Intel switch. 4 years later.

[awmazz]

PowerPC, Intel and AMD suck! Apple should have stuck with THESE forever and ever and ever and ever.....

Ah, memories. Still got mine, the venerable SE/30.

I've never had a problem moving on to the newer processors. The only issue has ever been waiting for the app developers to catch up to the new architecture. Bought the first ever model of the PowerPC the minute it was released. Still got that one too, the 6100/60AV. Then bought the first Intel 8x Mac the minute it was released too. Still got that...

As for 'switching', I've never had any need to use Windows so it's never mattered to me, but I'm sure the move to Intel gave a lot of people reason to try Macs because they could keep using their Windows apps while moving over to Mac, the cost of side-grading every app being an important factor I think. So in a sense bootcamp is just like the other backwards compatibility with 040 and PPC apps. It's really just those buying a Mac to run Windows full time that I can't understand at all.

Apple's move to Intel just removed the 'my chip is bigger than your chip' and the rest of it direct contrast which I really miss. Because it's now devolved into reading annoying posts from 'switchers' and Windows users decrying that Macs and PCs are now the exaaaaactly the saaaaaaaaame under the bonnet so they can justify whinging about the price differences....

 

[grue]

I think it will be a shame if 10.6 has zero PPC support. There are lots of PPC of VERY usable PPC Macs out there with plenty of power to continue on in use. I would like to see how a modern G5 would stack up against these new Mac Pro processors.

The Mac Pro will demolish the G5, every time.

There's no point in pissing away resources supporting PowerPC anymore. It just makes those who aren't clinging to the past have to deal with more bloated operating systems.

 

[snouter]

RISC, CISC and CISC+RISC also made it a bit of a holy war...

 

[awmazz]

The Mac Pro will demolish the G5, every time.

There's no point in pissing away resources supporting PowerPC anymore. It just makes those who aren't clinging to the past have to deal with more bloated operating systems.

Only for power users. I honestly can't tell the difference in general usage.

And as for pissing away resources, you're excluding the installed user base who have invested heavily in their current machines, both the initial purchase price and subsequent hardware upgrades (I just put 16GB of RAM into my G5 last week). It's a consumer society mindset that believes any computer with RAM, HD and slot expandability should become obsolete (ie, non OS upgradeable) after a mere four years.

Mind you, Apple did totally abandon the 680xx Macs after just four years, but that was a quantum leap from those to the PowerPC. I don't see any such similar quantum leap from G5s to Intels. The Intels are just basically what a G6 should have been. I'm running Aperture 2 just as fine on my G5 as on my Mac Pro. Heck, the G5 and Mac Pro even look the same to visually reinforce that lack of a quantum leap.

 

[grue]

Only for power users. I honestly can't tell the difference in general usage.

And as for pissing away resources, you're excluding the installed user base who have invested heavily in their current machines, both the initial purchase price and subsequent hardware upgrades (I just put 16GB of RAM into my G5 last week). It's a consumer society mindset that believes any computer with RAM, HD and slot expandability should become obsolete (ie, non OS upgradeable) after a mere four years.

Mind you, Apple did totally abandon the 680xx Macs after just four years, but that was a quantum leap from those to the PowerPC. I don't see any such similar quantum leap from G5s to Intels. The Intels are just basically what a G6 should have been. I'm running Aperture 2 just as fine on my G5 as on my Mac Pro. Heck, the G5 and Mac Pro even look the same to visually reinforce that lack of a quantum leap.

When i was talking about pissing away resources, I mean Apple wasting time supporting systems they won't make any more money from. I mean really, what does 10.6 offer for PowerPC users even if they made it? OpenCL isn't going to support the video cards, and Grand Central will be useful to very few people since it's highly unlikely anyone is going to write all new versions of software to use GC and go through the effort of making it PowerPC compatible.

Tell ya what, I'm happy to have a version of 10.6 for PowerPC, as long as it doesn't hinder the development of the Intel version, and as long as none of the PowerPC code is wasting my drive space.

But let's face facts: The whole thing that makes 10.6 interesting is that it's essentially a version of Leopard written specifically to take advantage of the strengths of the Intel systems.

 

[awmazz]

I don't mind an Intel-only 10.6 either if it's only a streamlining of 10.5 for better use on Intel machines.

The issues start arising though when you begin seeing "OSX 10.6 only" in new apps system requirements. For instance, maybe Aperture 3 or Final Cut 7. Will that mean my G5 becomes a paperweight if I want to upgrade my apps as I can only use them on my Mac Pro? But even then, it will hopefully still be a few years before all apps go like that.

 

[grue]

I don't mind an Intel-only 10.6 either if it's only a streamlining of 10.5 for better use on Intel machines.

The issues start arising though when you begin seeing "OSX 10.6 only" in new apps system requirements. For instance, maybe Aperture 3 or Final Cut 7. Will that mean my G5 becomes a paperweight if I want to upgrade my apps as I can only use them on my Mac Pro? But even then, it will hopefully still be a few years before all apps go like that.

If Ap3 and FC7/FCS3 aren't Intel-only, I'd be absolutely shocked. Final Cut pretty much needs a full rewrite at this point, in Cocoa, and I can't imagine they'd go through the effort of keeping PPC compatibility in there. Hell, iMovie is Intel only at this point, as is After Effects.

 

[awmazz]

Not quite. iMovie '09 minimum specs are an Intel-based Mac, Power Mac G5 (dual 2.0GHz or faster), or iMac G5 (1.9GHz or faster).

Apple (so far) still considers the higher end G5s capable of crunching the latest HD formats, and their G5 user base large enough to be worth catering to. At least for the non-pro apps anyway. Pro apps like Final Cut and After Effects do better with the biggest fastest processors to crunch all the effects and renders etc, so you may be right and Final Cut will go Intel-only like After Effects.

 

[grue]

Not quite. iMovie '09 minimum specs are an Intel-based Mac, Power Mac G5 (dual 2.0GHz or faster), or iMac G5 (1.9GHz or faster).

Apple (so far) still considers the higher end G5s capable of crunching the latest HD formats, and their G5 user base large enough to be worth catering to. At least for the non-pro apps anyway. Pro apps like Final Cut and After Effects do better with the biggest fastest processors to crunch all the effects and renders etc, so you may be right and Final Cut will go Intel-only like After Effects.

Ah, my bad. I think something in the iLife 09 suite is Intel only, but perhaps I'm retarded.

 

[macuserx86]

I remember my freind and I being extremely pissed off that Apple didn't go with AMD. When the first announced the switch I was like "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU The P4 is ****! AMD is far superior noooo, curse ye Apple!" Then Intel dropped the Core architecture and we were both like "oh... carry on then."

 

[Hrududu]

The Mac Pro will demolish the G5, every time.

There's no point in pissing away resources supporting PowerPC anymore. It just makes those who aren't clinging to the past have to deal with more bloated operating systems.

Well of coarse a 2009 Nehalem processor is going to demolish a G5 thats 3 years older. I meant I'd like to see how a G5 that had been adapted and improved over the past 3 years would stand up to a modern Mac Pro.

 

[snouter]

Well of coarse a 2009 Nehalem processor is going to demolish a G5 thats 3 years older. I meant I'd like to see how a G5 that had been adapted and improved over the past 3 years would stand up to a modern Mac Pro.

G5 v. Pentium 4 is no issue. G5 was a far superior chip and it went multicore and dual cpu.

You really have to hand it to Intel. After the fiasco that was Pentium 4, Core 2 Duo really is that good. I could see G5 being competitive, I can't really see it being better. And then there's the whole laptop thing...

 

[Bennieboy©]

The Mac Pro will demolish the G5, every time.

There's no point in pissing away resources supporting PowerPC anymore. It just makes those who aren't clinging to the past have to deal with more bloated operating systems.

only if your a power user, i've got a dual cpu 2ghz G5 with 3 gigs a ram, it's perfectly usable, can play games, handle flash, photoshop cs3 and cinema 4D quite happily,

for a personal user's perspective, no one at home needs a mac pro, it's overkill, unless you work from home,

 

[awmazz]

Ah, my bad. I think something in the iLife 09 suite is Intel only, but perhaps I'm retarded.

You may be thinking of the specific importing from AVCHD cameras where iMovie is restricted to Intel multi-cores only. But I suspect that's nothing to do with iMovie omitting PPC code as you are discussing about doing with 10.6 to improve performance. It is a performance related issue as you mentioned, but it's age-related not code or brand-related as I'm sure older Intel processors would also be excluded as being too slow to provide a good user experience decoding AVCHD.

After Effects is actually much the same. It's not really specifically 'Intel-only', rather it's 'multi-core Intel processor required', which actually excludes any older Intel single core processor. Pretty much it means "works only on computers 3 years or younger".

As for the other 95% of apps we use that don't need multi-core grunt to decode AVCHD or render 3D graphics and video effects, they should still work fine on G5s for quite a while to come yet without the need to stipulate "works only on Intel multi-cores". Look at the rise of the netbooks, going in exactly the opposite direction because most new computers are major overkill for most uses outside of pro apps. If I see "OSX 10.6 or higher required" on apps like Illustrator or Numbers I'll know it's nothing to do with the actual capabilities of the processor and they're just dicking me around.

 

[SomeSwede]

I have used Macs since the 68K days, and i think it was a good switch. Using PPC was correct in the 90's, but being stuck at 450MHz for 18 months and the G5 never reaching the 3GHz within a year it was supposed to showed that Intel was a better choice.
I really love how easy it is to boot in Windows or use VMWare, compared to how slow it was when it was emulated with Virtual PC, or how i can use CrossOver or Cider to run an application that does not exist or suck in the Mac version (Ventrilo...).
So i am happy with the switch.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

I think of Apple as a bit of a rebellious company. They say no to conventional design, they always are innovating with new technology. I think the switch to Intel tarnished this. The PPC chip defined Apple for years. It made Apple different.

I've used both Intel and PPC Macs, and I own a mid '07 2.0 mini, a 733 MHz G4, and an iMac 233, rev a. I have to say that I like the PPC better, maybe only because it is different, maybe because it can run OS 9, or maybe because with the PPC chip, Apple seemed less conservative with their designs. I want the 5 flavors, not boring, gray aluminum.

Now just about everyone is using Intel or AMD and the only things PPC now that I know of are the Xbox 360 and PS3.

If I were in control of Apple, I'd reevaluate the PPC chip in a few years and see what it has to offer. Maybe we could finally get that PowerBook G5 and a 3 GHz PowerMac.

 

[macuserx86]

If I were in control of Apple, I'd reevaluate the PPC chip in a few years and see what it has to offer. Maybe we could finally get that PowerBook G5 and a 3 GHz PowerMac.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that's good! Wow, you're a funny guy! thanks for making me laugh!

 

[awmazz]

How's about evaluating the POWER7 PPC chip to be released next year. Let's see - 2 chips per module x 8 cores per chip x 4 threads per core =

A 2010 model 'octo' Power Mac G7 = 45nm 128 cores + 512 threads @ 4GHz minimum and 4,096 gigaflops. Oh yeah.

Even the lowest specc'ed single module G7 iMac or Macbook next year would be 16 cores @ 4GHz.

 

[snouter]

How's about evaluating the POWER7 PPC chip to be released next year. Let's see - 2 chips per module x 8 cores per chip x 4 threads per core =

A 2010 model 'octo' Power Mac G7 = 45nm 128 cores + 512 threads @ 4GHz minimum and 4,096 gigaflops. Oh yeah.

Even the lowest specc'ed single module G7 iMac or Macbook next year would be 16 cores @ 4GHz.

Can't force developers to develop for both PPC and Intel.

Laptops.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Can't force developers to develop for both PPC and Intel.

Laptops.

Why not? We're still not completely done with the Intel transition and developers have been developing for both platforms for about 5 years.

The heat problem was with the G5. IBM has surely improved on the G7.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Look, here's POWER6. It gets about as hot as the G5, but runs at up to 5 GHz. Why not put the G6 in the Mac Pro and call it the Power Mac again. Better yet, have a Mac Pro and a Power Mac G6.

 

[grue]

Yeah, let's run dual architectures so we can have a bloated OS like Leopard forever!

PowerPC is done, let it go.

 

[2002cbr600f4i]

Yeah, let's run dual architectures so we can have a bloated OS like Leopard forever!

PowerPC is done, let it go.

Not to mention, it's not just the CPU, it's the whole architecture/infrastructure. Going with Intel has DRASTICALLY dropped the R&D costs for designing MBs, video card support, etc. You're on commodity hardware and platform now that Apple can shop around and get the best stuff from the cheapest suppliers, and has choices. When they were doing the Power stuff, they had to develop it all themselves. They had NO choices for support chips, etc. They had to work to get things like PCI-E support on their MBs and such because they were the only ones making desktop workstations using PowerPC.

The PowerPC days are over.... Give it up... x86 has won and frankly it's the less expensive and better solution for us consumers. x86 is going to be around for a long time, there's a lot more going on with it, the roadmap is interesting and compelling and pretty much guaranteed to happen (ie, no G5 type "it'll be here soon... it'll be here soon" type issues.

 

[awmazz]

The PowerPC days are over.... Give it up... x86 has won

Only for the next seven years or so. The lifespan of any processor line in Macs historically so far has been about a decade (1984-1994 for the 68000, and 1994-2006 for the PPC).

In about 6-7 years from now, Apple will announce their next big move to another architecture. Maybe whatever they're bringing in all these chip people in-house and buying out chip companies now for. They sure aren't being bought and hired to design Intel chips.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Only for the next seven years or so. The lifespan of any processor line in Macs historically so far has been about a decade (1984-1994 for the 68000, and 1994-2006 for the PPC).

In about 6-7 years from now, Apple will announce their next big move to another architecture. Maybe whatever they're bringing in all these chip people in-house and buying out chip companies now for. They sure aren't being bought and hired to design Intel chips.

Maybe that jump will be to AMD. Maybe there will be something completely different in 6-7 years. It'll be interesting to see what happens.

I wonder if it would be possible to make my own G6 computer?