ppc advantages and comparison

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by hansolo669, Jun 7, 2010.

  1. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2009
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    In OSX Snow Leopard / Godalming UK
    #2
    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
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    mrchinchilla

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #3
    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).
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #4
    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!!
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #5
    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!@#
     
  6. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    #6
    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!
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Hrududu

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Location:
    Wichita KS
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #9
    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
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2010
    #10
    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
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    zmttoxics

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #11
    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. :)
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #12
    You prefer intel... we get it.
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    zmttoxics

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #13
    Just no "advantages" to the PPC anymore - at least not for me. Which was the thread topic IIRC... :p
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    reebzor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #15
    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.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. macrumors 65816

    zmttoxics

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #16
    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:)
     
  17. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #17
    Since CS is a PPC app, the Intels are running it under Rosetta. Lets compare the performance of native apps.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #20
    Btw, the paint job you've done on your G4 looks amazing :)
     
  21. macrumors 68020

    zen.state

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Location:
    Nanaimo, BC
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 6502

    mrchinchilla

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page