Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
thats a good question... but heres the thing what intel based computer is still working as good as it did when it was new 10 + years ago? my g3 powerbook pismo was built in 2000 and it works much better than my moms year old dell and never saw the apple store except to get a battery and new carrying case 5 years ago.
 
thats a good question... but heres the thing what intel based computer is still working as good as it did when it was new 10 + years ago? my g3 powerbook pismo was built in 2000 and it works much better than my moms year old dell and never saw the apple store except to get a battery and new carrying case 5 years ago.

I still have at least 2 Dell GX50 (150s?) with P3 900s running linux as dev servers (internal sites / bug trackers), in the office. I have some that are even older machines. Intel chips are solid. Where the cheapness comes in is in the motherboards, ram, power supplies and other parts the big OEMs are in charge of.
 
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's
 
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

That is the exact thing that these mindless GHz chasers will simply never understand. The way you just put it says it all pretty simply.
 
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

couldn't agree more, my dad's mac pro feels like one of my hackintosh pc laptops, also i am not a big fan of the new designs i think the g3 - g4 macs looked the best
 
couldn't agree more, my dad's mac pro feels like one of my hackintosh pc laptops, also i am not a big fan of the new designs i think the g3 - g4 macs looked the best

I know what you mean. I sold the intel mini I use to have to buy my G4 1.8GHz upgrade. :)
 
Ppc

I've got 3 in-house but only one gets regular use.

-Performa 6400 (PowerPC 603ev) - not really used
-Sawtooth G4/400 - rarely used

Main machine is a G5 2.5 dual processor, 8 gigs of ram, nVidia 7800GS with 256 megs, and 4.7 TB of disc.

Why do I use it? It's been my main machine for the last five years or so. I haven't upgraded since the wife got hers upgraded first.

It's still pretty fast and respectable. Its best days are behind it but it still cranks along and the nVidia video card replaced the Radeon 9600XT it came with and gave it new life and zip. Almost 2000fps at 1920x1080 for OpenGL.

It will eventually get replaced but the case is so gorgeous I'll keep it around - maybe I'll use the case for a hackintosh some day.
 
i dont know if IBM power 6+ or power7 would be a alternative to intel for Mac's ,
but what about these processors here i mean the more cores the better or ?

The IBM Power series theoretically can be used since they are fully backward compatible with PowerPC. However, I doubt that would ever happen. For one thing, they are would be expensive and IBM does not make a low power version suitable for laptops.

Would be interesting though since the Power7 series absolutely clobbers the fastest Intel server chip in performance. Power usage isn't too bad either.

Power7 3.8Ghz 8 core is a 200W chip and does ~330/290 in specint_rate/fp_rate (an industry standard cross platform cpu benchmark)

and the top end

Intel Xeon x7560 2.26Ghz 8 core is a 130W chip that does ~190/140 in the same benchmark
 
seeing as apple is looking for another 3g carrier for its iphone and ipad...it wouldnt suprise me if they went with another processor chip for their computers... it would be nice to see a version of the ppc chip again, and if we did it would give me a good reason to buy a new laptop.

Go HAWKS...stanley cup in 2011 again...
 
The IBM Power series theoretically can be used since they are fully backward compatible with PowerPC. However, I doubt that would ever happen. For one thing, they are would be expensive and IBM does not make a low power version suitable for laptops.

Would be interesting though since the Power7 series absolutely clobbers the fastest Intel server chip in performance. Power usage isn't too bad either.

Power7 3.8Ghz 8 core is a 200W chip and does ~330/290 in specint_rate/fp_rate (an industry standard cross platform cpu benchmark)

and the top end

Intel Xeon x7560 2.26Ghz 8 core is a 130W chip that does ~190/140 in the same benchmark

i know that the power 7 is a lot faster , i have a bladecenter with a power6+running at 4.2ghz , and the 3.8 power7 is not even the top end, i think power 7 tops beyond 4 ghz too , and what speaks against two suppliers for processors ? one for desktops and one for laptops and iMacs
and when we are about it already why not bring back the eMac , then fitted with a power 6+ and 4ghz , and i even care less if windows would run on it,so choosing a processor only to be able to run windows seems pathetic
 
yes there might be good intel processors around , i do not care if they are perfect or explode after a days use , the ppc's did work well and still do ,
and they made Apple unique ,
but now with intel inside Apple is just another pc manufacturer
and the old ppc Mac's still offer this uniqueness which i miss on newer intel Mac's

I always thought that it was the end-user experience that made Macs unique. I love my PPC Mac, but any current Intel Mac is faster in every way. My PPC Mac works well, but it's slow. Apart from putting a 7200rpm HDD in it, there's nothing more I can do to upgrade it.

Then I use a quad core 27" iMac from my school and it does everything in 1/10th of the time. I'm not a "GHz chaser" as zen.state likes to call them, but if a computer does everything in 1/10th of the time (or less) it's better. I must say it would be nice if my 7 minute clip in FCP didn't take over 2 hours to render out to MPEG-4.

PPC was great in it's day, but it can no longer compete against today's Macs in terms of performance. Those who say modern Macs feel like Hackintoshes... what are you talking about? Hackintoshes can't do system updates, Macs can. Hackintoshes take hours of work to make stable (sometimes), Macs don't. I've used a Mac Pro and a PowerMac G5. They both feel the same (apart from the fact that a Mac Pro is faster). To be honest, I think it's all in your head.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad thing to stick with your PPC Mac. I stick with mine. But I also know that it, as a machine, is inferior to modern Macs. As for longevity, Intel Macs simply haven't been around long enough to show it. Arguing on the basis of longevity is a flawed argument.
 
My PPC Mac works well, but it's slow. Apart from putting a 7200rpm HDD in it, there's nothing more I can do to upgrade it.

Get rid of optical drive, get optibay and put there your HDD. Put SSD instead HDD as boot drive and your PB will fly :) This is ALL you can do. It will not increase processing power OFC, but will make using this laptop much, much more comfortable.
 
I always thought that it was the end-user experience that made Macs unique. I love my PPC Mac, but any current Intel Mac is faster in every way. My PPC Mac works well, but it's slow. Apart from putting a 7200rpm HDD in it, there's nothing more I can do to upgrade it.

Then I use a quad core 27" iMac from my school and it does everything in 1/10th of the time. I'm not a "GHz chaser" as zen.state likes to call them, but if a computer does everything in 1/10th of the time (or less) it's better. I must say it would be nice if my 7 minute clip in FCP didn't take over 2 hours to render out to MPEG-4.

PPC was great in it's day, but it can no longer compete against today's Macs in terms of performance. Those who say modern Macs feel like Hackintoshes... what are you talking about? Hackintoshes can't do system updates, Macs can. Hackintoshes take hours of work to make stable (sometimes), Macs don't. I've used a Mac Pro and a PowerMac G5. They both feel the same (apart from the fact that a Mac Pro is faster). To be honest, I think it's all in your head.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad thing to stick with your PPC Mac. I stick with mine. But I also know that it, as a machine, is inferior to modern Macs. As for longevity, Intel Macs simply haven't been around long enough to show it. Arguing on the basis of longevity is a flawed argument.
hackintoshs can do system updates as of 10.6! i was just saying that my dad's mac pro looks and feels more like a pc
 
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!

apple switched because ibm only cared about performance, no enviornmental effecnicny... if so, apple would still use a powerbook g4, and more. ibm only cares about their servers etc. THE G5 was damn hot, dangerous and apple couldnt keep up in their development projects and compatibility. one of the major reasons why people buy macs today is because they can run winblows and mac os x. ppcs couldnt do that, no ppc procesccor has run winblows in YEARs! i think intel switch was a good choice and apple did it at a good time.. though the g4 and g3 :apple: was pro. the g5 was the worst power pc procesor built! for many obvious reasons. p4 was better than g5 no doubt.
 
Get rid of optical drive, get optibay and put there your HDD. Put SSD instead HDD as boot drive and your PB will fly :) This is ALL you can do. It will not increase processing power OFC, but will make using this laptop much, much more comfortable.

You're right. However, I don't want to sink that kind of money into this machine for a relatively marginal performance boost when I should just buy a new computer entirely.

And, actually, it would be better to put the SSD in the optibay since I can use the optibay to get SATA, whereas I'd have to find an IDE SSD for the main drive bay and those are even more expensive.
 
apple switched because ibm only cared about performance, no enviornmental effecnicny

Out of curiosity, where did you get this information? I always understood it to be that Apple switched because IBM couldn't get the G5 powerful enough (after they reached a certain point they had massive issues trying to get it to go faster safely) nor could they get it cool enough for a laptop.
 
i have a ppc tower sitting next to me that i use on a regular basis, so i'm hoping that qualifies me to post in this nook of the forum. i say "qualifies" because there seems to be a very elitist attitude floating around. case in point whenever someone categorizes intel users as "mindless" or "unenlightened." it doesn't matter how small this area is in an "intel biased" forum, talking like that just makes you seem like a douchebag. and yes i'd say the same of anyone else that similarly demeaned ppc users.

as an animator in a small company who often has to pull all-nighter after all-nighter to meet deadlines, i can assure you that needing the speediest solution possible when i hit the render button has nothing to do with being a mindless spec-junkie and everything to do with wanting to preserve my health and sanity.

like i said, i have my g5 tower which i still love and use for plenty of tasks. i'm also pretty sure that apple's standards have indeed been slipping, at very least in the software department - snow leopard has been a ****-show for me in terms of wireless reliability, memory management, etc.

but all that said, dedicating a thread to essentially trash talking anyone who doesn't "get" how superior your computer is, belies a fundamental insecurity in the same way the general mac community makes a bad name for itself by needing to constantly belittle windows users.

i can understand a fascination and appreciation for the design of a particular tool, but at the end of the day you have to respect that for most people it is a tool (that is, a means to an end, not an end unto itself). the ppc might be a beautifully designed tool and indeed better at some things, but it is not the best tool for every task. enjoy it for what it is, but goodness sakes, don't be a snob about it.
 
i have a ppc tower sitting next to me that i use on a regular basis, so i'm hoping that qualifies me to post in this nook of the forum. i say "qualifies" because there seems to be a very elitist attitude floating around. case in point whenever someone categorizes intel users as "mindless" or "unenlightened." it doesn't matter how small this area is in an "intel biased" forum, talking like that just makes you seem like a douchebag. and yes i'd say the same of anyone else that similarly demeaned ppc users.

as an animator in a small company who often has to pull all-nighter after all-nighter to meet deadlines, i can assure you that needing the speediest solution possible when i hit the render button has nothing to do with being a mindless spec-junkie and everything to do with wanting to preserve my health and sanity.

like i said, i have my g5 tower which i still love and use for plenty of tasks. i'm also pretty sure that apple's standards have indeed been slipping, at very least in the software department - snow leopard has been a ****-show for me in terms of wireless reliability, memory management, etc.

but all that said, dedicating a thread to essentially trash talking anyone who doesn't "get" how superior your computer is, belies a fundamental insecurity in the same way the general mac community makes a bad name for itself by needing to constantly belittle windows users.

i can understand a fascination and appreciation for the design of a particular tool, but at the end of the day you have to respect that for most people it is a tool (that is, a means to an end, not an end unto itself). the ppc might be a beautifully designed tool and indeed better at some things, but it is not the best tool for every task. enjoy it for what it is, but goodness sakes, don't be a snob about it.

what we where saying is that there where some users that came and in every thread asking for help with a ppc mac would say "don't bother go buy an intel mini", but most of them have gone now, most of us have intel mac's too we are just saying why we like ppc macs
 
Out of curiosity, where did you get this information? I always understood it to be that Apple switched because IBM couldn't get the G5 powerful enough (after they reached a certain point they had massive issues trying to get it to go faster safely) nor could they get it cool enough for a laptop.
It was a computing power per watt issue. The Core architecture from Intel allowed them to put very fast processors into low power packages. Apple saw the trend towards mobile and thin desktops and decided it needed to go down this route. Nothing on the PPC horizon could match Intel's roadmap in terms of power per watt.
 
It was a computing power per watt issue. The Core architecture from Intel allowed them to put very fast processors into low power packages. Apple saw the trend towards mobile and thin desktops and decided it needed to go down this route. Nothing on the PPC horizon could match Intel's roadmap in terms of power per watt.

IBM wasn't that interested in spending a huge amount of money developing a new chip for Apple unless Apple at least paid partially for its development. Case in point was the 970MP which was the dual core G5 chip. This was still based on the IBM Power4 chip design, but at the time of release, IBM already was on the Power5/Power5+ chip which included an on-die memory controller and SMT (multithreading). With so little interest from IBM, Apple made the right decision to switch.

FYI, As of today, IBM's Power7 series clobbers the fastest nehalem chips in performance and has better perf/watt when compared in the highend server chip context.
 
i know that the power 7 is a lot faster , i have a bladecenter with a power6+running at 4.2ghz , and the 3.8 power7 is not even the top end, i think power 7 tops beyond 4 ghz too

The top end for now is a 8 core Power7 running at 3.8Ghz. It can be configured to disable 4 of its core and increase frequency to 4.14Ghz.
 
ok but still nice processor for a PowerMac ... a quad core with 4.14ghz and thats not overclocked ..and i guess a eight core with 3.8ghz is fast enough too for most things :D
i still think about how i could get the board with the power6+ of my BladeCenter into my eMac ok its only a dual core processor running at 4.2ghz but could be overclocked to over 5 ghz if i am not mistaken ...it just does not fit right in ...anybody here who could redesign a board from scratch ?
and anybody who could make osx tiger run on it ???... would be the fastest eMac on earth ready to take on the intels and would show apple what they missed out :D

just dreaming a bit ....:(
 
IBM wasn't that interested in spending a huge amount of money developing a new chip for Apple unless Apple at least paid partially for its development. Case in point was the 970MP which was the dual core G5 chip. This was still based on the IBM Power4 chip design, but at the time of release, IBM already was on the Power5/Power5+ chip which included an on-die memory controller and SMT (multithreading). With so little interest from IBM, Apple made the right decision to switch.

FYI, As of today, IBM's Power7 series clobbers the fastest nehalem chips in performance and has better perf/watt when compared in the highend server chip context.

I haven't been keeping up, but I think for the next generation game machines that IBM basically lead MS and Sony down the same path to a roadblock.

Likely they will have the same offer as Apple had from IBM, pay for the development of the next CPU on your roadmap, or use this older technology from the Power Series or IBM might feel good and let them have a Power7 Lite.
 
i still believe in tradition even if it means a bit less power and a bit higher powerconsumption , and i think Apple should have offered to their loyal customers a PPC Mac , instead of only thinking about market shares and profit
i mean we all know by now about the 7448 processor and that its not a slow sluggish processor by any standard... an still available
they could have offered it as entry level in a g5 case to match the modern design of Apple if needed , or maybe in a mini (could be a bit hot inside ),or in a eMac which would not mind a hotter processor inside due to the very effective heatpipe and fan :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.