PPC ideas...

Discussion in 'PowerPC Macs' started by VoidSlaad, Dec 16, 2010.

  1. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #1
    As you can tell from my previous posts, I am a hardware guy. That being said, I cannot claim to be a "Wintel", "Mactel", "Lintel", "MacPPC", "LinuxPPC" or any such thing. I probably would be an Apple guy if Apple had not switched to x86 family CPU...how boring. Now all that remains is a software/OS battle, not who can implement a better PC hardware design. Microsoft Windows versus Apple MacOS versus Linux distros. (Personally, Linux as a whole has won because there is no computer,microcontroller, etc. that it cannot be implemented on. "Linux is Legion, for it is many...".) Anyway, I think it would be pretty cool if Apple would allow a branch to grow from their Apple tree, resulting in a continuation of the PPC Mac (using CPUs such as the one in the PS3 for example) and MacOS/PPC. They could have parallel computer developments both competing against Windows...any thoughts?
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    tom vilsack

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    Location:
    ladner cdn
    #2
    Market Cap: 294.68B

    #2

    i dont think they need are help ;-)
     
  3. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #3
    PPC was great in it's day but Intel really just came up with a more power sipping design and that enabled them to have much higher speeds. Then adding multiple cores just wiped the floor with PPC.

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

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #4
    It does not have to be PPC necessarily. There are plenty of other CPU architectures around...how about MIPS? ARM?
     
  5. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #5
    ARM is great for mobile devices because it has decent speed/power efficiency. It's not so great for full scale CPU's though because the speed just isn't there.

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

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #6
    I suppose my issue is that there is hardly any difference between Apple and Microsoft at the hardware level, and certainly not enough to justify purchasing an Intel Mac, which in my eyes does not make it a Mac at all...unless mere aesthetic appeal and the fact the machine runs MacOS makes a machine a Mac. Aesthetics are superficial, plenty of Wintel machines look appealing these days...so I suppose just install MacOS on any (in general) computer and it is now a Mac?
     
  7. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #7
    OS X is what makes a Mac, a Mac. It really has to do with the total package but in my opinion it has ZERO to do with what architecture it's on. I'm very happy Apple went with Intel because most of their low end machines are much faster than even the fastest G5 ever was.
     
  8. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #8
    So, when OS XI comes out, that will make a Mac a Mac too? Or perhaps a hacked OS9 makes a Mac as well...I am not trying to sound sarcastic...much...but to you it IS the OS/software. To me, it would have to be the whole package, the OS and the hardware combined...not merely one or the other.
     
  9. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #9
    I guess my question is, why do you think it shouldn't be on Intel? What's the rational reason for that thought?
     
  10. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #10
    I am not saying that Intel is bad, but there is not a whole lot of variety in the desktop/laptop market...x86 family architecture (and derivatives/variations) mostly. I would like to have more variety, as a consumer and a tech guy. There is just so much possibility with other CPUs (and GPUs, DRAM, VRAM), but rarely seen because one architecture is leader, but not necessarily the best. Does that sound unreasonable?
     
  11. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #11
    It does make sense but I think Intel's x86 architecture is clearly the best desktop/laptop architecture currently. They've stepped up to the plate time and again when another architecture has starting making inroads.

    It sounds like you'd rather things focus more on hardware like in the old days. Those days are gone I'm afraid. If you want to get excited about it again you'll have to look at the mobile space where all the hardware action and innovation is currently. At least there ARM is leading. ;)
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    Nameci

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Location:
    The Philippines...
    #12
    I still stick my my PPC architecture Macs, I just love them. "Think different". Remember these lines?
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    VanneDC

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    #13
    dont count PPC dead yet, ive herd rumours Apple isnt /that/ happy with its Intel counterparts, and is looking to a 12 core cell cpu/gpu solution over the coming years from IBM.
     
  14. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    #14
    I run osx on my jailbroken ps3 so suck it lol
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    raysfan81

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #15
    Uhh AMD ftw? :) No but seriously, I love PPC and I understand what the op is talking about. Theres just something about knowing that no other (personal )computer being manufactured is running on the PPC platform. Its Unique.
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    munkery

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2006
    #16
    Are not ARM and PowerPC similar in that both are part of RISC chip architecture family?

    I thought ARM was more power efficient that Intel per processor speed?
     
  17. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #17
    PPC and ARM are both RISC, I think at least mostly. What is funny is I do not think that most CPUs are purely any one architecture. For example, the first Pentiums were merely scalar CPUs, then with MMX Intel incorporated vector processing, turning the CPU into superscalar. Many instructions that were added to the x86 design are those of RISC and VLIW architectures, so modern x86 CPUs are not pure CISC chips...I do not think PPC (or ARM, MIPS, etc) are pure RISC chips. I think Transmeta's Crusoe and Efficeon were pure VLIW, running x86 instructions through their patented code morphing tech...Nvidia, I believe, owns the patents to that now. I guess the point I am trying to make is that most architectures can achieve the same end result the programmer desired, it boils down to how each chip achieves the goal and efficiency/speed/power consumption.
     
  18. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #18
    One more thing too...I do know of a computer that uses a PPC arch...the upcoming (maybe) Amiga X1000.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    InuNacho

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Location:
    In that one place
    #19
    Yea I've heard something like that before, but from the way 10.6 is designed we probably aren't going to see anything like that anytime soon.
     
  20. macrumors 604

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #20
    I get it too but you have to remember that unique doesn't always mean better. Currently it just isn't.
     
  21. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #21
    You are correct, unique is not necessarily better, but neither is "tried and true." Off topic, but I have finally got my little iMac G3 700/SE Graphite up and running online...right now in fact. I was being "OS blind" and thought MacOS handled wifi connecting the same as WinXP...It was a forehead slapping moment...All I had to do was click "Apply." My only problem now is that I am navigating w/o a mouse. My Linksys WUSB600N is plugged into one USB, my keyboard in the other (obviously I do not have a iMac keyboard nor a USB hub). Now I have to plug juggle every so often.
     
  22. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #22
    It just dawned on me...I can use a virtual keyboard, which I am using right now...problem alleviated for now.:cool:
     
  23. MacHamster68, Dec 18, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010

    macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #23
    ppc Mac hm yes in these days it was the whole package , but now for me its only OSX so far ,
    just trying MorphOS on one of my eMac's and i am surprised
    to see that there is a OS out there that runs on PPC platform (Mac mini G4 , eMac, powerMac G4 ,powerbook g4 ) and still gets developed in 2010
    and it is surprisingly fast compare to OSX

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

    As standard a 'Xena' programmable 500MHz board is slotted into Xorro to boost system performance
     
  24. thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #24
    Is/was going to install linux on this iMac...but how is MorphOS? How well will it run on such old hardware? Plus, compatibility issues? I have enough problems with Windows, Linux, and MacOS just trying to get my hardware up and running...I do not think I am up for any more insanity-inducing OS nonsense, my plate is full...
     
  25. MacHamster68, Dec 18, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010

    macrumors 68040

    MacHamster68

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #25
    the thing with morph os is there is to my knowledge so far not much software available apart a massive amount of amiga games and apps which run under morphOS, but all essentials are there anyway
    installing it was easier then installing linux and a lot quicker up and running under 5 minutes from inserting the disc until desktop appears , and like i said its booting faster and apps opening quicker then in OSX , at least on my eMac 1.42 ghz 2gb ram and 64mb vram ati 9600


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

Share This Page