan
Jan 21, 2006, 10:28 PM
who here still loves powerpc because they just work great? :)

okay this is a useless thread but i wanted to stand tall for my love for the great PowerPC processor.

I'm keeping my iMac (in sig) for at least 3-4 years, so I love G5 :D

macmanmatty
Jan 23, 2006, 01:42 PM
Going along with this idea, wouldn't it be possible for Apple to keep using Intel and PowerPC if they continue to embed the Universal Binary in their Developer's tools? That way the companies that are profficient at writing code for Intel chips will be able to make software for the Mac and have it compatible with PowerPC, and those of us that won't be able to buy a new Mac in the next couple years will be assured contiued support for our PowerPC based Macs.

Just a thought, but I believe it is one that is quite "do-able" and one that Apple should keep in mind.


Yes it very possible, and if apple wants companies to continue to release universal binaries they may have to do this. Why would companies bother to write software for outdated systems?? Even if it is just a click of a button. t

Epicurus
Jan 23, 2006, 02:59 PM
Quite literally the majority of the Apple computers I own aren't PPC machines. My PBook G4 was and is a great computer (using it right now to type this; it is my sole portable computer). For all its wonderful features (Altivec being one I've come to love more than others), it is just a chipset. If Apple can keep the "Universal Binary" mindset in place for another 5-6 years I wouldn't be suprised to see Apple embrace multiple architectures simultaneously. Work still needs to be done to make OS X and all its native apps truely architecture independent, but that's certainly the way to go. When this finally happens, all the Intel vs IBM vs Motorola nonsense will wash away.

That said, the PPC has many technical advantages that will probably only play out in a year or so, just as the Intel switch is winding down. There is a lot of room in the Cell technology (a PPC cousin) for general purpose enhancements, plus strengths that will trickle into the PPC line over time.

Meyvn
Jan 23, 2006, 03:28 PM
I love the power PC because i wont be getting an intel mac for at least a year.

Doesn't that just mean you're telling yourself you love the PowerPC when you actually don't? Logically, it should be the other way around: "I'm not getting an Intel Mac for at least a year, because I love PowerPC."

jamesi
Jan 23, 2006, 04:13 PM
the powermacs will always be long loved b/c they were supercomputers of their day. from editing video to listening to music, they did it all and ran like butter. but obviously, they wont run like butter in the next few years. computer hardware grows and gets outdated, it happens. but apple will always have unrelenting affection from the community that uses them. when the intel versions of the powermac come out they will blow away all the benchmark records held by the G5s....but thats ok

cb911
Jan 24, 2006, 07:36 AM
The G5 is far superior to the intel core series at equivalent clocks. The dual core versions of each processor are much faster. IMO, the heat/energy consumption thing is the only thing that the core duo has that trumps the G5. I'm also pretty sure that the G5 is a lot cheaper.

So I guess you could say that I'm on the PPC side...

you're kind of comparing apples to oranges.

the G5 isn't even going to be replaced by anything in Intel's "Core" series. all the talk i hear is that the Intel PowerMac will have a Xeon chip?

to others saying that the PPC chips are better/could have been better... well wait until the full Mac Intel linup is here and all the apps are optimized. it will beat anything we've ever had in a Mac. and maybe the G4 and G5 could have been great chips, being used instead of the Intel chips, but they weren't developed, so now we have better chips in Macs. and you can't complain about that can you?

anyone would think it's the end of the world to have anything other than PPC in a Mac. :rolleyes:

well i don't really care where the chips come from, as long as Macs get faster and perform better. :cool:

jhu
Jan 24, 2006, 07:40 AM
I'm suddenly reminded of what smog control engineering did to muscle cars after 1967.

The Intel switch is a good move for portables, still I can't help but wonder how we'll feel if and when IBM releases their Power5 dual cores.


uhm...power5 is already dual core. in fact ibm makes them in multi-chip modules containing 2 or 4 chips for a total of 4 or 8 cpus per module.

jhu
Jan 24, 2006, 07:41 AM
the powermacs will always be long loved b/c they were supercomputers of their day. from editing video to listening to music, they did it all and ran like butter. but obviously, they wont run like butter in the next few years. computer hardware grows and gets outdated, it happens. but apple will always have unrelenting affection from the community that uses them. when the intel versions of the powermac come out they will blow away all the benchmark records held by the G5s....but thats ok

what benchmark records?

Mr. Anderson
Jan 24, 2006, 07:47 AM
I've owned a number of PowerPC chips - 601, 604, G4, and just last week got the Quad G5 - there's nothing really wrong with them.

I just know eventually in a couple years I'm going to have to get an Intel - but it will have to be *a lot* faster than my Quad to justify that.

D

plastique45
Jan 24, 2006, 08:14 AM
I'm suddenly reminded of what smog control engineering did to muscle cars after 1967.

The Intel switch is a good move for portables, still I can't help but wonder how we'll feel if and when IBM releases their Power5 dual cores.
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/7095/cobrabonillaky2dt.jpg


They won't, and if they ever di Intel will again have something much faster.

PowerPC roadmaps (from Motorola or IBM) have NEVER been CLOSE to reality. Remember the Motorola G5 du for 2000? The 3GHz G5 for 2004? The dual core G4 for 2005?

PowerPC was NEVER competitive in a desktop evironement. They still rule the embeded markets, but going with Intel was something Apple should have done a LOOOOONG time ago.

Good riddance for the joke that was the G5.

FireArse
Jan 24, 2006, 08:31 AM
PowerPC roadmaps (from Motorola or IBM) have NEVER been CLOSE to reality. Remember the Motorola G5 du for 2000? The 3GHz G5 for 2004?

We got 2.7GHz out of the G5, thats not too far off 3.0GHz.

Count me in for the PPC fan-boy club. I have actually written PPC assembly code and feel that techinically, the PPC remains the stronger of the platforms. When OS X stops support for the PPC (in hopefully AT LEAST 2010) there'll always be a Linux/BSD PPC port that'll be compiled for the seriously mighty G5.

PowerMac G5. Really does have a ring to it. Far more than (possibly) Pro Mac or Mac Pro coming out in a few month's time.

I have a Dual G5 now, and would seriously consider a Quad soon. Mine is future proof. I have 2.5GB RAM and can play 1080p HD and with my 23 cinema display I think I covered my bases when I bought the thing this time last year. The only thing I'd do is buy a 6800Ultra to play WoW when I graduate.

Think about the PPC staff at Apple maybe 6-12 months ago when news of dropping PPC came about. There'll be Apple staff who've worked for decades on PPC and also wouldn't favour the move. :confused: