PDA

View Full Version : ppc advantages and comparison




hansolo669
Jun 7, 2010, 04:32 PM
hey guys
since this is a ppc forum and the Intel haters *mostly* leave it alone, i have probably the biggest question for all you amazing ppc mac owners. (disclaimer i myself own a lower end g4 system and love every minute of it.....even though its vid card crapped out)
why: why in 2010 do you still you ppc? do you use ppc exclusively or do you have an Intel mac? why would you recommend ppc over intel? do you think its worth it to buy into a slowly dying technology (that is still awesome)?


now if you think I'm dumb to ask this question, ask yourself.....weren't you wondering to?

(pleas point out any spelling or grammatical errors to me (pm please) English is my main language and yes i do know how to type and i type well, i just have a slight problem with spelling and stuff.



max¥¥
Jun 7, 2010, 05:59 PM
i use ppc as i find it is more reliable and just as fast as intel mac's (my dp 2.5 g5 with 3gb ram vs my dads 2.66 quad mac pro with 8gb ram)

you should see some of my posts that are badly typed, partially because of my netbooks s*** keyboard and partially i can't spell

mrchinchilla
Jun 7, 2010, 06:25 PM
I've always preferred PowerPC (or any other architecture) over Intel, for some reason I really don't like Intel. Maybe it's from all the anti-Intel 'propaganda' from Apple in the 90s, I've even owned a Sparc system in lieu of Intel. However, after Apple's transition to Intel, I foresaw the end of support for PPC machines and thought I should buy an Intel model, but I'd say I use my PPC machines more – which is why I only bought a MacBook.
As for reasons why, I'd say the sense of reliability it gives me: someone described it on another thread about the feeling of raw power from PPC machine being like a muscle car, whereas Intel are like new, tacky-plastic Japanese sports cars (I'm paraphrasing).

g3powerbook boy
Jun 7, 2010, 07:00 PM
I too have 3 ppc macs. i have a g3 imac slot loader, 400mhz 256k running osx 10.4.11, a g3 powerbook pismo 500 mhz,512k running os x 10.4.11 and the most recent aquisition a g4 powerbook titanium 400 mhz 512k running os x 10.3.9 soon to be running os x 10.4.11. on the other hand i have 2 intel based non apple unfortunately, desktops a 5 year old compaq 3.0 ghz 512 k running ubuntu linux 10.04 and a 2 year old gateway dual core running vista and have to sa i perfer to use my macs any day since they are much more stable and seem to be faster. the compaq running ubuntu is a close second but i still perfer my ppc macs. it might be because i associate intel with windows still even though apple has been using intel chips since 2007. all :apple: rule though cant really compare windows crap to the best now can we!!

zen.state
Jun 7, 2010, 07:19 PM
I don't have much time right now and will go into depth later why I love PowerPC so much.

The main thing for me is that G4 towers (especially the sawtooth) are tanks and live forever. I'm more concerned with stable yet capable hardware. I actually feel great having it on the floor next to my desk and never wish it was a Mac Pro. I also like the sawtooth because it allows 2GB RAM vs the 3 models that only allow 1.5GB. I will take 33% more RAM over a slightly faster bus any day. MDD's are great performers but I have owned 2 and find them a bit sketchy at times. Also, the sawtooth is the only personal computer in history that was ever classified as a weapon and could not be exported to certain nations. Seriously. How cool is that alone?

I will be running PowerPC for years to come. I have 2 spare sawtooths for future hardware needs and a whole hall closet full of other parts. I'm in it to win it!@# :)

Even though I cannot go beyond 10.5 on PowerPC the Mac OS is already so far ahead that I am good for at least another 10 years.

I use PowerPC BY CHOICE!@#

Ravernomina
Jun 7, 2010, 11:49 PM
I To am a PowerPC Mac Fan. I Never owned a PowerPC Mac. But i fixed a Teachers that used it. I LOVED IT... it felt more stable and ran more clean. i Also love the whole PowerPC Architecture. I HATE CISC chips... i wish Apple would of stayed with IBM... i miss PowerPC So much!

Hrududu
Jun 7, 2010, 11:59 PM
PowerPC Macs still work! Thats all there is to it. I've got a MacBook Pro which is by far the newest computer I own, but I only use it about 50% of the time. I use my TiBooks, 12" Powerbook, and Cube all the time. The form factors are great, the power is plenty for most everything I do, and they're more affordable than ever. Plus some of us old time Apple folk still have that sense of uniqueness that comes with using a chip that nobody else uses.

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 12:01 AM
I To am a PowerPC Mac Fan. I Never owned a PowerPC Mac. But i fixed a Teachers that used it. I LOVED IT... it felt more stable and ran more clean. i Also love the whole PowerPC Architecture. I HATE CISC chips... i wish Apple would of stayed with IBM... i miss PowerPC So much!

Why miss something when you can still enjoy it? You can buy G4 towers on ebay and craigslist as low as 40-50 bucks. You could even use it as a file server.

MacHamster68
Jun 8, 2010, 05:24 AM
money reasons at first , i got to powermac's first as i did look for a alternative to windows so i had all distros of linux first and tried them out ,stopped counting after the distro number 50 or so on my pc's which always had to be the newest on the market ,then i tumbled at ebay over this eMac 1.42 with osx tiger which in fact is now my absolute newest computer system dating at 2006 ,and ever since i got hooked , to old apples , sold all my pc's by now
and i can afford the luxury not to be forced to use the absolute latest apps and OS's , and therefore can afford spending money on some lovely things like old iMac G3's , Tam,eMac's , G4 mini's , in therms of design my mac mini is the newest , but it too has a ppc processor
and ppc processors are still great processors to this date , and the only advantage i can see from a intel processor is ..you can run windows , so if you need that or you need the absolute latest and greatest in terms of apps you need a intel mac
but if you dont need all that then you can have loads of fun with the ppc powered mac's and enjoy the greatest designs apple ever produced

g3powerbook boy
Jun 8, 2010, 07:42 AM
I also have heard that apple had alot of issues with the intel chips and still do but much less now that they have ironed it out considerably. I dont think apple ever had too many issues with hardware problems when they were using ppc alone.

actually i dont see much of a difference in snow leopard from panther or tiger either except that its designed for intel based processors. except for jaguar i think that os x 10.x.x is pretty much the same with a few different features in each revision. what can snow leopard do that tiger or panther cant? I may find out soon though since im kinda looking for a weekend project and i may try to hackintosh my compaq desktop and put snow leopard on it. otherwise i love my ppc apples my g3 imac, my g3 powerbook pismo and my g4 titanium powerbook that has only been part of the family for 10 days but works like a brand new unit.

:apple:'s rule forever

zmttoxics
Jun 8, 2010, 08:40 AM
I have only 2 PPC machines left (at one point I had 5, 2xeMac, 1xPMG4, 1xPMG5, and an iMac G5). Just 1 eMac and the iMac now.

Why do I keep them? The iMac is a good skype machine with the iSight. The eMac is hard to give away so I plunked it some where out of the way and make it a server.

I have no real uses for them any more, my software doesn't support them. So, my current house of Mac is mostly intel based. Such is life. :)

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 08:48 AM
I have only 2 PPC machines left (at one point I had 5, 2xeMac, 1xPMG4, 1xPMG5, and an iMac G5). Just 1 eMac and the iMac now.

Why do I keep them? The iMac is a good skype machine with the iSight. The eMac is hard to give away so I plunked it some where out of the way and make it a server.

I have no real uses for them any more, my software doesn't support them. So, my current house of Mac is mostly intel based. Such is life. :)

You prefer intel... we get it.

zmttoxics
Jun 8, 2010, 08:54 AM
You prefer intel... we get it.

Just no "advantages" to the PPC anymore - at least not for me. Which was the thread topic IIRC... :p

reebzor
Jun 8, 2010, 09:09 AM
I know what you guys mean. I recently swapped out my Quicksilver G4 for a MacPro at work, and although the MacPro is certainly more capable (Snow leopard, 8gb of ram, SATA, etc) I just doesnt feel the same. I also have a TiBook 800mhz at home running Leopard.

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 09:18 AM
at least not for me

I think you maybe might slightly understand it. Not for you.. but for us.

You just don't seem to understand computers past raw performance. Thats okay because you fall into the 95%+ in mindset there.

I can do everything I need to do with my heavily upgraded G4 and although I don't exactly do pro level stuff I certainly do and know a lot more than your average user. This comes from 18+ years of heavy interest in technology. I would honestly take my G4 tower over a Mac Pro. Plus I also have one of the most beautiful and custom macs on earth. Click the link in my signature.

Keep in mind that the single G4 7448 in my G4 is the bleeding edge G4 and just came out around 2005 after the G5 chips. You are basing PowerPC on much slower and less capable chips than I have. A single 7448 smokes most dual G4. It's the only 90nm G4 and has 1MB on chip full speed L2. The sad thing is that the G4 didn't reach it's summit until after Apple stopped using it.

Here is a screen capture of a Photoshop benchmark showing a dual 1.8GHz 7448 actually outperforming both a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

zmttoxics
Jun 8, 2010, 09:29 AM
Throwing random graphs without sources into the mix does not prove a platform is better or more viable then another.

I work with incredible slow 10 year old computers all day long. Sun Ultra 10s / Blade 100s, they are everywhere and incredible slow but they still work for their job. Now, does that mean I wanna take on home and use it day to day?

Your G4 is pretty bad ass, for a G4. Your software works great on it, and thats awesome. But the "95%" of the people you are referring to may want things even faster. Time is money, just because a machine can do fancy things doesn't mean it is the best at it.

I am pretty sure a Quad 2.5 G5 would smoke your G4, and I am pretty sure I still wont be using one as a daily driver. Now, you can throw money at it all day long with add on cards and bigger this and more that, but its still old dead tech. Not to say it isn't cool, there just aren't any advantages to dead tech that can just barely compete. (How old is the 2.33 iMac anyways? :rolleyes:)

flopticalcube
Jun 8, 2010, 09:31 AM
Here is a screen capture of a Photoshop benchmark showing a dual 1.8GHz 7448 actually outperforming both a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.
Since CS is a PPC app, the Intels are running it under Rosetta. Lets compare the performance of native apps.

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 09:44 AM
Since CS is a PPC app, the Intels are running it under Rosetta. Lets compare the performance of native apps.

I used to have a 1.83GHz C2D mac mini that I ran under both 10.4 and 10.5 for extended times. It ran PowerPC apps at a very respectable clip. I sold it to buy the 7448 upgrade for my Sawtooth.

cluthz
Jun 8, 2010, 09:44 AM
Here is a screen capture of a Photoshop benchmark showing a dual 1.8GHz 7448 actually outperforming both a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

I have a sawtooth myself, but honestly I don't use much it anymore.
I was a huge fan of the PowerMacs, as they did have great expandability, and they didn't cost as much as MacPros do today (compared to other hardware).
But there are limits to G4s, 2GB RAM is a bottleneck today, 100MHz DDR RAM is also slower, the G4s was limited by 128GB pr HD, unless you bought a 3rd party ata/sata controller.

Just one little thing, that Photoshop test you are posting, is with PS8, which is PPC only and emulated on intel hardware.
Run the same tasks on cs3 or newer on an intel mac and it will destroy the G4.

My C2D (2.2GHz) was twice as fast as my G5 (1.8GHz) in Photoshop (CS2 on G5 and CS3 on the C2D). And the i5 is much faster than the C2D too.

PowerPC was a great architecture, but today it's getting a bit long in the tooth.

I'm pretty sure you can keep productive work on a 1.8GHz G4, but any new Mac will run circles around it.

cluthz
Jun 8, 2010, 09:47 AM
Btw, the paint job you've done on your G4 looks amazing :)

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 09:48 AM
Throwing random graphs without sources into the mix does not prove a platform is better or more viable then another.

I work with incredible slow 10 year old computers all day long. Sun Ultra 10s / Blade 100s, they are everywhere and incredible slow but they still work for their job. Now, does that mean I wanna take on home and use it day to day?

Your G4 is pretty bad ass, for a G4. Your software works great on it, and thats awesome. But the "95%" of the people you are referring to may want things even faster. Time is money, just because a machine can do fancy things doesn't mean it is the best at it.

I am pretty sure a Quad 2.5 G5 would smoke your G4, and I am pretty sure I still wont be using one as a daily driver. Now, you can throw money at it all day long with add on cards and bigger this and more that, but its still old dead tech. Not to say it isn't cool, there just aren't any advantages to dead tech that can just barely compete. (How old is the 2.33 iMac anyways? :rolleyes:)

I get what you're saying in some aspects but for the most part we fundamentally disagree. Thats fine.

The #1 thing for me is being both comfortable with and confident in the hardware I am using. Even if there is a performance drop. PowerPC (G4 7448 chip and sawtooth tower specifically) is the only hardware I truly feel good and confident in running.

drewdle
Jun 8, 2010, 09:54 AM
I still use PPC for a number of reasons.

From a technological standpoint, RISC processors are far more efficient than x86 processors. Intel has poured billions into development of the x86 so that it could get it to run faster, efficient code or not, but RISC chips (like the PowerPC) rely on efficient code to be successful. This is why in the early part of the last decade you had G4 equipped PowerMacs effectively destroying x86 equipped PCs in benchmarks like Photoshop, or the Sawtooth being classified as a "weapon" (I loved that, we had a Sawtooth for video editing in high school, we thus renamed it The Secret Weapon). x86 processors may have made huge power gains in the last few years, but it's been at the cost of efficient code. A good example is the universal binaries in Leopard, iTunes for instance. In Universal guise, it weighs in at 191Mb. With the Intel code stripped, it's now a much thinner 47Mb. Address Book was 57Mb, and is now 11Mb. I'll post other examples or screenshots if you like, as I found these numbers by using XTrimmer. The point is, however, did you notice how much bigger the Intel code sections are? Another good example is the Tiger 10.4.11 Combo Update, which is 186Mb in PPC guise, compared to the Leopard 10.5.8 Combo Update, at 768Mb.

Ironically, most computers outside of desktop use are using RISC processors. PowerPC chips can be found in cars (some have more than one, or a few), home automation systems, and interestingly enough, high performance game systems (the Xbox 360 and the Wii both use PowerPC chips from IBM). It seems the only market that doesn't care about efficient code and only sees raw power as a plus is the desktop market. It's a shame Apple went the way they did with this. Yes, Macs can now run Windows, but it's kind of like throwing in the towel and saying "Well, we still have the best computer in town, but nobody's buying, so let's join the competition to capture some of that market", and in doing so, they lost their distinct architecture advantage.

I use PPC machines because of the cases they come in. The iMac G4 is still the most beautiful computer ever made, in my opinion, and I'd like a second one, probably a 17 this time. Despite my MacBook's blazing fast speeds, I find myself using the G4 more and more. However, the other reason is that they're proving impossible to kill. We still get iMac G3s in at work that have nothing wrong with them other than they're slow. I prefer not to send machines that still work off to be recycled because someone, somewhere will appreciate whatever the machine has to offer, whether it's myself or someone else.

Intel Macs are nice, but I think Apple made a deal with the proverbial devil in order to gain that market share. Ironically, thanks to the blisteringly successful iPad and iPhone (both of which use a modified RISC architecture in the A4 chip), Apple could turn around and do whatever they fancied with the desktop and laptop lines and not even have to bat an eyelash. Maybe they'll feel a little more experimental soon.

flopticalcube
Jun 8, 2010, 09:59 AM
I used to have a 1.83GHz C2D mac mini that I ran under both 10.4 and 10.5 for extended times. It ran PowerPC apps at a very respectable clip. I sold it to buy the 7448 upgrade for my Sawtooth.
I'm sure it did. It would have run native Intel apps even better. My point is that the graph you are showing is not a valid comparison of processor speeds.

mrchinchilla
Jun 8, 2010, 11:47 AM
Imagine if Apple had stayed with PPC and could somehow put the Power7 or the future e700 into a PowerMac or Xserve. I think that beats any Intel chip.

leekohler
Jun 8, 2010, 12:48 PM
I have a dual core 2.0 G5 and a 2.4 Penryn black MacBook.

I love the MacBook, but the G5 is simply much better at a lot of tasks I use it for. It has more RAM, the disc burner is MUCH faster, and it's better at file conversion. The G5 is still my main computer for sure. For some reason I'm afraid to tax the MacBook too much. It starts to get warm and I freak out. I know that's silly, but it is what it is.

g3powerbook boy
Jun 8, 2010, 12:57 PM
I had to do some work on editing videos of tornadoes i chased this past saturday, and i usually do it on my intel based compaq that is running ubuntu linux at the moment, it was so disturbing to actually be using a non ppc machine much less a non apple machine i was so happy when it was done. I am now using my g4 ti powerbook now and am much more comfortable using it. I just went to the local apple store and found out that they still had a copy of adobe photoshop for the ppc/intel machines and am going to install it on my g4 powerbook and g3 imac so i wont be using my compaq until i hackintosh it... hopefully snow leopard will impress me enough to forget its not really an apple product!

I really wish people could explain what the ppc apples cannot do that the intel apples can or is too many people in love with redmond and intel to see that the older ppc apples are far better

Stella
Jun 8, 2010, 01:01 PM
Here is a screen capture of a Photoshop benchmark showing a dual 1.8GHz 7448 actually outperforming both a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.


How about other benchmark that showing PPC being totally outperformed by Core 2 Duo?

One benchmark statistic does not show the entire picture. Tunnel vision at best.

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 01:05 PM
How about other benchmark that showing PPC being totally outperformed by Core 2 Duo?

One benchmark statistic does not show the entire picture. Tunnel vision at best.

One could also say that most computer users have tunnel vision in that they think performance is EVERYTHING. Simple minded at best.

iMeowbot
Jun 8, 2010, 01:10 PM
why in 2010 do you still you ppc?
They're still working for what I bought them for. The software upgrade treadmill is starting to put a squeeze on, but it's not squeezing too hard just yet.

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 01:14 PM
Some thoughts..

I really am in awe of all the people coming here and dogging PowerPC. We PowerPC lovers/users have but one little area on this gigantic forum. All the other areas are dedicated to current Apple products etc.

Maybe leave us be? We understand PowerPC is less powerful. We get it. We still choose to use it.

Any person that truly embraces technology knows it's always about using what you're comfortable with and in turn works the way you prefer. For me and the other regulars here it's PowerPC Macs.

End rant..

Stella
Jun 8, 2010, 01:17 PM
One could also say that most computer users have tunnel vision in that they think performance is EVERYTHING. Simple minded at best.

Performance isn't everything, but I was replying to the person who posted ONE benchmark to show evidence of PPC outperforming an Intel processor.

TheMythTheMan
Jun 8, 2010, 02:04 PM
intel was the enemy, some people just can't let it go... performance wise they are pathetic compared to any dual+ core architecture

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 02:11 PM
intel was the enemy, some people just can't let it go... performance wise they are pathetic compared to any dual+ core architecture

It has nothing to do with hatred of intel. I have owned a couple intel and amd systems in the past.

Once again like most you base everything on performance. Unenlightened single mindedness doesn't work for me.

hansolo669
Jun 8, 2010, 02:18 PM
wow nice. thanks too all of you these are some of the best responses i have heard in a while, must be all that ppc tech making you guys reach that zen state (sorry i hade to)
my main reson for using ppc is that its what i can afford. i would love an 8 core mac pro, but unfortunatly that (and my foray into video editing) will have to wait. i object to hackintoshes -- not because they have issues, or are "illigal" -- but because they feal 'cold' like the cold buisness world of microsft still inhabits thier soul. ppc machinces other than being cheep, have a build quality and a 'happy' atmosphere that far surpasses most pc's and many modern macs.

thers more but typing that would take to long :P

long live ppc

<edit>
relly intel guys relly. i think we know that it looks like intel wins, but its market stratagy is making fast procescors run inefficiant code, while every other platform runs hyper effciant code on somewhat slower procesors...
just leave the ppc guys alone thats not what this thread is for.
thank you
</edit>

DSPalpatine
Jun 8, 2010, 02:40 PM
Some thoughts..

I really am in awe of all the people coming here and dogging PowerPC. We PowerPC lovers/users have but one little area on this gigantic forum. All the other areas are dedicated to current Apple products etc.

Maybe leave us be? We understand PowerPC is less powerful. We get it. We still choose to use it.

Any person that truly embraces technology knows it's always about using what you're comfortable with and in turn works the way you prefer. For me and the other regulars here it's PowerPC Macs.

End rant..

I'm going to add on to zen.state's rant with a rant of my own that I'm reposting from another thread:

*Rant: I LOVE IT (tongue-pressed-firmly-in-cheek there) when I, or someone else, posts a PowerPC-specific question and the response is, "ZOMG... ur such a dork... get a MINI!!!" Dude... if I wanted to ask a question about the Mac Mini or some other Intel Mac, I'd ask about an Intel Mac! In addition to my Macbook, I have a G5 iMac that serves admirably as the family computer. It runs Leopard, it surfs the web, handles email and light photo editing, views Youtube and Hulu just fine, and does whatever my wife and I ask of it. Is it a speed machine for Bioshock or Command and Conquer? Of course not. I understand its limitations, but as long as it continues to run, I have no reason to upgrade.*

End of rant. Zen.State is arguing against a specific sub-species of internet troll who inhabit the PowerPC message boards. I had the good misfortune of being introduced to this form of troll last year, when I was having a problem with my iMac. I had thought I was having the dreaded bad logic board and/or bad caps issue (turns out it was a bad stick of 3rd party RAM which I, a 3rd party tech, and an Apple genius all mis-diagnosed). I had posted on a message board, and a lot of people gave great advice in helping me solve the problem. However, I also received a lot of responses that went like this: "Dude… ur such a loser… get a MINI!!!" Unhelpful at best, terminally annoying at worst. And completely unnecessary.

For me, what are the advantages of PPC? Well, my PPC machine works, it does everything we ask of it, and it is paid off. Will I eventually replace it with a Intel-based Mac? Yes, most likely when Leopard ceases to receive security updates and is EOL-ed. I also believe there was a design aesthetic in the PPC Macs that made them unique, and set them apart from the grey-box Wintel world.

Quick afterthought: When I purchased my Macbook last April, I gave my G4 iBook to my step-sister who needed a replacement laptop for college after her machine died. The first day she had it, she called me and could not stop singing its praises, especially about how fast it was compared to her old laptop: a Pentium II Winbook running Windows 98 SE. You could say PPC is slow, I suppose, but it depends who you are asking (I couldn't believe she was running Windows 98 in 2009, but that's a different story, I guess).

666sheep
Jun 8, 2010, 02:40 PM
One of bigger PPC Macs advantages (at least for me) is: you cannot overclock Intel Mac with soldering iron :D :cool: :p
And seriously: there's something magical in PPC (especially G3 and G4) called "that thing" ;). Plus simplicity, best Apple design ever, reliability and longevity.

KeriJane
Jun 8, 2010, 03:34 PM
Nostalgia is a perfectly good reason to like something.
Familiarity with, comfort, cheapness of spare parts are all perfectly valid points too. Or maybe it's just cool.

I have just one PPC Mac, a 17" G5 iMac currently regulated to the ignoble task of digital picture frame for my 81-YO mother.

I rescued the poor thing from certain scrapdom and repaired its failed Power Supply, replaced its missing Hard Drive and dug up a copy of Tiger for it to play with.
This was all well after having bought my first Mac, an Intel Mac Pro.

My impressions?

It must have been really something.

While SUCKERS like me were hopelessly flailing around with Windows, squinting at cheap displays and trying to ignore the howling of half a dozen tiny fans while trying to get something done in between constant updates, crashes, incompatibilities and BSODS....
you were quietly getting things done with the help of Pumas, Panthers and Tigers on quick, quiet and stable PPC Macs with fantastic, stunningly clear and sharp displays.

I can understand the attachment. Back then, your PPC Macs were a world apart from the disheveled land of PCs.

In retrospect, I should have never listened to the "Computer Experts" that assured me that Apples were expensive playthings that couldn't do half of what the PC they were selling me could do. Darn. Wish I were there.

Have Fun,
Keri

PS> I saw a G4 iMac in daily service last week on vacation. In the middle of nowhere, Wisconsin. :)

PPS> Apple probably won't return to PPC. But they might move away from Intel towards their own ARM or whatever CPUs. Wouldn't that be cool?

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 03:44 PM
KeriJane:

You make some good points and share some good thoughts.

For me it's not really at all about nostalgia or attachment. It's that I firmly believe PowerPC is better and would much rather spend my money on it.

People just don't understand the whole preferred architecture concept it seems.

AlexMaximus
Jun 8, 2010, 04:06 PM
I only have one PPC mac, but I absolutely love it! That G4 MDD was my first Mac ever, and it's still is my favorite computer. I just got the brand new MacBook Pro 17' i7, however I still catch myself sitting on the G4.

The G4 Project was just sooo much fun! Great upgrade possibilities and a very stable platform that never stops working. Great spare part supply for decades to come and the best customer support crew on the planet (-this Forum-)!!
Since 2005, this awesome machine is mine and I still love working with it. In my configuration, Quake 4 and Age of Empire 3 runs pretty well. Leopard is stable as it can be and all other programs are fast for every day's duties.
I also love the nice Quicksilver design with the chrome doors and the air intake.
I also have the original Apple 23' ADC Cinema Display, so it's really hard to part with it. I will absolutely keep it like an old 84' Porsche Carrera !!!

KeriJane
Jun 8, 2010, 04:12 PM
Hi Zen.State

I wholeheartedly agree that PPC was far superior to Intel's "Netburst" junk...
but you're saying PPC is superior to the Core and i series CPUs as well?

I'm in no serious position to argue on the merits of either. I do understand the "Intel runs inefficient code really fast while everyone else runs efficient code more slowly" argument, but that's about it.

Apple seemed to think Intel surpassed PPC when the Core CPUs came out. Or do you think they switched mostly to provide Windows support so as to increase sales? It worked, too. A lot of people bought Intel Macs because they are Windows-Capable.

I can't wait to see what kind of CPU Apple adopts in the next few years. It probably won't be Intel. I suspect it will be an Apple-specific CPU and Chipset, immune to Hackintoshing and any Intel-specific vulnerabilities.
Betcha it'll be running OSXI. ;)

Or maybe there'll be THE TRIUMPHANT RETURN OF PPC!

Have Fun,
Keri

Maybe I'll keep an eye out for a G4 Mini or PowerBook

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 04:21 PM
One other big point I forgot..

The G4 is not dead at all since it is still manufactured. Freescale still makes 7447 and 7448 chips along with other PowerPC variant chips for other platforms. PowerPC is used for a lot more than Mac OS. There is also a whole PowerPC Unix/Linux world out there.

The G3 and G5 chips are technically dead but as I said the G4 is still made.

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 04:28 PM
Hi Zen.State

I wholeheartedly agree that PPC was far superior to Intel's "Netburst" junk...
but you're saying PPC is superior to the Core and i series CPUs as well?

I'm in no serious position to argue on the merits of either. I do understand the "Intel runs inefficient code really fast while everyone else runs efficient code more slowly" argument, but that's about it.

Apple seemed to think Intel surpassed PPC when the Core CPUs came out. Or do you think they switched mostly to provide Windows support so as to increase sales? It worked, too. A lot of people bought Intel Macs because they are Windows-Capable.

I can't wait to see what kind of CPU Apple adopts in the next few years. It probably won't be Intel. I suspect it will be an Apple-specific CPU and Chipset, immune to Hackintoshing and any Intel-specific vulnerabilities.
Betcha it'll be running OSXI. ;)

Or maybe there'll be THE TRIUMPHANT RETURN OF PPC!

Have Fun,
Keri

Maybe I'll keep an eye out for a G4 Mini or PowerBook

You're basing everything on raw performance. Like everyone. What I like about PowerPC is how it computes and gets things done. The hardware it does it with. Slower or not to me it's better. How is that so hard for people to understand?

To most people a computer is just a device to get a few things done and all they care about is doing it as fast as possible and nothing in between. I love PowerPC hardware and code. How incredibly efficient it is.

People just don't get it..

KeriJane
Jun 8, 2010, 04:32 PM
One other big point I forgot..

The G4 is not dead at all since it is still manufactured. Freescale still makes 7447 and 7448 chips along with other PowerPC variant chips for other platforms. PowerPC is used for a lot more than Mac OS. There is also a whole PowerPC Unix/Linux world out there.

The G3 and G5 chips are technically dead but as I said the G4 is still made.

Aren't G-series CPUs widely used in the Satellite and Space Exploration business? Like the Mars Rovers?

Question: When the first Mars Rover was being rebooted frequently, did it go:"Bong!" with the Apple Startup Sound? I think that would've been very cool.

Have Fun,
Keri

PS. No, I wasn't basing everything on raw performance. I was merely asking what you meant by "better". I'm not disagreeing with you either, as I don't feel qualified to do so.

leekohler
Jun 8, 2010, 04:36 PM
intel was the enemy, some people just can't let it go... performance wise they are pathetic compared to any dual+ core architecture

Umm...I have a dual core G5. There are quad core ones as well. ;)

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 04:38 PM
Aren't G-series CPUs widely used in the Satellite and Space Exploration business? Like the Mars Rovers?

Question: When the first Mars Rover was being rebooted frequently, did it go:"Bong!" with the Apple Startup Sound?

Have Fun,
Keri

Not sure about that but it could very well be true. Other than Macs and Amigas the PowerPC (RISC) architecture has been used in many heavy duty application settings.

I know for a fact that a couple of the space shuttles in the 90's had 603e CPU's in them. Those were in Macs around 95.

666sheep
Jun 8, 2010, 04:44 PM
One other big point I forgot..

The G4 is not dead at all since it is still manufactured. Freescale still makes 7447 and 7448 chips along with other PowerPC variant chips for other platforms. PowerPC is used for a lot more than Mac OS. There is also a whole PowerPC Unix/Linux world out there.

The G3 and G5 chips are technically dead but as I said the G4 is still made.

I'd like to have Dual 1.8 7448 from Newertech, but its price kills my enthusiasm :( I got one nice Quicksilver, it would fit perfectly together...

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 04:59 PM
I'd like to have Dual 1.8 7448 from Newertech, but its price kills my enthusiasm :( I got one nice Quicksilver, it would fit perfectly together...

As you saw from the benchmark you linked in the other thread even the single is a beast. It still sells for the 350 US I paid about a year ago. Less than half the dual price.

OWC told me they may very well be selling G4 upgrades for another 2-3 years or more as they keep selling. They had to give up on the 7455 upgrades with L3 though because Freescale stopped making them. So now it's just the 744x chips.

hansolo669
Jun 8, 2010, 07:12 PM
so i was looking at my local craigs list serching "powermac"
wow
lots of g5s all dual core most 2ghz
thats insane
then agian, i do live within an hour of toronto (you know in canada? :p)

zmttoxics
Jun 8, 2010, 08:31 PM
@OP: We aren't "intel" guys, we are "mac" guys, and most of us appreciate both halves of the spectrum and have invested heavily in both. But truth be told, there are no "advantages" to a PPC platform in the desktop environment (or in the server market really). They are heavy on power and aren't cheap to manufacture. Just not cost effective for Apple to continue that path if they want to keep making the massive profit they are.

The "unix" big iron boxes are IBMs POWER platform, not to be confused with PowerPC. Very similar in architecture, but the most recent power platform (7) is miles ahead of PPC. The G5s are closer to the Power 4 platform which is years old and obsolete (there is a 5 and 6 after that, and I think even IBM is either dropping or dropped AIX support for 4).

Now, if this thread was "Advantages to the Power7 platform", I would be writing 12 pages of posts of how I would LOVE to spend 40k on an entry level power7 server. But that isn't in the budget, not yet anyways. :D

Edit: A little correction on this, AIX's minimum supported is now power4. My bad. :)

mrchinchilla
Jun 8, 2010, 08:39 PM
@OP: We aren't "intel" guys, we are "mac" guys, and most of us appreciate both halves of the spectrum and have invested heavily in both. But truth be told, there are no "advantages" to a PPC platform in the desktop environment (or in the server market really). They are heavy on power and aren't cheap to manufacture. Just not cost effective for Apple to continue that path if they want to keep making the massive profit they are.

The "unix" big iron boxes are IBMs POWER platform, not to be confused with PowerPC. Very similar in architecture, but the most recent power platform (7) is miles ahead of PPC. The G5s are closer to the Power 4 platform which is years old and obsolete (there is a 5 and 6 after that, and I think even IBM is either dropping or dropped AIX support for 4).

Now, if this thread was "Advantages to the Power7 platform", I would be writing 12 pages of posts of how I would LOVE to spend 40k on an entry level power7 server. But that isn't in the budget, not yet anyways. :D

That would be a dream – expensive, but a dream. But doesn't the Power7 hit 100°C+ very easily? If they built a slightly less... volatile processor, I see no reason why it couldn't replace the Intel processor in the 400+ day old Mac Pros. That won't happen, but a man can dream.

How feasible does everyone think it would it be for Apple to take the A4 processor and get it on a more powerful level?

zen.state
Jun 8, 2010, 08:41 PM
But truth be told, there are no "advantages" to a PPC platform in the desktop environment (or in the server market really).

I will decide for myself if there are advantages. So will others. Not you.

hansolo669
Jun 8, 2010, 09:35 PM
@OP: We aren't "intel" guys, we are "mac" guys, and most of us appreciate both halves of the spectrum and have invested heavily in both. But truth be told, there are no "advantages" to a PPC platform in the desktop environment (or in the server market really). They are heavy on power and aren't cheap to manufacture. Just not cost effective for Apple to continue that path if they want to keep making the massive profit they are.

The "unix" big iron boxes are IBMs POWER platform, not to be confused with PowerPC. Very similar in architecture, but the most recent power platform (7) is miles ahead of PPC. The G5s are closer to the Power 4 platform which is years old and obsolete (there is a 5 and 6 after that, and I think even IBM is either dropping or dropped AIX support for 4).

Now, if this thread was "Advantages to the Power7 platform", I would be writing 12 pages of posts of how I would LOVE to spend 40k on an entry level power7 server. But that isn't in the budget, not yet anyways. :D

Edit: A little correction on this, AIX's minimum supported is now power4. My bad. :)

wow, dude chill a bit. im sorry if that offended you.
i was generalizing.(ex. main mac usage is intel thus "intel guy" conversly main mac usage is ppc thus "ppc guy") i was not attempting to even start anything
also i do think quit a few of us realize the diferences between PowerPC and IBM POWER.
you seem to be a unix/high end server guy and i respect that, but if you want to trash my humble littly ppc advantages thread with, negitivity you can leave.
however i did enjoy parts of this and most of your other posts; ... very nice :)
hmmm ppc g7 anyone??(i kid i kid)

cluthz
Jun 9, 2010, 04:19 AM
What is up with all the hostility here?

People must be able to express their opinion, no matter what it is.
I've been a mac use for twenty years now, I've had several 68k macs, PowerPC 601,603,604,G3,G4 and G5.

I love the PowerPC, but today I choose Intel macs, for the sole reason of productivity.

I can do everything I did on my G5 in half the time on my i5, everything!
The G5 cannot run much of the new software, the MBP i5 run everything I ran on the G5.

Running virtual machine on a G5 is useless, since Mac OS and YDL linux is about anything that runs.

zmttoxics
Jun 9, 2010, 06:29 AM
wow, dude chill a bit. im sorry if that offended you.
i was generalizing.(ex. main mac usage is intel thus "intel guy" conversly main mac usage is ppc thus "ppc guy") i was not attempting to even start anything
also i do think quit a few of us realize the diferences between PowerPC and IBM POWER.
you seem to be a unix/high end server guy and i respect that, but if you want to trash my humble littly ppc advantages thread with, negitivity you can leave.
however i did enjoy parts of this and most of your other posts; ... very nice :)
hmmm ppc g7 anyone??(i kid i kid)

I am generally cool as a cucumber when I post on these forums. Getting upset on the internet doesn't help anyways. Sorry if you felt offended, but no harm intended. :D

g3powerbook boy
Jun 9, 2010, 07:25 AM
it seems to me that someone doesnt like to use a good reliable system... they must still be a fan of windoze as well. must miss the bsod, random shutdowns and the famous internet explorer has encountered a problem and must close message numerous times a day. I for one would much rather use one of my g 3 or g4 macs than ever deal with windoze or intel or microsoft again period. hopefully apple will decide to go back to the ppc or design their own chip again and leave intel starving.

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 9, 2010, 07:47 AM
Running virtual machine on a G5 is useless, since Mac OS and YDL linux is about anything that runs.

Don't forget about older versions of Ubuntu and current versions of Debian! ;)

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 9, 2010, 07:57 AM
hopefully apple will decide to go back to the ppc or design their own chip again and leave intel starving.

Hahaha... never going to happen, for PPC. Possibly for their own chip, but I doubt it.

I love my PPC Mac, but Intel is the way to go these days. I frequent this sub-forum a lot since I have a PPC Mac, but I see a lot of people here who are holding on to their old technology because they see a lot of "problems" with Intel Macs.

PPC for Mac is nearly dead. Apple supports it with only minor updates at this point (though, who knows, 10.5.9 could be just around the corner!). Yes, PPC chips are still being made, mostly for use in the XBox 360 and PS3, but you can't run Mac OS on them anyway, so what's the point?

For all those here who are holding out because they hear about so many more problems on Intel than on PPC, don't forget that Apple is selling well over 2x as many Macs now as they did at even the best during the days of PPC. Thus you are likely to hear about well over 2x as many problems if Apple's build quality remains the same. Current Intel Macs have issues? Well, many aluminum PBG4s commonly have one of the RAM slots completely fail. Liquid-cooled G5s sometimes spring leaks. PPC Macs have problems too. Less problems, maybe, but there are less PPC Macs to have problems.

Don't get me wrong... I think the PPC architecture was a fantastic one, and they're rock-solid and built to last. Still, even the fastest ones are getting a little long in the tooth. When I have enough money, I'll be getting an Intel Mac but I'll surely keep this one around until it's dead.

zmttoxics
Jun 9, 2010, 08:10 AM
it seems to me that someone doesnt like to use a good reliable system... they must still be a fan of windoze as well. must miss the bsod, random shutdowns and the famous internet explorer has encountered a problem and must close message numerous times a day. I for one would much rather use one of my g 3 or g4 macs than ever deal with windoze or intel or microsoft again period. hopefully apple will decide to go back to the ppc or design their own chip again and leave intel starving.

It seems to be someone is making assumptions and accusations. Windows crashing and being a piece of crap has nothing to do with the cpu it runs on. Assuming new Macs are junk because they are Intel based is a farce.

Now new Macs have issues, granted, but they aren't CPU related. On the same token, old Macs had issues too, and many were CPU related (more notable to the g5 series).

g3powerbook boy
Jun 9, 2010, 08:46 AM
I have had far more problems with my compaq desktop namely 2 motherboard failures 2 ram card failures and 2 intel processors replaced when it was under warranty so yes intel is crap. still use it sometimes but it is now running ubuntu
10.04 and so far it tries to behave course i think the hd is about to puke. i have a g3 imac that has never had an issue, a g3 powerbook pismo that has never had an issue and a g4 titanium powerbook that works perfect. i would much rather use the ppc apples since they are far more reliable than intel and redmonds crap.

zmttoxics
Jun 9, 2010, 08:51 AM
I have had far more problems with my compaq desktop namely 2 motherboard failures 2 ram card failures and 2 intel processors replaced when it was under warranty so yes intel is crap. still use it sometimes but it is now running ubuntu
10.04 and so far it tries to behave course i think the hd is about to puke. i have a g3 imac that has never had an issue, a g3 powerbook pismo that has never had an issue and a g4 titanium powerbook that works perfect. i would much rather use the ppc apples since they are far more reliable than intel and redmonds crap.

Still not related. If anything you should be upset with Compaq for using low grade motherboards.

666sheep
Jun 9, 2010, 09:35 AM
I think, that most of you here are going wrong way (with all respect). It's not the point which architecture is better or worse, but who needs what. For some PPC is old, dead and outdated, for others it's still good and doing its job as they need.

There is nothing to argue about, i think.

Apple abandoned PPC architecture due to their new marketing strategy (getting new customers from Windows side, virtualization abilities etc) and some technical limitations (like lack of G5 mobile chips) and don't know what else...
It was their choice and from financial point of view they're succeeded. Market share is bigger, shareholders are happy, incomes are growing.

Now it's all matter of users needs. You can be happy with PPC nowadays, but you need to precise your expectations. If they match with PPC abilities, it's just fine. If not - get Intel (which BTW is not "bad", it gives other abilities simply).

I own MP 2006 and it's good, powerful (for my needs) and reliable machine. I also own about 10+ working PPC Macs and they do what i expect from them. It's not possible for me to use all of them at once, but i can tell, that at least 4 are used everyday for different purposes.
Besides, i'm hardware maniac and nothing gives me more fun, than fixing, overclocking and upgrading (my or other's) PPC or Intel Macs. I prefer doing that with PPC ones, because i got better knowledge of this hardware (and more experience with it). And, as i wrote before, for me PPC Macs got "that thing", i cannot find it in present Intel Macs. Maybe it's nostalgy, who knows, i can't name it... I'm Mac user since middle '90s and i can't tell honestly which architecture is better. For sure both are different and giving different abilities to users.

That's what i think about PPC vs Intel "wars" :)
Excuse me too long story (not boring, i hope).

zen.state
Jun 9, 2010, 09:41 AM
Words of wisdom 666sheep. Well said.

Unenlightened tech chasers will just never understand people like us. :(

zen.state
Jun 9, 2010, 09:54 AM
Don't forget about older versions of Ubuntu and current versions of Debian! ;)

Ubuntu PowerPC is kept up to the newest version. It's simply just a month or two behind as now it is strictly a community project. I am pretty sure that Ubuntu still hosts the PowerPC recompiles.

max¥¥
Jun 9, 2010, 04:31 PM
It seems to be someone is making assumptions and accusations. Windows crashing and being a piece of crap has nothing to do with the cpu it runs on. Assuming new Macs are junk because they are Intel based is a farce.

Now new Macs have issues, granted, but they aren't CPU related. On the same token, old Macs had issues too, and many were CPU related (more notable to the g5 series).
you to are making assumptions, never herd of g5's having cpu problems, lcs and psu no cpu problems, heard of one of to g4's failing, but that's it

DesmoPilot
Jun 9, 2010, 05:03 PM
you to are making assumptions, never herd of g5's having cpu problems, lcs and psu no cpu problems, heard of one of to g4's failing, but that's it

Well I am not making assumptions as I speak from experience. Used to get quite a few G5s in the shop; dead logic boards, CPUs and PSUs were very common (most common being dead PSUs). G5s definitely had a higher then average failure rate (especially with the liquid cooled models; those were nightmares). Had many days where all I would do was fix and troubleshoot G5s. It was not uncommon for us to have to replace the logic board and PSUs 2-3 times on the same machine. I remember one horror story especially; one of our customer's went through 5 G5 CPUs and two logicboards in about a year (needless to say he was happy he bought AppleCare).

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 9, 2010, 05:04 PM
I have had far more problems with my compaq desktop...

...because it's a Compaq and they use crappy hardware. Did the processors themselves die, or just the poor quality motherboard?

Comparing Compaq to Apple is like comparing Kia (of 10 years ago) to Mercedes/BMW/Audi/high-end car manufacturer of your choice.

flopticalcube
Jun 9, 2010, 05:04 PM
Well I am not making assumptions as I speak from experience. Used to get quite a few G5s in the shop; dead logic boards, CPUs and PSUs were very common (most common being dead PSUs). G5s definitely had a higher then average failure rate (especially with the liquid cooled models; those were nightmares). Had many days where all I would do was fix and troubleshoot G5s. It was not uncommon for us to have to replace the logic board and PSUs 2-3 times on the same machine. I remember one horror story especially; one of our customer's went through 5 G5 CPUs and 2 logic boards in about a year (needless to say he was happy he bought AppleCare).
Excessive heat?

DesmoPilot
Jun 9, 2010, 05:09 PM
Excessive heat?

In some cases I have no doubt that was the case; but the majority of our customers were pros or prosumers who knew how to handle/treat the hardware. Stress testing the G5s they didn't get that hot (maxing at about 80c after 12+ hours, hot yes, but not really anything to worry about); IMO it boils down to below average quality hardware.

zen.state
Jun 9, 2010, 05:16 PM
Well I am not making assumptions as I speak from experience. Used to get quite a few G5s in the shop; dead logic boards, CPUs and PSUs were very common (most common being dead PSUs). G5s definitely had a higher then average failure rate (especially with the liquid cooled models; those were nightmares). Had many days where all I would do was fix and troubleshoot G5s. It was not uncommon for us to have to replace the logic board and PSUs 2-3 times on the same machine. I remember one horror story especially; one of our customer's went through 5 G5 CPUs, 2 logic boards and two PSUs in about a year (needless to say he was happy he bought AppleCare).

I have read a few G5 horror stories for sure. Of all the Gx chips it seemed the G5 chip and systems had the most issue. I actually read somewhere that the failure rate of the original dual 2GHz was around 17%.

Any of the non-liquid cooled G5 towers that are still living though tend to be pretty solid machines.

PowerPC chips and boards got worse stability wise when apple put their faith in IBM. All the joint Motorola/IBM chips and solo Motorola (all the Apple used G4 chips) were very stable and still run today. When IBM took the Apple PowerPC torch alone I think that is the main reason for the PowerPC no longer being used.

My favorite PowerPC chips are the 7448 and 7455. Long live Freescale!

hansolo669
Jun 9, 2010, 05:45 PM
@zmttoxics
lol man sorry sounded as though you were a bit annoyed :P , i wasnt offended at all :) infact arguments like that add to this thread, i guess i was venting on all the hate about ppc earler, also i was kinda tired not good :P
any how, i need a new vid card for my pmac, and some advice:
i bought the pmac from a company and within the "warrenty" period the vid card borked. so i send it back to them. that was in 2009, this is 2010, i still havent gotten it. advice? it just seems like poor buisness ethics.
(sorry about jacking my own thread)

g3powerbook boy
Jun 9, 2010, 07:19 PM
I think the main issue here is that the true apples were the apples with the ppc chip. im sure that the users/owners of the real apples with the ppc chip will agree:p

MacHamster68
Jun 9, 2010, 09:38 PM
i agree
i could no imagine to buy a Apple Mac without a powerpc processor ,
i mean the intel Mac's are not bad , but at least for me in a Mac belongs a powerpc processor ,
and the new Mac's lost the charm , they are just pimped pc's with a apple badge on and worst of all are made in china ,"made in china " never stood for high quality products anyway "made in china "stand just for cheaply made products that deliver a high profit margin to the company selling them

zen.state
Jun 9, 2010, 09:47 PM
i agree
i could no imagine to buy a Apple Mac without a powerpc processor ,
i mean the intel Mac's are not bad , but at least for me in a Mac belongs a powerpc processor ,
and the new Mac's lost the charm , they are just pimped pc's with a apple badge on and worst of all are made in china ,"made in china " never stood for high quality products anyway "made in china "stand just for cheaply made products that deliver a high profit margin to the company selling them


Couldn't agree more :)

KeriJane
Jun 9, 2010, 10:31 PM
Where were the G5-era Macs made?

I know the old Macs came from California but when did they move to China?

I'm a bit of a technician for a living. Not to get too far off topic but...
The build quality of my Mac Pro is fantastic. The fit and finish of the metal parts amaze me. Not even a $300+ Lian-Li PC case matches it.
The PSU is an unstoppable tank, cooling is phenomenal, it's just physically astounding inside and out.

Then I salvaged the poor broken G5 iMac and had a look around. Other than some cheaper capacitors in a very hot place of the PSU, the build quality was as good as the MP. The components such as internal fans, speakers, CPU cooling parts, even the metal chassis itself... all made to a high standard and finish even though practically no customers will ever see them.

Being used to "cost effective" PC construction, it's a bit of a shock.

Seeing the internal attention to detail, it's a wonder that Macs cost as LITTLE as they do.

So my questions to the more experienced are:
Has Apple always been this fanatical with their build quality?
I am aware of the difference between the words FASTER and BETTER, but what is the "better" part of the PPC architecture? There apparently is one, else the Space Industry, IBM, etc... would use something else.

Thanks for any insight.... I'm just curious.
Keri

PS> I strongly suspect that Apple is going to eventually drop Intel CPUs.
Why? Mostly because they have the resources to make something better (for their purposes) and maybe just a tiny bit to separate themselves from the PC crowd. The x86's ancient, backwards roots and holdovers (for PC compatibility reasons) has gotta be driving them nuts.
Maybe ARM / A-Series for portables and ??? for Desktops?

666sheep
Jun 10, 2010, 02:57 AM
Well I am not making assumptions as I speak from experience. Used to get quite a few G5s in the shop; dead logic boards, CPUs and PSUs were very common (most common being dead PSUs). G5s definitely had a higher then average failure rate (especially with the liquid cooled models; those were nightmares). Had many days where all I would do was fix and troubleshoot G5s. It was not uncommon for us to have to replace the logic board and PSUs 2-3 times on the same machine. I remember one horror story especially; one of our customer's went through 5 G5 CPUs and two logicboards in about a year (needless to say he was happy he bought AppleCare).

My 5 cents in matter of PM G5 CPU failures: from my experience (not that big as your's OFC) mostly it was defective thermic sensor on CPU daughtercard, not CPU itself. But OFC only solution was to replace whole dcard.

MacHamster68
Jun 10, 2010, 06:13 AM
i dont know if IBM power 6+ or power7 would be a alternative to intel for Mac's ,
but what about these processors here i mean the more cores the better or ?

http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php
and these tilera processors offer up to 100 cores :D

g3powerbook boy
Jun 10, 2010, 07:21 AM
thats a good question... but heres the thing what intel based computer is still working as good as it did when it was new 10 + years ago? my g3 powerbook pismo was built in 2000 and it works much better than my moms year old dell and never saw the apple store except to get a battery and new carrying case 5 years ago.

zmttoxics
Jun 10, 2010, 07:38 AM
thats a good question... but heres the thing what intel based computer is still working as good as it did when it was new 10 + years ago? my g3 powerbook pismo was built in 2000 and it works much better than my moms year old dell and never saw the apple store except to get a battery and new carrying case 5 years ago.

I still have at least 2 Dell GX50 (150s?) with P3 900s running linux as dev servers (internal sites / bug trackers), in the office. I have some that are even older machines. Intel chips are solid. Where the cheapness comes in is in the motherboards, ram, power supplies and other parts the big OEMs are in charge of.

MacHamster68
Jun 10, 2010, 10:11 AM
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

zen.state
Jun 10, 2010, 10:26 AM
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

That is the exact thing that these mindless GHz chasers will simply never understand. The way you just put it says it all pretty simply.

max¥¥
Jun 10, 2010, 10:31 AM
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

couldn't agree more, my dad's mac pro feels like one of my hackintosh pc laptops, also i am not a big fan of the new designs i think the g3 - g4 macs looked the best

zen.state
Jun 10, 2010, 10:37 AM
couldn't agree more, my dad's mac pro feels like one of my hackintosh pc laptops, also i am not a big fan of the new designs i think the g3 - g4 macs looked the best

I know what you mean. I sold the intel mini I use to have to buy my G4 1.8GHz upgrade. :)

aliensporebomb
Jun 11, 2010, 03:52 PM
I've got 3 in-house but only one gets regular use.

-Performa 6400 (PowerPC 603ev) - not really used
-Sawtooth G4/400 - rarely used

Main machine is a G5 2.5 dual processor, 8 gigs of ram, nVidia 7800GS with 256 megs, and 4.7 TB of disc.

Why do I use it? It's been my main machine for the last five years or so. I haven't upgraded since the wife got hers upgraded first.

It's still pretty fast and respectable. Its best days are behind it but it still cranks along and the nVidia video card replaced the Radeon 9600XT it came with and gave it new life and zip. Almost 2000fps at 1920x1080 for OpenGL.

It will eventually get replaced but the case is so gorgeous I'll keep it around - maybe I'll use the case for a hackintosh some day.

thunng8
Jun 11, 2010, 07:48 PM
i dont know if IBM power 6+ or power7 would be a alternative to intel for Mac's ,
but what about these processors here i mean the more cores the better or ?


The IBM Power series theoretically can be used since they are fully backward compatible with PowerPC. However, I doubt that would ever happen. For one thing, they are would be expensive and IBM does not make a low power version suitable for laptops.

Would be interesting though since the Power7 series absolutely clobbers the fastest Intel server chip in performance. Power usage isn't too bad either.

Power7 3.8Ghz 8 core is a 200W chip and does ~330/290 in specint_rate/fp_rate (an industry standard cross platform cpu benchmark)

and the top end

Intel Xeon x7560 2.26Ghz 8 core is a 130W chip that does ~190/140 in the same benchmark

g3powerbook boy
Jun 12, 2010, 06:38 AM
seeing as apple is looking for another 3g carrier for its iphone and ipad...it wouldnt suprise me if they went with another processor chip for their computers... it would be nice to see a version of the ppc chip again, and if we did it would give me a good reason to buy a new laptop.

Go HAWKS...stanley cup in 2011 again...

MacHamster68
Jun 12, 2010, 10:30 AM
The IBM Power series theoretically can be used since they are fully backward compatible with PowerPC. However, I doubt that would ever happen. For one thing, they are would be expensive and IBM does not make a low power version suitable for laptops.

Would be interesting though since the Power7 series absolutely clobbers the fastest Intel server chip in performance. Power usage isn't too bad either.

Power7 3.8Ghz 8 core is a 200W chip and does ~330/290 in specint_rate/fp_rate (an industry standard cross platform cpu benchmark)

and the top end

Intel Xeon x7560 2.26Ghz 8 core is a 130W chip that does ~190/140 in the same benchmark

i know that the power 7 is a lot faster , i have a bladecenter with a power6+running at 4.2ghz , and the 3.8 power7 is not even the top end, i think power 7 tops beyond 4 ghz too , and what speaks against two suppliers for processors ? one for desktops and one for laptops and iMacs
and when we are about it already why not bring back the eMac , then fitted with a power 6+ and 4ghz , and i even care less if windows would run on it,so choosing a processor only to be able to run windows seems pathetic

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 12, 2010, 08:50 PM
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

I always thought that it was the end-user experience that made Macs unique. I love my PPC Mac, but any current Intel Mac is faster in every way. My PPC Mac works well, but it's slow. Apart from putting a 7200rpm HDD in it, there's nothing more I can do to upgrade it.

Then I use a quad core 27" iMac from my school and it does everything in 1/10th of the time. I'm not a "GHz chaser" as zen.state likes to call them, but if a computer does everything in 1/10th of the time (or less) it's better. I must say it would be nice if my 7 minute clip in FCP didn't take over 2 hours to render out to MPEG-4.

PPC was great in it's day, but it can no longer compete against today's Macs in terms of performance. Those who say modern Macs feel like Hackintoshes... what are you talking about? Hackintoshes can't do system updates, Macs can. Hackintoshes take hours of work to make stable (sometimes), Macs don't. I've used a Mac Pro and a PowerMac G5. They both feel the same (apart from the fact that a Mac Pro is faster). To be honest, I think it's all in your head.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad thing to stick with your PPC Mac. I stick with mine. But I also know that it, as a machine, is inferior to modern Macs. As for longevity, Intel Macs simply haven't been around long enough to show it. Arguing on the basis of longevity is a flawed argument.

666sheep
Jun 13, 2010, 03:54 AM
My PPC Mac works well, but it's slow. Apart from putting a 7200rpm HDD in it, there's nothing more I can do to upgrade it.


Get rid of optical drive, get optibay and put there your HDD. Put SSD instead HDD as boot drive and your PB will fly :) This is ALL you can do. It will not increase processing power OFC, but will make using this laptop much, much more comfortable.

max¥¥
Jun 13, 2010, 03:59 AM
I always thought that it was the end-user experience that made Macs unique. I love my PPC Mac, but any current Intel Mac is faster in every way. My PPC Mac works well, but it's slow. Apart from putting a 7200rpm HDD in it, there's nothing more I can do to upgrade it.

Then I use a quad core 27" iMac from my school and it does everything in 1/10th of the time. I'm not a "GHz chaser" as zen.state likes to call them, but if a computer does everything in 1/10th of the time (or less) it's better. I must say it would be nice if my 7 minute clip in FCP didn't take over 2 hours to render out to MPEG-4.

PPC was great in it's day, but it can no longer compete against today's Macs in terms of performance. Those who say modern Macs feel like Hackintoshes... what are you talking about? Hackintoshes can't do system updates, Macs can. Hackintoshes take hours of work to make stable (sometimes), Macs don't. I've used a Mac Pro and a PowerMac G5. They both feel the same (apart from the fact that a Mac Pro is faster). To be honest, I think it's all in your head.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad thing to stick with your PPC Mac. I stick with mine. But I also know that it, as a machine, is inferior to modern Macs. As for longevity, Intel Macs simply haven't been around long enough to show it. Arguing on the basis of longevity is a flawed argument.
hackintoshs can do system updates as of 10.6! i was just saying that my dad's mac pro looks and feels more like a pc

peakchua
Jun 13, 2010, 07:44 AM
I To am a PowerPC Mac Fan. I Never owned a PowerPC Mac. But i fixed a Teachers that used it. I LOVED IT... it felt more stable and ran more clean. i Also love the whole PowerPC Architecture. I HATE CISC chips... i wish Apple would of stayed with IBM... i miss PowerPC So much!

apple switched because ibm only cared about performance, no enviornmental effecnicny... if so, apple would still use a powerbook g4, and more. ibm only cares about their servers etc. THE G5 was damn hot, dangerous and apple couldnt keep up in their development projects and compatibility. one of the major reasons why people buy macs today is because they can run winblows and mac os x. ppcs couldnt do that, no ppc procesccor has run winblows in YEARs! i think intel switch was a good choice and apple did it at a good time.. though the g4 and g3 :apple: was pro. the g5 was the worst power pc procesor built! for many obvious reasons. p4 was better than g5 no doubt.

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 13, 2010, 08:45 AM
Get rid of optical drive, get optibay and put there your HDD. Put SSD instead HDD as boot drive and your PB will fly :) This is ALL you can do. It will not increase processing power OFC, but will make using this laptop much, much more comfortable.

You're right. However, I don't want to sink that kind of money into this machine for a relatively marginal performance boost when I should just buy a new computer entirely.

And, actually, it would be better to put the SSD in the optibay since I can use the optibay to get SATA, whereas I'd have to find an IDE SSD for the main drive bay and those are even more expensive.

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 13, 2010, 08:48 AM
apple switched because ibm only cared about performance, no enviornmental effecnicny

Out of curiosity, where did you get this information? I always understood it to be that Apple switched because IBM couldn't get the G5 powerful enough (after they reached a certain point they had massive issues trying to get it to go faster safely) nor could they get it cool enough for a laptop.

stevemiller
Jun 13, 2010, 09:39 AM
i have a ppc tower sitting next to me that i use on a regular basis, so i'm hoping that qualifies me to post in this nook of the forum. i say "qualifies" because there seems to be a very elitist attitude floating around. case in point whenever someone categorizes intel users as "mindless" or "unenlightened." it doesn't matter how small this area is in an "intel biased" forum, talking like that just makes you seem like a douchebag. and yes i'd say the same of anyone else that similarly demeaned ppc users.

as an animator in a small company who often has to pull all-nighter after all-nighter to meet deadlines, i can assure you that needing the speediest solution possible when i hit the render button has nothing to do with being a mindless spec-junkie and everything to do with wanting to preserve my health and sanity.

like i said, i have my g5 tower which i still love and use for plenty of tasks. i'm also pretty sure that apple's standards have indeed been slipping, at very least in the software department - snow leopard has been a ****-show for me in terms of wireless reliability, memory management, etc.

but all that said, dedicating a thread to essentially trash talking anyone who doesn't "get" how superior your computer is, belies a fundamental insecurity in the same way the general mac community makes a bad name for itself by needing to constantly belittle windows users.

i can understand a fascination and appreciation for the design of a particular tool, but at the end of the day you have to respect that for most people it is a tool (that is, a means to an end, not an end unto itself). the ppc might be a beautifully designed tool and indeed better at some things, but it is not the best tool for every task. enjoy it for what it is, but goodness sakes, don't be a snob about it.

max¥¥
Jun 13, 2010, 11:36 AM
i have a ppc tower sitting next to me that i use on a regular basis, so i'm hoping that qualifies me to post in this nook of the forum. i say "qualifies" because there seems to be a very elitist attitude floating around. case in point whenever someone categorizes intel users as "mindless" or "unenlightened." it doesn't matter how small this area is in an "intel biased" forum, talking like that just makes you seem like a douchebag. and yes i'd say the same of anyone else that similarly demeaned ppc users.

as an animator in a small company who often has to pull all-nighter after all-nighter to meet deadlines, i can assure you that needing the speediest solution possible when i hit the render button has nothing to do with being a mindless spec-junkie and everything to do with wanting to preserve my health and sanity.

like i said, i have my g5 tower which i still love and use for plenty of tasks. i'm also pretty sure that apple's standards have indeed been slipping, at very least in the software department - snow leopard has been a ****-show for me in terms of wireless reliability, memory management, etc.

but all that said, dedicating a thread to essentially trash talking anyone who doesn't "get" how superior your computer is, belies a fundamental insecurity in the same way the general mac community makes a bad name for itself by needing to constantly belittle windows users.

i can understand a fascination and appreciation for the design of a particular tool, but at the end of the day you have to respect that for most people it is a tool (that is, a means to an end, not an end unto itself). the ppc might be a beautifully designed tool and indeed better at some things, but it is not the best tool for every task. enjoy it for what it is, but goodness sakes, don't be a snob about it.

what we where saying is that there where some users that came and in every thread asking for help with a ppc mac would say "don't bother go buy an intel mini", but most of them have gone now, most of us have intel mac's too we are just saying why we like ppc macs

flopticalcube
Jun 13, 2010, 11:50 AM
Out of curiosity, where did you get this information? I always understood it to be that Apple switched because IBM couldn't get the G5 powerful enough (after they reached a certain point they had massive issues trying to get it to go faster safely) nor could they get it cool enough for a laptop.
It was a computing power per watt issue. The Core architecture from Intel allowed them to put very fast processors into low power packages. Apple saw the trend towards mobile and thin desktops and decided it needed to go down this route. Nothing on the PPC horizon could match Intel's roadmap in terms of power per watt.

thunng8
Jun 13, 2010, 02:36 PM
It was a computing power per watt issue. The Core architecture from Intel allowed them to put very fast processors into low power packages. Apple saw the trend towards mobile and thin desktops and decided it needed to go down this route. Nothing on the PPC horizon could match Intel's roadmap in terms of power per watt.

IBM wasn't that interested in spending a huge amount of money developing a new chip for Apple unless Apple at least paid partially for its development. Case in point was the 970MP which was the dual core G5 chip. This was still based on the IBM Power4 chip design, but at the time of release, IBM already was on the Power5/Power5+ chip which included an on-die memory controller and SMT (multithreading). With so little interest from IBM, Apple made the right decision to switch.

FYI, As of today, IBM's Power7 series clobbers the fastest nehalem chips in performance and has better perf/watt when compared in the highend server chip context.

thunng8
Jun 13, 2010, 02:41 PM
i know that the power 7 is a lot faster , i have a bladecenter with a power6+running at 4.2ghz , and the 3.8 power7 is not even the top end, i think power 7 tops beyond 4 ghz too

The top end for now is a 8 core Power7 running at 3.8Ghz. It can be configured to disable 4 of its core and increase frequency to 4.14Ghz.

MacHamster68
Jun 13, 2010, 04:54 PM
ok but still nice processor for a PowerMac ... a quad core with 4.14ghz and thats not overclocked ..and i guess a eight core with 3.8ghz is fast enough too for most things :D
i still think about how i could get the board with the power6+ of my BladeCenter into my eMac ok its only a dual core processor running at 4.2ghz but could be overclocked to over 5 ghz if i am not mistaken ...it just does not fit right in ...anybody here who could redesign a board from scratch ?
and anybody who could make osx tiger run on it ???... would be the fastest eMac on earth ready to take on the intels and would show apple what they missed out :D

just dreaming a bit ....:(

Sun Baked
Jun 13, 2010, 05:07 PM
IBM wasn't that interested in spending a huge amount of money developing a new chip for Apple unless Apple at least paid partially for its development. Case in point was the 970MP which was the dual core G5 chip. This was still based on the IBM Power4 chip design, but at the time of release, IBM already was on the Power5/Power5+ chip which included an on-die memory controller and SMT (multithreading). With so little interest from IBM, Apple made the right decision to switch.

FYI, As of today, IBM's Power7 series clobbers the fastest nehalem chips in performance and has better perf/watt when compared in the highend server chip context.

I haven't been keeping up, but I think for the next generation game machines that IBM basically lead MS and Sony down the same path to a roadblock.

Likely they will have the same offer as Apple had from IBM, pay for the development of the next CPU on your roadmap, or use this older technology from the Power Series or IBM might feel good and let them have a Power7 Lite.

MacHamster68
Jun 13, 2010, 05:44 PM
i still believe in tradition even if it means a bit less power and a bit higher powerconsumption , and i think Apple should have offered to their loyal customers a PPC Mac , instead of only thinking about market shares and profit
i mean we all know by now about the 7448 processor and that its not a slow sluggish processor by any standard... an still available
they could have offered it as entry level in a g5 case to match the modern design of Apple if needed , or maybe in a mini (could be a bit hot inside ),or in a eMac which would not mind a hotter processor inside due to the very effective heatpipe and fan :)

g3powerbook boy
Jun 13, 2010, 06:34 PM
hopefully i will never have to buy another computer with an intel chip. i will always perfer to use my ppc based macs over the newer compaq i have running ubuntu linux or the newer gateway laptop i have anyday. i will constantly check the craigslist ads for my area and look for reasonably priced decent shape g3 or g4 powerbooks and ibooks so if something happens to one i have and cant be fixed... i will have another ppc mac to use.

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 13, 2010, 10:47 PM
I'm interested to see how long that will last ;)

Again, comparing Macs to Compaq or Gateway is a bad comparison. Get a quality Intel machine and then compare...

MacHamster68
Jun 14, 2010, 04:59 AM
I'm interested to see how long that will last ;)

Again, comparing Macs to Compaq or Gateway is a bad comparison. Get a quality Intel machine and then compare...

as compaq belongs to Hp its as much quality you can get with a intel processor inside, you can get more expensive but not necessary better , maybe the outside of new Mac's looks better for some , but the main parts inside are the same (necessary so windows will run on a mac )

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 14, 2010, 06:47 AM
as compaq belongs to Hp its as much quality you can get with a intel processor inside, you can get more expensive but not necessary better , maybe the outside of new Mac's looks better for some , but the main parts inside are the same (necessary so windows will run on a mac )

Hahaha. Compaq may be owned by HP, but that's not saying much. For one thing, HP isn't very high quality either. A quick Google search reveals that much. For another thing, just because one company owns another doesn't mean the quality is the same. For example, Honda owns Acura. Does this mean that Hondas are the same quality as Acuras? No way.

Not that Hondas are poor quality at all! But they're not the same level of quality as Acura. However, HP is fairly poor quality to begin with. Compaq is a big step down from that.

belvdr
Jun 14, 2010, 06:55 AM
Hahaha. Compaq may be owned by HP, but that's not saying much. For one thing, HP isn't very high quality either. A quick Google search reveals that much. For another thing, just because one company owns another doesn't mean the quality is the same. For example, Honda owns Acura. Does this mean that Hondas are the same quality as Acuras? No way.

Not that Hondas are poor quality at all! But they're not the same level of quality as Acura. However, HP is fairly poor quality to begin with. Compaq is a big step down from that.

Check out the HP servers. They dropped the NetServer line after the acquisition of Compaq, as the Proliants were much better than NetServer ever could be. On top of that, the Superdomes are rock solid.

Also, Hondas are known for their quality. They run and run for a long time, and it is pretty common knowledge. You couldn't be further from reality. In fact, comparing Hondas and Acuras is pretty dumb. A lot of times, they share the same engines and such. Acura is merely a more plush brand for folks with more money.

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 14, 2010, 07:26 AM
Check out the HP servers. They dropped the NetServer line after the acquisition of Compaq, as the Proliants were much better than NetServer ever could be. On top of that, the Superdomes are rock solid.

Good point. I was referring to consumer products from HP (such as their laptops).

Also, Hondas are known for their quality. They run and run for a long time, and it is pretty common knowledge. You couldn't be further from reality. In fact, comparing Hondas and Acuras is pretty dumb. A lot of times, they share the same engines and such. Acura is merely a more plush brand for folks with more money.

You haven't told me anything I don't know ;) I own a Honda, my parents own 2, and they're all rock-solid reliable. In fact, in my post that you quoted, I acknowledged that they are indeed good quality, so there's no need to point it out to me.

However, Acuras eclipse Hondas when it comes to quality of make. While the engines are sometimes the same (though just as often not), the rest of the car build is much better. They are not simply more plush, they're built better. Take the Civic vs the Integra. I own a Civic, and a friend of mine owns an Integra of roughly the same year. Build quality of the Integra is way better than the already good build quality of the Civic.

I was trying to make the argument relative. While Hondas are certainly great quality, Acuras are (relatively) much better.

PowerGamerX
Jun 14, 2010, 11:56 AM
If you're going to be comparing Windows machines with Apple machines and want to *heh* go Apples to apples, I feel the only comparible quality machines are Lenovo ThinkPads, they are extremely robust, and while not the most attractive, can stand up to just about anything, IBM tech support's always been great too.

g3powerbook boy
Jun 14, 2010, 06:20 PM
i have to say that the think pads are decent... i have a 390x now as a back up laptop running ubuntu 10.04 linux it is a decent machine kinda on the heavy side but the only issues it has is the battery and i had to epoxy the hinges in since the case wore out. still though my g3 powerbook and g4 powerbook seem far superior to it.

bbergie
Jun 21, 2010, 01:44 PM
I use my 8-year old TiBook (OS X 10.4) as my primary computer, though I have a MacBook (granted, it's my wife's) and an Intel Mac mini (both run OS X 10.6) in the house.

I like the intel machines fine enough; they are undoubtedly fast and capable machines, but I still find a strong preference for my PPC machine. I'm not a power user, so brute processor strength doesn't have the appeal it does with most other users, but I do find that overall, my TiBook is more responsive on the things I care about and that the intel Macs are prone to lagging--even after all this transition time and the promise of a speedier Snow Leopard experience. Some things I've noticed:

1. transitioning to and from sleep is consistently faster, more responsive on my TiBook--likewise on powering down, though powering up is about the same.

2. downloading updates from Apple (or other parties) requires far fewer steps and clicking than the Intel machines. PPC is just easier. Also, firmware updates come frequently on the Intel machines. This is not my experience on the PPC machine, by a long shot. Installing updates takes an age, an absoulte age. Not so--ever--on my PPC TiBook. It's simply not the chore that it is on the Intel Macs.

3. launching programs, like iTunes, really lags on (at least) the Mac Mini. Launch times are pretty consistent the PPC machine.

With a smaller and smaller PPC user base on the Mac platform, we're pretty much below the radar or, more precisely, impervious to malware. :)

Carry-on PPC users.

zen.state
Jun 21, 2010, 01:53 PM
Check out the HP servers. They dropped the NetServer line after the acquisition of Compaq, as the Proliants were much better than NetServer ever could be. On top of that, the Superdomes are rock solid.

My father has an HP server from the PIII days. I think it's a 450MHz. The thing is built like a tank inside and out.

I upgraded the RAM for him once and was blown away by the build quality.

Apple2
Jun 26, 2010, 03:08 PM
I find PPC to be much faster and more reliable. My 1.8ghz G5 is faster than my dual core 2.6ghz imac. It has 2gb of RAM when the imac has 4!

bizzle
Jun 26, 2010, 05:28 PM
Here is a screen capture of a Photoshop benchmark showing a dual 1.8GHz 7448 actually outperforming both a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

That screenshot is Photoshop 8 aka CS1. CS was not a universal binary so Photoshop ran in Rosetta. Of course it'll be slower. PPC was never and will never be faster than just about any Intel Mac. Does that make PPC bad? Of course not, it's just not faster.

... I am on a 15" PowerBook G4 right now.

I love PowerPC because it reminds me of the old glory days of Apple before they were a mobile company, not delusions of it's performance over Intel.

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 26, 2010, 10:52 PM
2. downloading updates from Apple (or other parties) requires far fewer steps and clicking than the Intel machines. PPC is just easier.

For one thing, this is a function of the OS, not the hardware. Also, how many steps does it take on your Intel machines? It takes 4 clicks in Leopard and Snow Leopard (Apple -> Software Update -> Install -> OK after password) and I don't recall Tiger being any fewer.

Also, firmware updates come frequently on the Intel machines. This is not my experience on the PPC machine, by a long shot. Installing updates takes an age, an absoulte age. Not so--ever--on my PPC TiBook. It's simply not the chore that it is on the Intel Macs.

I think you mean software updates? Sounds like you're complaining that the software on your Intel Macs is still supported (and thus being updated) and you'd prefer less-supported (thus less updated) software...

3. launching programs, like iTunes, really lags on (at least) the Mac Mini. Launch times are pretty consistent the PPC machine.

Launching iTunes is way faster on my Dad's Mini than it is on my maxed out Alu PBG4.

76ShovelHead
Jun 29, 2010, 01:57 AM
I've always used PC's at home, however School used nothing but Apple Computers. Which is how they grew on me. I build my computers, an Intel CPU, compatible board, graphics card, and hard drive and optical drive, slap windows on there and its a real turd. Mac was different, whole different OS that didn't suck - and looked out of this world (tiger). It also used a completely different architecture that was much more faster and was inevitable from viruses. The countless hours spent to mask XP to look as if i had Mac. Now that Macs use Intel, its like its not even a Mac anymore - they completely stripped it of it's individuality. One can no longer call it a Mac, just another PC in a slick case with a gorgeous Operating System. I own a two PowerPC Macs (eMac, iMac G3) and both are Flawless. My PC's hard Drive just died right when my new eMac came in so this eMac has made it on my desk as my Primary desktop, and will stay that way - i Love it! all i need my PC for is my Web Design classes and storing files when the replacement drive arrives. I love my PowerPC Mac's! :apple:

MacHamster68
Jun 29, 2010, 04:56 AM
cant agree more especially the eMac's are much underrated , nearly indestructible and such a nice design , some say they are loud , but i don't think they are too loud ,i heard some PowerMac G4's which are much louder

MacsRgr8
Jun 29, 2010, 07:06 AM
I loved PPC.

My 2 favourites Macs of all time were PPC's. :)

- G3 Blue & White: The most advanced personal computer at its launch.
- G5 Quad. Simply the coolest name to say: "My Mac is a G5.... Quad".

But I am happy with the Intel switch. Yep, the "Power per Watt" is a good thing. I am so happy with my newest Mac mini... look at it!!! So cool! So "Apple"!!

Maybe the mid 2010 Mac mini has made it into my Top 3 Macs ever... yep.

Motorola and IBM let Apple down. The 500 MHz barrier was a huge issue back in the late 90's. IBM couldn't get the G5 @ 3 GHz in time, and it seemed impossible to manufacture a PowerBook G5.
That would have sounded cool too: "I have a PowerBook.... G5." :)

In short I love both-brained Macs. I still own quiet a lot of G3's, G4's and even have the Power Mac G5... Quad.
Yes, the G3's all still work.
I do believe that PPC brains last longer than Intel-brains...

iThinkergoiMac
Jun 29, 2010, 08:32 AM
So I have a question... what is it about PPCs that people here find so much more attractive (apart from durability which Intel Macs simply haven't had the test of time that PPC Macs have) than the faster Intel Macs?

I know not everyone needs the speed, I understand that. But a lot of people here are saying that since Apple switched to Intel, Macs have lost their individuality and are just like PCs now. This makes no sense to me... regardless of the hardware, your end-user experience is through the software.

I have Leopard on my PBG4. My school has Leopard on their Intel iMacs. The experience is identical (apart from the increased speed and software compatibility of the iMacs). Everything operates in exactly the same manner. So what is it about Intel Macs that make it seem like a PC even though it acts exactly the same (apart from SL of course)? Or are people that biased towards the sinking ship of PPC?

I use the word bias but I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. This whole thing strongly reminds me of the OS Classic (8.x, 9.x) vs OS X when it first came out.

Dane D.
Jun 29, 2010, 09:31 AM
So I have a question... what is it about PPCs that people here find so much more attractive (apart from durability which Intel Macs simply haven't had the test of time that PPC Macs have) than the faster Intel Macs?

I know not everyone needs the speed, I understand that. But a lot of people here are saying that since Apple switched to Intel, Macs have lost their individuality and are just like PCs now. This makes no sense to me... regardless of the hardware, your end-user experience is through the software.

I have Leopard on my PBG4. My school has Leopard on their Intel iMacs. The experience is identical (apart from the increased speed and software compatibility of the iMacs). Everything operates in exactly the same manner. So what is it about Intel Macs that make it seem like a PC even though it acts exactly the same (apart from SL of course)? Or are people that biased towards the sinking ship of PPC?

I use the word bias but I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. This whole thing strongly reminds me of the OS Classic (8.x, 9.x) vs OS X when it first came out.
For me it is the ability to boot into OS 9.2.2. I still play Unreal Tournament GOTY edition. I also like that PPCs use much less electric, my G3 runs 24/7. I have had one hardware issue with my G3, the Firewire port is acting up. I can't use my external CD burner anymore to burn CDs, so it is basically a reader now.

MacHamster68
Jun 29, 2010, 12:18 PM
maybe its the durability proven by countless ppc Macs still beeing used all over the world
but its also design , the newer intel Mac's somehow in my opinion just lag design , everything apple is producing looks now like a smaller or bigger ipad
even the new mini looks like they did cut out the middle of a iMac to get the apple on it , i dont know but this design looks boring to me
and mentioning the new mini , the mini was meant to be a entry level Mac , so everyone could afford one ..the base model now hits £649 , the original mini g4 did cost £339 for the base model , thats a huge difference of over £300 , ok apple calims its saving more power , but for how many decades do i have to let the mini run to recoup these £300 through energy saving

drewdle
Jun 29, 2010, 12:46 PM
I think it's a couple of things.

Firstly, yes, PPC is faster and/or more efficient in certain areas. Boot up time for my iMac under 10.4.11 is only a few seconds off the pace of my wife's MacBook (which is less than six months old). Shut down is about the same speed. Multitasking is a cinch. And updates and software code is far smaller, which does count for something. Every time a software patch comes out for Snow Leopard, it's 300-500Mb in size, and for what exactly? A few bug fixes? That's a massive patch. Contrast this with the 10.4.11 Combo Updater for PPC, which will update the initial 10.4 release of Tiger to the current version, eleven revisions in total, at 186Mb. Yes, we live in the world of broadband, but that doesn't mean we should throw all efficiency to the wind.

I think what Zen.State is trying to demonstrate with his example is that when Apple initially rolled out Intel it was a huge step back in performance on a number of fronts. Those with old software had to upgrade to take advantage of the platform's supposed gains. Saying, "well that's not fair because that software isn't Intel optimized" isn't exactly fair play, as when the Intel Macs first started shipping, there was a year gap between their release and an Intel native Adobe Creative Suite, so this is what prospective buyers were faced with. Snow Leopard is catching up to the performance of the PPC machines in terms of the aforementioned tasks because that's the basis on which the X86 platform works; run inefficient code at blistering speed, and the chips themselves are getting better and better. What Apple had in the PPC, however, was already super-efficient. What they needed instead was just a power boost and a re-engineering (similar to what Intel had to do to the Pentium 4 when it started melting holes in people's computers and they started switching to AMD). The G5 had it's issues, but it could have been replaced with something stellar.

~~

Secondly, in the earlier part of the decade, Apple was the "Think Different" company. Not the "Throw In The Towel" company. I think Macs lost a lot of soul when they switched to Intel. The designs became more bland, industrial, and simplified, as opposed to shaking things up like, say, the iMac G4, or sticking Blueberry colored panels on what was ostensibly a professional computer workstation (the B&W). They took chances, and now, they look deathly afraid of doing so. None of the designs that Apple has hatched recently, while pretty in their own way, were anything groundbreaking, just an evolution of what was already in place. Likewise, instead of building a PPC processor that could compete step-for-step with the Intel marketplace, Apple decided that it was better to join Intel and provide the ability to run Windows on a Mac for those not entirely sold on OS X.

What seemed so full of promise back in the day has proven to be kind of disappointing. Just my opinion of course.

SuperJudge
Jun 30, 2010, 08:53 AM
Likewise, instead of building a PPC processor that could compete step-for-step with the Intel marketplace, Apple decided that it was better to join Intel and provide the ability to run Windows on a Mac for those not entirely sold on OS X.
That's not entirely it.

Apple was dependent on the Motorola and IBM parts of the AIM alliance for their chips. Apple didn't own a fab or have in-house chip engineers in the PPC days. Motorola burned apple on the first gen of G4 chips when the 500MHz barrier couldn't be breached easily. IBM then burned Apple with the G5 chips, never delivering a 3.0GHz chip or one that could be placed in a laptop. Apple moved to Intel since they had been developing OS X in parallel for X86 since the beginning for this very sort of situation.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the Intel transition, especially in light of the current debacle over suitable chips for a next gen Mac Pro. While I'm thrilled to have fewer computers on my desk at work due to the awesomeness of virtualization, I have to agree that the industrial design of Apple's products is starting to feel kind of sterile. And then there's the fact that the low-end G4 towers have never been replicated in the line since then.

PPC machines have a certain aura about them that I really like. My primary machine at home is still a dual 800MHz Quicksilver. I've got a G3 iMac that I use for iTunes.

What can I say? The PPC Macs just exude cool.

drewdle
Jun 30, 2010, 12:33 PM
That's not entirely it.

Apple was dependent on the Motorola and IBM parts of the AIM alliance for their chips. Apple didn't own a fab or have in-house chip engineers in the PPC days. Motorola burned apple on the first gen of G4 chips when the 500MHz barrier couldn't be breached easily. IBM then burned Apple with the G5 chips, never delivering a 3.0GHz chip or one that could be placed in a laptop. Apple moved to Intel since they had been developing OS X in parallel for X86 since the beginning for this very sort of situation.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the Intel transition, especially in light of the current debacle over suitable chips for a next gen Mac Pro. While I'm thrilled to have fewer computers on my desk at work due to the awesomeness of virtualization, I have to agree that the industrial design of Apple's products is starting to feel kind of sterile. And then there's the fact that the low-end G4 towers have never been replicated in the line since then.

PPC machines have a certain aura about them that I really like. My primary machine at home is still a dual 800MHz Quicksilver. I've got a G3 iMac that I use for iTunes.

What can I say? The PPC Macs just exude cool.

I hadn't considered the manufacturing problems. Apple now has their own chip development company, however, in the guys who brought us the A4. You think perhaps they'll go back to work on a modern day PPC chipset, now that they're capable of rolling their own, so to speak? They certainly have the money to burn through experimentation so long as iPhone 4 doesn't take the ship down with it.

I agree with the cool. While I certainly appreciate that aluminum is easily recyclable, you could also leverage new technologies, like plant-based plastics, to start moving in the opposite direction. I liked everything they were up to design wise until the iMac G5 came out, which in plastic guise, looked like a poorly done shop project. The G4 is still the best looking computer ever made, and the transparent plastics used on the PowerMacs are still gorgeous to look at. Nothing has ever looked quite like them. Then again, I'm still of the opinion that Tiger was the prettiest iteration of OS X so far, brushed metal and all. So maybe I'm not the best judge of taste. ;)

MacHamster68
Jun 30, 2010, 01:31 PM
i agree totally apart you forgot to mention the eMac , which might not as pretty as the iMac g4 , but still had a really good design especially from the back

i personally have nothing against aluminium , but aluminium is not that easy to recycle as apple and others want us make to believe ..plastic recycling is far easier and costs less energy
but back to aluminium , the car industry shows us that aluminium
can have nice shapes which dont have to be boring
and then there are other materials too like carbon fibre , strong as steel but light and can be moulded in all sorts of shapes
Apple should encourage Jonathan Ive to use a bit of his past imagination
unibody might be easier to produce but it lags design

SuperJudge
Jun 30, 2010, 05:11 PM
I hadn't considered the manufacturing problems. Apple now has their own chip development company, however, in the guys who brought us the A4. You think perhaps they'll go back to work on a modern day PPC chipset, now that they're capable of rolling their own, so to speak? They certainly have the money to burn through experimentation so long as iPhone 4 doesn't take the ship down with it.

It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely that they'd do that except for maybe stuff like the Mac mini and the Apple TV.

The ARM chips like those in the iPad and iPhone just aren't suitable for the kind of heavy lifting that high-end desktops do. They're incredibly power efficient, but that will only get you so far.

DesmoPilot
Jun 30, 2010, 06:42 PM
I hadn't considered the manufacturing problems. Apple now has their own chip development company, however, in the guys who brought us the A4. You think perhaps they'll go back to work on a modern day PPC chipset, now that they're capable of rolling their own, so to speak?

Would be a pretty dumb move (for one they'd have to get rid of BootCamp, which I can tell you has been a huge selling point for Apple the last couple years); Intel's future looks quite bright (would look even brighter if they'd stop being a baby towards nVidia).

MacHamster68
Jun 30, 2010, 07:15 PM
these arm chips have a bit more to offer http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php
and would bring down apples ridiculous ghz race on their consumer Mac's which apple itself always always said is not necessary , at least thats what apple was telling us before the transition to intel , but i guess apple is not alone there its just that today it seems a quadcore processor is absolutely needed for word processing or for sending a email or for surfing in the deep space of the www , because thats what the majority of computer users do as the most demanding things on their computers :confused: but maybe its just me that got lost in time
i just think all should go back to reality , or past however you see it , in the ppc times if you did want a high performance Mac then you had to buy a powermac g3/g4/g5 , all others had been consumer Mac's e.g iMac , mini, and a laptop was never meant to replace a desktop ,
but today everything goes bonkers " help need a mini with a i7 processor and at least 3 ghz and 16 gb ram , a graphics card with at least 2 gb ram because the present intel one needs 0.8 seconds to open the macrumors forum and i cant play 10 different 1080p films simultaniously on 5 monitors " :confused: sorry for the exaggeration , but the mini was meant as a entry level Mac and it WAS the base 1.25 G4 did just cost £339, and did what its supposed to do and still does ,as a entry level Mac, but today the entry level mini cost double that , and maybe it is better in many ways , but its more then you need from a entry level Mac.
i took the mini because i think the best example because back then there was a clean cut between entry level consumer mac and pro Mac

zen.state
Jun 30, 2010, 07:29 PM
I would love a move back to PowerPC but I honestly can't imagine that will ever happen.

The sad fact is that in a few years I am going to have to bite the bullet and buy x86.

Brien
Jun 30, 2010, 07:38 PM
Eh, technology marches on. I'm happy with my MacBook Pro. The G4 has lasted me 10 years, but with the lack of support for 10.4 on the new iPhones and near-abandonement by developers of PPC (10.4 especially), it's time to move on.

MacHamster68
Jul 1, 2010, 12:17 AM
i refuse to move on ,nobody dictates me what i have to use and what i need ,
not even apple , and if software does not run on my ppc mac's then its not worth having that software , no need for software made by ........ who don't know how to code for ppc :D

tipman2000
Jul 1, 2010, 03:30 AM
i think that for my needs, a macbook is best, but even with the lightning-fast performance, i still would prefer ppc macs if i had to live with 1 architechure forever. i think part of the love of ppc macs that still lives on today is nostalgia, and another part is that i can pick up an old imac on craigslist for $20, of free, and still get tons of usage from it. you cant get an old intel based mac for $20. maybe the lowest would be $400 for an used early mac mini. unless you are a gamer or a professional that needs current software, ppc macs can do anything you throw at them. i personally over the years have owned like 8 ppc machines, 1 obook, 3 imac g3s, 3 powermacs, and an imac g4. i guess speed is not a real basis of comparison, considering that intel core was basically the generation succeeding ppc. intel macs are always faster, but ppc ones just feel so solid. whereas my macbook randomly has little jumps and pauses in basic tasks, ppc machines always feel like they are going at the same speed, and they dont randomly stop for no reason for a split second. my old ibook may not play youtube at 30fps, but at least it keeps playing at the same fps all the time. i also think that the designs for ppc based macs were superior. i could get deeper into this but i gotta get some sleep, so bye for now.

JaguarGod
Jul 2, 2010, 07:37 PM
I definitely think my use of PPC Macs has a lot to do with the fact that these machines have lasted me so long and that they were and still are so reliable. I use both PPC and intel Macs and though the intel Macs are faster at the tasks and games I need it for, my PPC Macs are simply super-stable. Also, as mentioned before, nostalgia plays a large factor. I still use my Sawtooth G4 along with the original graphite keyboard and hockey puck mouse.:cool: (though I did upgrade the processor)

DesmoPilot
Jul 3, 2010, 01:41 AM
I think it's a couple of things.

Firstly, yes, PPC is faster and/or more efficient in certain areas. Boot up time for my iMac under 10.4.11 is only a few seconds off the pace of my wife's MacBook (which is less than six months old). Shut down is about the same speed. Multitasking is a cinch. And updates and software code is far smaller, which does count for something. Every time a software patch comes out for Snow Leopard, it's 300-500Mb in size, and for what exactly? A few bug fixes? That's a massive patch. Contrast this with the 10.4.11 Combo Updater for PPC, which will update the initial 10.4 release of Tiger to the current version, eleven revisions in total, at 186Mb. Yes, we live in the world of broadband, but that doesn't mean we should throw all efficiency to the wind.

I think what Zen.State is trying to demonstrate with his example is that when Apple initially rolled out Intel it was a huge step back in performance on a number of fronts. Those with old software had to upgrade to take advantage of the platform's supposed gains. Saying, "well that's not fair because that software isn't Intel optimized" isn't exactly fair play, as when the Intel Macs first started shipping, there was a year gap between their release and an Intel native Adobe Creative Suite, so this is what prospective buyers were faced with. Snow Leopard is catching up to the performance of the PPC machines in terms of the aforementioned tasks because that's the basis on which the X86 platform works; run inefficient code at blistering speed, and the chips themselves are getting better and better. What Apple had in the PPC, however, was already super-efficient. What they needed instead was just a power boost and a re-engineering (similar to what Intel had to do to the Pentium 4 when it started melting holes in people's computers and they started switching to AMD). The G5 had it's issues, but it could have been replaced with something stellar.

~~

Secondly, in the earlier part of the decade, Apple was the "Think Different" company. Not the "Throw In The Towel" company. I think Macs lost a lot of soul when they switched to Intel. The designs became more bland, industrial, and simplified, as opposed to shaking things up like, say, the iMac G4, or sticking Blueberry colored panels on what was ostensibly a professional computer workstation (the B&W). They took chances, and now, they look deathly afraid of doing so. None of the designs that Apple has hatched recently, while pretty in their own way, were anything groundbreaking, just an evolution of what was already in place. Likewise, instead of building a PPC processor that could compete step-for-step with the Intel marketplace, Apple decided that it was better to join Intel and provide the ability to run Windows on a Mac for those not entirely sold on OS X.

What seemed so full of promise back in the day has proven to be kind of disappointing. Just my opinion of course.

PPC is not faster than Intel; you are high.

MacHamster68
Jul 3, 2010, 02:31 AM
no he is not :D because he said in certain areas

never heard of the megaherz myth ?
these nice story's about it ?
steve and others at apple told us about in several videos about how superior the ppc architecture is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYr-Tx8vEI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwBY2Vft7wY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve3O6VtBmdc&feature=related

drewdle
Jul 3, 2010, 02:40 AM
PPC is not faster than Intel; you are high.

I believe what I said was "faster in certain areas". Software update happens to be one of those areas. It's also far slower in other areas, such as Flash processing (or really video processing of any kind; you could encode a DVD in about five days with my iMac, which would only take 55 minutes on the MacBook). I also believe that I appreciated the speed of my machine to "a few seconds off the pace of my wife's MacBook", which is a far cry from "PPC is faster than Intel". I think the problem here is you're thinking in blanket statements, while I'm making a detailed analysis.

Though judging by your highly educated response, I'm sure you knew that.

DesmoPilot
Jul 3, 2010, 02:56 PM
no he is not :D because he said in certain areas

never heard of the megaherz myth ?
these nice story's about it ?
steve and others at apple told us about in several videos about how superior the ppc architecture is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYr-Tx8vEI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwBY2Vft7wY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve3O6VtBmdc&feature=related

Yes I know what the Megahertz myth is; fact is it just doesn't apply. These Intel chips are just plain faster; they're generations ahead. Hell, my Dual 1.25GHz MDD G4 had trouble with HD video (something a measly Intel Atom handles fine).

SuperJudge
Jul 3, 2010, 03:13 PM
(something a measly Intel Atom handles fine).

Not strictly true. The graphics chipset is where the HD decoding takes place.

But the benchmarks do speak for themselves. Even a Core Duo Mac mini bests a quad G5. However, there are other charms to PPC machines, especially the G4 and G5 towers.

zen.state
Jul 3, 2010, 03:21 PM
Judging a CPU strictly by how it plays video is pretty foolish. Computers can do many other things you know..

Besides, format is what it's all about. Flash is a CPU hog and offers bad quality. With divx/xvid you get much better quality and far less CPU consumption. I have watched 720p HD video on my single 1.8GHz G4 and it takes 40% CPU max.

max¥¥
Jul 4, 2010, 03:30 AM
is my g4 really that old:eek:

anyways i wouldn't say a atom would beat a g4, on boot up time my single 1.2 g4 thrashes my advent 4211 whether the advent boots osx windows xp or ubuntu

DesmoPilot
Jul 4, 2010, 05:33 PM
is my g4 really that old:eek:

anyways i wouldn't say a atom would beat a g4, on boot up time my single 1.2 g4 thrashes my advent 4211 whether the advent boots osx windows xp or ubuntu

Boot up speed has more to do with HDDs than anything else. Bootup/shutdown speeds are a pretty piss poor way to judge the "speed" of a computer.

DoFoT9
Jul 4, 2010, 05:40 PM
Yes I know what the Megahertz myth is; fact is it just doesn't apply. These Intel chips are just plain faster; they're generations ahead. Hell, my Dual 1.25GHz MDD G4 had trouble with HD video (something a measly Intel Atom handles fine).
you should be comparing apples to apples (so to speak). compare the highest end Intel Xeons to the highest end Power7 chips. then thats fair (p7 FLOGS btw)

macgeek18
Jul 4, 2010, 05:59 PM
I love PowerPC. They literally blow Intel Pentiums out of the water.I have 2 PowerMac G4's,a MDD and Quicksilver,both smoke my mom's HP Pentium 4 3Ghz desktop.She loved the quicksilver but never got used to the Mac OSX Leopard. :(

drewdle
Jul 4, 2010, 06:29 PM
While technology marches on, I think what we're seeing here is people hanging onto the last vestiges of machines that were built to last. I don't think PowerPC needs to prove anything in this regard; aside from problems caused by Apple's sometimes less-than-stalwart engineering decisions (so, whatever they did to the ice iBook, and the problems with G5 processor cooling) the machines have proven rock solid. There's no other reason for my B&W G3 to still be running, and yet, on fairly stock components, it still is. Ditto the iMac.

Also, if your needs haven't changed, why should your computer? If you computer does exactly what you need it to, and you're satisfied with it's performance, then more performance isn't really necessary. There's nothing wrong with embracing that concept and not running out to buy the latest and greatest every year.

Quad 2.5 G5 =)
Jul 7, 2010, 06:50 PM
I'd like to have Dual 1.8 7448 from Newertech, but its price kills my enthusiasm :( I got one nice Quicksilver, it would fit perfectly together...

Sell it and get a Mini. PPC is dead.
Kidding, completely kidding, I couldn't resist that after the anti "get a mini" rant.
Better yet, if you could afford it, get a G5. Mine is quite fast and nice, it can't do anything my Intel Macs can, and it does it with this really nice vintage feel to it that the Intels can't quite match.

Brien
Jul 7, 2010, 07:13 PM
While technology marches on, I think what we're seeing here is people hanging onto the last vestiges of machines that were built to last. I don't think PowerPC needs to prove anything in this regard; aside from problems caused by Apple's sometimes less-than-stalwart engineering decisions (so, whatever they did to the ice iBook, and the problems with G5 processor cooling) the machines have proven rock solid. There's no other reason for my B&W G3 to still be running, and yet, on fairly stock components, it still is. Ditto the iMac.

Also, if your needs haven't changed, why should your computer? If you computer does exactly what you need it to, and you're satisfied with it's performance, then more performance isn't really necessary. There's nothing wrong with embracing that concept and not running out to buy the latest and greatest every year.

I do have to say that the older hardware seems to be of a better quality. Even after they stopped building them in Ireland, they still seemed to hold up well, until '03 or so I rarely heard of people having issues.

666sheep
Jul 8, 2010, 02:12 AM
Sell it and get a Mini. PPC is dead.

:D

Better yet, if you could afford it, get a G5.

This is the one I want (Quad), but I don't really need it. :p For hard work I got quite loaded 1st gen MP. I've get it only beacuse at that moment there was no brand new Quads available and I wanted my main machine to be new (me - 1st owner, warranty etc). Plus, the price was very good.
But rest of my Macs are PPC: almost all are "top" specs - MDD 1.42DP, PB 1.67 17", Clamshell 466SE :D and some others. G5 Quad would perfectly match my collection, but it would be a waste of power I think.

max¥¥
Jul 8, 2010, 02:57 AM
these arm chips have a bit more to offer http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php
and would bring down apples ridiculous ghz race on their consumer Mac's which apple itself always always said is not necessary , at least thats what apple was telling us before the transition to intel , but i guess apple is not alone there its just that today it seems a quadcore processor is absolutely needed for word processing or for sending a email or for surfing in the deep space of the www , because thats what the majority of computer users do as the most demanding things on their computers :confused: but maybe its just me that got lost in time
i just think all should go back to reality , or past however you see it , in the ppc times if you did want a high performance Mac then you had to buy a powermac g3/g4/g5 , all others had been consumer Mac's e.g iMac , mini, and a laptop was never meant to replace a desktop ,
but today everything goes bonkers " help need a mini with a i7 processor and at least 3 ghz and 16 gb ram , a graphics card with at least 2 gb ram because the present intel one needs 0.8 seconds to open the macrumors forum and i cant play 10 different 1080p films simultaniously on 5 monitors " :confused: sorry for the exaggeration , but the mini was meant as a entry level Mac and it WAS the base 1.25 G4 did just cost £339, and did what its supposed to do and still does ,as a entry level Mac, but today the entry level mini cost double that , and maybe it is better in many ways , but its more then you need from a entry level Mac.
i took the mini because i think the best example because back then there was a clean cut between entry level consumer mac and pro Mac

i know what you mean when we brought my refurbished mini in 2005 it cost just £215, i looked last year at upgrading to an intel mini but even a refurbished one would cost £650 - £700, that's not far off what the high end mac cost back in 2005

Roman23
Jul 13, 2010, 01:15 AM
Windows running on a mac. As for PowerPC I owe the G5 Quad a very high debt of gratitude since it was this very model which allowed me to move into a Mac Pro - my transition was complete in late 2008-2009 when I decided to get my 1st mac pro.. it was the 1st generation 2006 mac pro 2.66 Woodcrest. I found out that because of an EFI 32/64 limitation I started to go back thinking maybe it was dumb to have sold the G5, but low and behold I got ahold of a 2008 Mac Pro - EFI64 and I was in business!

Now, it is later 2010 and just recently sold off my 2008 3.0 harpertown for a Quad-core single Nehalem and just finished upgrading the 2.66 to a 3.33 - w3580 processor. It was just like the old days of upgrading processors, however for those with dual 2009 mac pros their upgrading of the processors is far more TEDIOUS than those with singles.



Where were the G5-era Macs made?

I know the old Macs came from California but when did they move to China?

I'm a bit of a technician for a living. Not to get too far off topic but...
The build quality of my Mac Pro is fantastic. The fit and finish of the metal parts amaze me. Not even a $300+ Lian-Li PC case matches it.
The PSU is an unstoppable tank, cooling is phenomenal, it's just physically astounding inside and out.

Then I salvaged the poor broken G5 iMac and had a look around. Other than some cheaper capacitors in a very hot place of the PSU, the build quality was as good as the MP. The components such as internal fans, speakers, CPU cooling parts, even the metal chassis itself... all made to a high standard and finish even though practically no customers will ever see them.

Being used to "cost effective" PC construction, it's a bit of a shock.

Seeing the internal attention to detail, it's a wonder that Macs cost as LITTLE as they do.

So my questions to the more experienced are:
Has Apple always been this fanatical with their build quality?
I am aware of the difference between the words FASTER and BETTER, but what is the "better" part of the PPC architecture? There apparently is one, else the Space Industry, IBM, etc... would use something else.

Thanks for any insight.... I'm just curious.
Keri

PS> I strongly suspect that Apple is going to eventually drop Intel CPUs.
Why? Mostly because they have the resources to make something better (for their purposes) and maybe just a tiny bit to separate themselves from the PC crowd. The x86's ancient, backwards roots and holdovers (for PC compatibility reasons) has gotta be driving them nuts.
Maybe ARM / A-Series for portables and ??? for Desktops?

Roman23
Jul 13, 2010, 01:18 AM
PowerPC was the REAL MAC.. and yes, although I have left the PPC way behind now I still reminice about it and perhaps might pick up a cheap G5 somewhere just to play with it.. I don't think it will be a G5 Quad as those are still demanding high dollar, but a 2.0 or 2.3 dual-core would be nice.

I think I am over the G4 though, as my last G4 which was sold in 2008 was a G4 MDD 2003 with dual 1.42(was 1.25 after processor upgrade) with 2GB of memory(using two 1gb sticks).


Some thoughts..

I really am in awe of all the people coming here and dogging PowerPC. We PowerPC lovers/users have but one little area on this gigantic forum. All the other areas are dedicated to current Apple products etc.

Maybe leave us be? We understand PowerPC is less powerful. We get it. We still choose to use it.

Any person that truly embraces technology knows it's always about using what you're comfortable with and in turn works the way you prefer. For me and the other regulars here it's PowerPC Macs.

End rant..

Davy.Shalom
Jul 19, 2010, 12:40 AM
I love my G5 so much. It's blazing fast...and when it gets slow I pop in another 2 GB of RAM.
XD

Oh and I also love my PowerBook G4 12"...I'm taking it to college!! It's eight years old now, and the only thing it needs to work like new is a new battery.

Anyway, I love the new macs just as much as I love these "vintage" macs. However, I miss the fact that the batteries used to be swappable in the Apple notebooks. It's sad that they are now built in...

mrsir2009
Jul 19, 2010, 01:10 AM
hey guys
since this is a ppc forum and the Intel haters *mostly* leave it alone, i have probably the biggest question for all you amazing ppc mac owners. (disclaimer i myself own a lower end g4 system and love every minute of it.....even though its vid card crapped out)
why: why in 2010 do you still you ppc? do you use ppc exclusively or do you have an Intel mac? why would you recommend ppc over intel? do you think its worth it to buy into a slowly dying technology (that is still awesome)?


now if you think I'm dumb to ask this question, ask yourself.....weren't you wondering to?

(pleas point out any spelling or grammatical errors to me (pm please) English is my main language and yes i do know how to type and i type well, i just have a slight problem with spelling and stuff.

I use intel and PPC Macs side by side, for different things. :D I use intel for the more heavy stuff my older PPC Macs can't handle... and I use PPC macs for gaming old games that intel doesn't support, for running Mac OS9, and for using software that is not supported by intel. And I must say, some of the best software out there can only be used on PPC Macs :cool:

Go the G3, G4 and G5s!

mrsir2009
Jul 19, 2010, 01:12 AM
I love PowerPC. They literally blow Intel Pentiums out of the water.I have 2 PowerMac G4's,a MDD and Quicksilver,both smoke my mom's HP Pentium 4 3Ghz desktop.She loved the quicksilver but never got used to the Mac OSX Leopard. :(

G4 quicksilvers own! :D