Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
future limitations of PowerPC Macs?
- Thread starter Cox Orange
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Power Mac G4 debuted in August of '99 but didn't really ship until closer to the end of the year.
The Pentium 4 debuted a year later, in November of 2000.
The Power Mac G5 debuted 3 years later in summer of 2003.
The Pentium D debuted in summer of 2005.
The Pentium 4 debuted a year later, in November of 2000.
The Power Mac G5 debuted 3 years later in summer of 2003.
The Pentium D debuted in summer of 2005.
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!
Well, I would not like to use Linux just to use my PPC longer... My hope is that there will still be enthusiasts, that will write more recent all-day-use software (e.g. browsers) in the future.
Btw, how much experience/knowledge in coding does one have to have, to change firefox to newer needs? (sorry for this quiet naive question, I do not have any knowledge of coding, but I remember that there were a lot of Guys writing small programms in java, CC+ and Pascal, when I was a schoolboy, long ago.)
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)
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 , but while you can still get a brandnew disc windows xp from the pc maker of your pc , you cannot even get a leopard disc from apple so you cant even upgrade to the latest operating system that would run , thats not what i call support
linux is free and a totally different matter
linux is free and a totally different matter
Last edited:
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 osx tiger, because of apple talk as it makes it simple to setup a network and linux boxes can connect too as they understand apple talk ,and only use one feature of snow leopard time machine , the only feature i do find worth to have, but why it cant be integrated into osx tiger is beyond me
i dont have knowledge of any app that would not run on windows xp with sp3 where you would need to upgrade to win7 , games excluded , but thats only because i dont think a computer should be used for such things like gaming , there are other things that work way better called games consoles , which i find amusing ,because in games consoles the ppc architecture is at work
Last edited:
1. Call Apple up, and if your lucky they sell you a copy - I bought a copy of OS9 from them in 2008.
2. MS XP is only supported as MS had to reset the development of Vista.
3. You cant do everything from Vista on XP - Look at DreamScene, or BitLocker, or Avalon - none of those are XP compatible. You cant run the latest version of many windows apps on XP - they provide an XP compatible version, just as many OS X developers (even Apple on their supports page) let you download older versions of apps (iMovie 3.03 for instance is still available from Apple) If you want to run the latest versions of every Windows app you need 7. You are just being silly if you think otherwise.
Last edited:
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.
They are as closely matched in terms of architecture as its possible to be between x86 and the PowerPC G5 970MP processor die. I am not out of mind, you are just pointing out (a) the obvious that you cant really compare 2 architectures and (b) not adding much as you havent come up with a better comparison. (Incidentally last time I checked Im not out of my mind).
Anyway, here are the reasons I chose the Pentium D as a rough x86 comparison to the G5:
The Pentium D is a Dual-Core CPU, so is the 970MP core that shipped about the same time. The Pentium D is also 64-bit like the G5. Good luck trying to find a closer Match in terms of target market and chronological timescale than the Pentium D, as there isnt one, unless you want to go down the Opteron route, but even they dont match as they were only really found in Servers and maybe a few high-end workstations, never in a consumer machine unlike the iMac G5. PowerPC is obviously superior, noone is arguing with that, Im just saying the Pentium D is as close to a G5 as you can get. (I know full well the G5 manages to do a heck lot more per clock, but that applies to every intel processor as the architectures differ massively, both in origin (PowerPC from POWER - a high-end server architecture, x86 - from a more consumer oriented chip (4004 and 8008 roots), and in application.
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)
aaaahhh yes... one day I shall have to try and find one for my collection, just a shame Apple took em all back really... (or at least, took nearly all of them back)
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.
Yes, but it was called Pentium D, not Pentium 4, and there was and is no dual core CPU branded Pentium 4.
Your question was related to a P4, so if you don't like the answer, you might have to reconsider your question!
Single core. I didn't really try much in the way of multithreaded testing, actually, but it doesn't really matter as the first Intel processors were dual core anyway.
The Pentium D was a Pentium 4. I would consider them part of the same family.
So far Leopard is running fluid on my PowerMac G4 1.42GHz Dual with maxed out RAM. And I don't have any interest on upgrading to a newer software, Adobe CS4 is running very well. It still get the job done. It could be well enough for the next couple of years, before I have to let it retire and give to my daughter... Maybe in the next couple of years there will still be developers who will support these PPC Macs. They are a great, stable and reliable machines, so why dump them in the trash bin?
Maybe in the next couple of years there will still be developers who will support these PPC Macs. They are a great, stable and reliable machines, so why dump them in the trash bin?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'.
Your not going to provide benchmarks because it would prove my point. Im not going to provide benchmarks, because there arent any comparing a Pentium 4 to a G5 directly under the same operating system, so there arent any which are valid. you can believe what you want to believe, but your completely wrong. The evidence is simple, Take a Pentium 4 Intel Transition kit (3.6 P4), which well say is probably equivalent to a 2.0Ghz Pentium D for properly mutli-threaded applications (I shall ignore single core apps as their just plain behind the times). As confirmed above, the 3.6 P4 system could outperform the Dual 2.0 and 2.3 G5 systems of the time. Your exemplifying the term 'not understanding how CPUs insides work when comparing 2 architectures'.
pur benchmarks dont say anything really , if you run apps on a PPC Mac that had been made to run on them they will perform today as good as they performed 5 years ago and even 5 years ago there had not been many apps on the market that could make any use really of dual core processors, even worth the new intel iMacs have trouble with old PPC apps,even apples own like final cut (yes of course you can upgrade for lots of money ), try to run office 2004 a simple program that even my iMac g3 can handle and you will find that even a modern i7 iMac wont be able to handle it even with rosetta ,you cant even run OS9 games proper , sheepshaver is just a bad compromise ,classic was far superior
Last edited: