Technically, yes. Chronologically no. Technically the G5s match were the relatively short-lived Pentium D series...
CMIIW, P4 came out at the same time of the PPC G5 am I right?
Technically, yes. Chronologically no. Technically the G5s match were the relatively short-lived Pentium D series...
I think the future of PPC Macs lies in the hands of Linux. As for web standards, Firefox works on PPC Linux. A little slow, but it has HTML5!
CMIIW, P4 came out at the same time of the PPC G5 am I right?
fact is microsoft as good or bad as windows might be as operating system supports computers back to the early 90's of the last century and you can still buy win xp while apple cant even support 5 year old computers people payed lots of money for
and by support i mean getting a operating system for them and not only updates for existing ones , apple could have easy kept full support and sale of OSX tiger , as it runs on both PPC and intel Mac's , just like microsoft still sells
windows xp , sure microsoft would prefere if you upgrade to win7 if possible, but they dont force you to like apple to buy a brandnew computer every couple years
linux is free and a totally different matter
1. You can still buy Mac OS 9 if you look.
2. Apple could support them, but they dont want too. Same as MS not supporting Windows 7 on Pentium IIIs (not the slow ones anyway)
3. No-one is forcing you to upgrade past Panther if you dont want too.
1 where at a apple store do i get OS9 ?,
ebay is not a reseller for apple products and i do not want scratched damaged leopard discs for £80 from someone who has found one in his shed
2. but MS xp still runs on them without problem and fully supported
3. wrong if i want OSX and want to run latest apps or sync the newest iphone ipad or ipod i have no choice other then upgrading to snow leopard , the reason i have none of such things , even use on my iMac core duo to osx tiger because of apple talk and only use one feature of snow leopard time machine , the only feature i do find worth to have
The P4 is more closer to the G4, the G5 (970FX) kinda sits above the P4 but below the Pentium D technically, however the 970MP G5 was close to the Pentium D (hence why I linked the Pentium D and the G5 - as on a technical level, they were pretty evenly matched)
The NetBurst Pentium D and the 970 were evenly matched technically? Are you out of your mind?
Every PowerPC ever shipped in a Macintosh has had a significantly higher IPC than anything that's ever fallen from the NetBurst tree.
The NetBurst Pentium D and the 970 were evenly matched technically? Are you out of your mind?
Every PowerPC ever shipped in a Macintosh has had a significantly higher IPC than anything that's ever fallen from the NetBurst tree.
I was at WWDC05 so I got to see the (at the time) Pentium 4 Macs and G5 running side by side, and I got to use them myself in labs. As strange as it sounds, the Pentium 4 was quieter, had less fans, and kicked the crap out of the G5 in terms of speed. And this was on the incomplete version of OS X for Intel.
By the end of the G5's life, the Pentium 4 was faster. Unless you had a quad G5.
And whats worse is hes complaining about me comparing the Pentium D (in effect a Dual P4 on a chip), which could give a G5 a run for its money at the same clock speed (The P4 Macs were 3.6Ghz Models I believe, or at least thats what the Transition Kit was specced as)
3.6 ghz hyperthreading P4s.
3.6 ghz hyperthreading P4s.
Just out of interest - Single or dual core?
P4's are always single core.
Technically you're correct, however the Pentium D is a member of the Pentium 4 family and that's a dual Core CPU.
OK, it was a bodge with a pair of single core dies tied together but it presents to the system as a dual-core CPU.
Pedantic much?
Just out of interest - Single or dual core?
Technically you're correct, however the Pentium D is a member of the Pentium 4 family and that's a dual Core CPU.
OK, it was a bodge with a pair of single core dies tied together but it presents to the system as a dual-core CPU.
And whats worse is hes complaining about me comparing the Pentium D (in effect a Dual P4 on a chip), which could give a G5 a run for its money at the same clock speed (The P4 Macs were 3.6Ghz Models I believe, or at least thats what the Transition Kit was specced as)
I'm not going to lay the burden on myself of posting benchmarks, since you're the one who's making the claim;
Please provide evidence to support your claim that the Pentium D was clock-for-clock competitive with the 970MP or any other G5 variant.
You're exemplifying the term 'revisionist history'.