ppc advantages and comparison

[g3powerbook boy]

hopefully i will never have to buy another computer with an intel chip. i will always perfer to use my ppc based macs over the newer compaq i have running ubuntu linux or the newer gateway laptop i have anyday. i will constantly check the craigslist ads for my area and look for reasonably priced decent shape g3 or g4 powerbooks and ibooks so if something happens to one i have and cant be fixed... i will have another ppc mac to use.

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

I'm interested to see how long that will last

Again, comparing Macs to Compaq or Gateway is a bad comparison. Get a quality Intel machine and then compare...

 

[MacHamster68]

I'm interested to see how long that will last

Again, comparing Macs to Compaq or Gateway is a bad comparison. Get a quality Intel machine and then compare...

as compaq belongs to Hp its as much quality you can get with a intel processor inside, you can get more expensive but not necessary better , maybe the outside of new Mac's looks better for some , but the main parts inside are the same (necessary so windows will run on a mac )

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

as compaq belongs to Hp its as much quality you can get with a intel processor inside, you can get more expensive but not necessary better , maybe the outside of new Mac's looks better for some , but the main parts inside are the same (necessary so windows will run on a mac )

Hahaha. Compaq may be owned by HP, but that's not saying much. For one thing, HP isn't very high quality either. A quick Google search reveals that much. For another thing, just because one company owns another doesn't mean the quality is the same. For example, Honda owns Acura. Does this mean that Hondas are the same quality as Acuras? No way.

Not that Hondas are poor quality at all! But they're not the same level of quality as Acura. However, HP is fairly poor quality to begin with. Compaq is a big step down from that.

 

[belvdr]

Hahaha. Compaq may be owned by HP, but that's not saying much. For one thing, HP isn't very high quality either. A quick Google search reveals that much. For another thing, just because one company owns another doesn't mean the quality is the same. For example, Honda owns Acura. Does this mean that Hondas are the same quality as Acuras? No way.

Not that Hondas are poor quality at all! But they're not the same level of quality as Acura. However, HP is fairly poor quality to begin with. Compaq is a big step down from that.

Check out the HP servers. They dropped the NetServer line after the acquisition of Compaq, as the Proliants were much better than NetServer ever could be. On top of that, the Superdomes are rock solid.

Also, Hondas are known for their quality. They run and run for a long time, and it is pretty common knowledge. You couldn't be further from reality. In fact, comparing Hondas and Acuras is pretty dumb. A lot of times, they share the same engines and such. Acura is merely a more plush brand for folks with more money.

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

Check out the HP servers. They dropped the NetServer line after the acquisition of Compaq, as the Proliants were much better than NetServer ever could be. On top of that, the Superdomes are rock solid.

Good point. I was referring to consumer products from HP (such as their laptops).

Also, Hondas are known for their quality. They run and run for a long time, and it is pretty common knowledge. You couldn't be further from reality. In fact, comparing Hondas and Acuras is pretty dumb. A lot of times, they share the same engines and such. Acura is merely a more plush brand for folks with more money.

You haven't told me anything I don't know I own a Honda, my parents own 2, and they're all rock-solid reliable. In fact, in my post that you quoted, I acknowledged that they are indeed good quality, so there's no need to point it out to me.

However, Acuras eclipse Hondas when it comes to quality of make. While the engines are sometimes the same (though just as often not), the rest of the car build is much better. They are not simply more plush, they're built better. Take the Civic vs the Integra. I own a Civic, and a friend of mine owns an Integra of roughly the same year. Build quality of the Integra is way better than the already good build quality of the Civic.

I was trying to make the argument relative. While Hondas are certainly great quality, Acuras are (relatively) much better.

 

[PowerGamerX]

If you're going to be comparing Windows machines with Apple machines and want to *heh* go Apples to apples, I feel the only comparible quality machines are Lenovo ThinkPads, they are extremely robust, and while not the most attractive, can stand up to just about anything, IBM tech support's always been great too.

 

[g3powerbook boy]

i have to say that the think pads are decent... i have a 390x now as a back up laptop running ubuntu 10.04 linux it is a decent machine kinda on the heavy side but the only issues it has is the battery and i had to epoxy the hinges in since the case wore out. still though my g3 powerbook and g4 powerbook seem far superior to it.

 

[bbergie]

More responsive, less lag

I use my 8-year old TiBook (OS X 10.4) as my primary computer, though I have a MacBook (granted, it's my wife's) and an Intel Mac mini (both run OS X 10.6) in the house.

I like the intel machines fine enough; they are undoubtedly fast and capable machines, but I still find a strong preference for my PPC machine. I'm not a power user, so brute processor strength doesn't have the appeal it does with most other users, but I do find that overall, my TiBook is more responsive on the things I care about and that the intel Macs are prone to lagging--even after all this transition time and the promise of a speedier Snow Leopard experience. Some things I've noticed:

1. transitioning to and from sleep is consistently faster, more responsive on my TiBook--likewise on powering down, though powering up is about the same.

2. downloading updates from Apple (or other parties) requires far fewer steps and clicking than the Intel machines. PPC is just easier. Also, firmware updates come frequently on the Intel machines. This is not my experience on the PPC machine, by a long shot. Installing updates takes an age, an absoulte age. Not so--ever--on my PPC TiBook. It's simply not the chore that it is on the Intel Macs.

3. launching programs, like iTunes, really lags on (at least) the Mac Mini. Launch times are pretty consistent the PPC machine.

With a smaller and smaller PPC user base on the Mac platform, we're pretty much below the radar or, more precisely, impervious to malware.

Carry-on PPC users.

 

[zen.state]

Check out the HP servers. They dropped the NetServer line after the acquisition of Compaq, as the Proliants were much better than NetServer ever could be. On top of that, the Superdomes are rock solid.

My father has an HP server from the PIII days. I think it's a 450MHz. The thing is built like a tank inside and out.

I upgraded the RAM for him once and was blown away by the build quality.

 

[Apple2]

I find PPC to be much faster and more reliable. My 1.8ghz G5 is faster than my dual core 2.6ghz imac. It has 2gb of RAM when the imac has 4!

 

[bizzle]

Here is a screen capture of a Photoshop benchmark showing a dual 1.8GHz 7448 actually outperforming both a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo.

That screenshot is Photoshop 8 aka CS1. CS was not a universal binary so Photoshop ran in Rosetta. Of course it'll be slower. PPC was never and will never be faster than just about any Intel Mac. Does that make PPC bad? Of course not, it's just not faster.

... I am on a 15" PowerBook G4 right now.

I love PowerPC because it reminds me of the old glory days of Apple before they were a mobile company, not delusions of it's performance over Intel.

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

2. downloading updates from Apple (or other parties) requires far fewer steps and clicking than the Intel machines. PPC is just easier.

For one thing, this is a function of the OS, not the hardware. Also, how many steps does it take on your Intel machines? It takes 4 clicks in Leopard and Snow Leopard (Apple -> Software Update -> Install -> OK after password) and I don't recall Tiger being any fewer.

Also, firmware updates come frequently on the Intel machines. This is not my experience on the PPC machine, by a long shot. Installing updates takes an age, an absoulte age. Not so--ever--on my PPC TiBook. It's simply not the chore that it is on the Intel Macs.

I think you mean software updates? Sounds like you're complaining that the software on your Intel Macs is still supported (and thus being updated) and you'd prefer less-supported (thus less updated) software...

3. launching programs, like iTunes, really lags on (at least) the Mac Mini. Launch times are pretty consistent the PPC machine.

Launching iTunes is way faster on my Dad's Mini than it is on my maxed out Alu PBG4.

 

[76ShovelHead]

I've always used PC's at home, however School used nothing but Apple Computers. Which is how they grew on me. I build my computers, an Intel CPU, compatible board, graphics card, and hard drive and optical drive, slap windows on there and its a real turd. Mac was different, whole different OS that didn't suck - and looked out of this world (tiger). It also used a completely different architecture that was much more faster and was inevitable from viruses. The countless hours spent to mask XP to look as if i had Mac. Now that Macs use Intel, its like its not even a Mac anymore - they completely stripped it of it's individuality. One can no longer call it a Mac, just another PC in a slick case with a gorgeous Operating System. I own a two PowerPC Macs (eMac, iMac G3) and both are Flawless. My PC's hard Drive just died right when my new eMac came in so this eMac has made it on my desk as my Primary desktop, and will stay that way - i Love it! all i need my PC for is my Web Design classes and storing files when the replacement drive arrives. I love my PowerPC Mac's!

 

[MacHamster68]

cant agree more especially the eMac's are much underrated , nearly indestructible and such a nice design , some say they are loud , but i don't think they are too loud ,i heard some PowerMac G4's which are much louder

 

[MacsRgr8]

I loved PPC.

My 2 favourites Macs of all time were PPC's.

- G3 Blue & White: The most advanced personal computer at its launch.
- G5 Quad. Simply the coolest name to say: "My Mac is a G5.... Quad".

But I am happy with the Intel switch. Yep, the "Power per Watt" is a good thing. I am so happy with my newest Mac mini... look at it!!! So cool! So "Apple"!!

Maybe the mid 2010 Mac mini has made it into my Top 3 Macs ever... yep.

Motorola and IBM let Apple down. The 500 MHz barrier was a huge issue back in the late 90's. IBM couldn't get the G5 @ 3 GHz in time, and it seemed impossible to manufacture a PowerBook G5.
That would have sounded cool too: "I have a PowerBook.... G5."

In short I love both-brained Macs. I still own quiet a lot of G3's, G4's and even have the Power Mac G5... Quad.
Yes, the G3's all still work.
I do believe that PPC brains last longer than Intel-brains...

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

So I have a question... what is it about PPCs that people here find so much more attractive (apart from durability which Intel Macs simply haven't had the test of time that PPC Macs have) than the faster Intel Macs?

I know not everyone needs the speed, I understand that. But a lot of people here are saying that since Apple switched to Intel, Macs have lost their individuality and are just like PCs now. This makes no sense to me... regardless of the hardware, your end-user experience is through the software.

I have Leopard on my PBG4. My school has Leopard on their Intel iMacs. The experience is identical (apart from the increased speed and software compatibility of the iMacs). Everything operates in exactly the same manner. So what is it about Intel Macs that make it seem like a PC even though it acts exactly the same (apart from SL of course)? Or are people that biased towards the sinking ship of PPC?

I use the word bias but I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. This whole thing strongly reminds me of the OS Classic (8.x, 9.x) vs OS X when it first came out.

 

[Dane D.]

So I have a question... what is it about PPCs that people here find so much more attractive (apart from durability which Intel Macs simply haven't had the test of time that PPC Macs have) than the faster Intel Macs?

I know not everyone needs the speed, I understand that. But a lot of people here are saying that since Apple switched to Intel, Macs have lost their individuality and are just like PCs now. This makes no sense to me... regardless of the hardware, your end-user experience is through the software.

I have Leopard on my PBG4. My school has Leopard on their Intel iMacs. The experience is identical (apart from the increased speed and software compatibility of the iMacs). Everything operates in exactly the same manner. So what is it about Intel Macs that make it seem like a PC even though it acts exactly the same (apart from SL of course)? Or are people that biased towards the sinking ship of PPC?

I use the word bias but I don't mean it in a derogatory sense. This whole thing strongly reminds me of the OS Classic (8.x, 9.x) vs OS X when it first came out.

For me it is the ability to boot into OS 9.2.2. I still play Unreal Tournament GOTY edition. I also like that PPCs use much less electric, my G3 runs 24/7. I have had one hardware issue with my G3, the Firewire port is acting up. I can't use my external CD burner anymore to burn CDs, so it is basically a reader now.

 

[MacHamster68]

maybe its the durability proven by countless ppc Macs still beeing used all over the world
but its also design , the newer intel Mac's somehow in my opinion just lag design , everything apple is producing looks now like a smaller or bigger ipad
even the new mini looks like they did cut out the middle of a iMac to get the apple on it , i dont know but this design looks boring to me
and mentioning the new mini , the mini was meant to be a entry level Mac , so everyone could afford one ..the base model now hits £649 , the original mini g4 did cost £339 for the base model , thats a huge difference of over £300 , ok apple calims its saving more power , but for how many decades do i have to let the mini run to recoup these £300 through energy saving

 

[drewdle]

I think it's a couple of things.

Firstly, yes, PPC is faster and/or more efficient in certain areas. Boot up time for my iMac under 10.4.11 is only a few seconds off the pace of my wife's MacBook (which is less than six months old). Shut down is about the same speed. Multitasking is a cinch. And updates and software code is far smaller, which does count for something. Every time a software patch comes out for Snow Leopard, it's 300-500Mb in size, and for what exactly? A few bug fixes? That's a massive patch. Contrast this with the 10.4.11 Combo Updater for PPC, which will update the initial 10.4 release of Tiger to the current version, eleven revisions in total, at 186Mb. Yes, we live in the world of broadband, but that doesn't mean we should throw all efficiency to the wind.

I think what Zen.State is trying to demonstrate with his example is that when Apple initially rolled out Intel it was a huge step back in performance on a number of fronts. Those with old software had to upgrade to take advantage of the platform's supposed gains. Saying, "well that's not fair because that software isn't Intel optimized" isn't exactly fair play, as when the Intel Macs first started shipping, there was a year gap between their release and an Intel native Adobe Creative Suite, so this is what prospective buyers were faced with. Snow Leopard is catching up to the performance of the PPC machines in terms of the aforementioned tasks because that's the basis on which the X86 platform works; run inefficient code at blistering speed, and the chips themselves are getting better and better. What Apple had in the PPC, however, was already super-efficient. What they needed instead was just a power boost and a re-engineering (similar to what Intel had to do to the Pentium 4 when it started melting holes in people's computers and they started switching to AMD). The G5 had it's issues, but it could have been replaced with something stellar.

~~

Secondly, in the earlier part of the decade, Apple was the "Think Different" company. Not the "Throw In The Towel" company. I think Macs lost a lot of soul when they switched to Intel. The designs became more bland, industrial, and simplified, as opposed to shaking things up like, say, the iMac G4, or sticking Blueberry colored panels on what was ostensibly a professional computer workstation (the B&W). They took chances, and now, they look deathly afraid of doing so. None of the designs that Apple has hatched recently, while pretty in their own way, were anything groundbreaking, just an evolution of what was already in place. Likewise, instead of building a PPC processor that could compete step-for-step with the Intel marketplace, Apple decided that it was better to join Intel and provide the ability to run Windows on a Mac for those not entirely sold on OS X.

What seemed so full of promise back in the day has proven to be kind of disappointing. Just my opinion of course.

 

[SuperJudge]

Likewise, instead of building a PPC processor that could compete step-for-step with the Intel marketplace, Apple decided that it was better to join Intel and provide the ability to run Windows on a Mac for those not entirely sold on OS X.

That's not entirely it.

Apple was dependent on the Motorola and IBM parts of the AIM alliance for their chips. Apple didn't own a fab or have in-house chip engineers in the PPC days. Motorola burned apple on the first gen of G4 chips when the 500MHz barrier couldn't be breached easily. IBM then burned Apple with the G5 chips, never delivering a 3.0GHz chip or one that could be placed in a laptop. Apple moved to Intel since they had been developing OS X in parallel for X86 since the beginning for this very sort of situation.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the Intel transition, especially in light of the current debacle over suitable chips for a next gen Mac Pro. While I'm thrilled to have fewer computers on my desk at work due to the awesomeness of virtualization, I have to agree that the industrial design of Apple's products is starting to feel kind of sterile. And then there's the fact that the low-end G4 towers have never been replicated in the line since then.

PPC machines have a certain aura about them that I really like. My primary machine at home is still a dual 800MHz Quicksilver. I've got a G3 iMac that I use for iTunes.

What can I say? The PPC Macs just exude cool.

 

[drewdle]

That's not entirely it.

Apple was dependent on the Motorola and IBM parts of the AIM alliance for their chips. Apple didn't own a fab or have in-house chip engineers in the PPC days. Motorola burned apple on the first gen of G4 chips when the 500MHz barrier couldn't be breached easily. IBM then burned Apple with the G5 chips, never delivering a 3.0GHz chip or one that could be placed in a laptop. Apple moved to Intel since they had been developing OS X in parallel for X86 since the beginning for this very sort of situation.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about the Intel transition, especially in light of the current debacle over suitable chips for a next gen Mac Pro. While I'm thrilled to have fewer computers on my desk at work due to the awesomeness of virtualization, I have to agree that the industrial design of Apple's products is starting to feel kind of sterile. And then there's the fact that the low-end G4 towers have never been replicated in the line since then.

PPC machines have a certain aura about them that I really like. My primary machine at home is still a dual 800MHz Quicksilver. I've got a G3 iMac that I use for iTunes.

What can I say? The PPC Macs just exude cool.

I hadn't considered the manufacturing problems. Apple now has their own chip development company, however, in the guys who brought us the A4. You think perhaps they'll go back to work on a modern day PPC chipset, now that they're capable of rolling their own, so to speak? They certainly have the money to burn through experimentation so long as iPhone 4 doesn't take the ship down with it.

I agree with the cool. While I certainly appreciate that aluminum is easily recyclable, you could also leverage new technologies, like plant-based plastics, to start moving in the opposite direction. I liked everything they were up to design wise until the iMac G5 came out, which in plastic guise, looked like a poorly done shop project. The G4 is still the best looking computer ever made, and the transparent plastics used on the PowerMacs are still gorgeous to look at. Nothing has ever looked quite like them. Then again, I'm still of the opinion that Tiger was the prettiest iteration of OS X so far, brushed metal and all. So maybe I'm not the best judge of taste.

 

[MacHamster68]

i agree totally apart you forgot to mention the eMac , which might not as pretty as the iMac g4 , but still had a really good design especially from the back

i personally have nothing against aluminium , but aluminium is not that easy to recycle as apple and others want us make to believe ..plastic recycling is far easier and costs less energy
but back to aluminium , the car industry shows us that aluminium
can have nice shapes which dont have to be boring
and then there are other materials too like carbon fibre , strong as steel but light and can be moulded in all sorts of shapes
Apple should encourage Jonathan Ive to use a bit of his past imagination
unibody might be easier to produce but it lags design

 

[SuperJudge]

I hadn't considered the manufacturing problems. Apple now has their own chip development company, however, in the guys who brought us the A4. You think perhaps they'll go back to work on a modern day PPC chipset, now that they're capable of rolling their own, so to speak? They certainly have the money to burn through experimentation so long as iPhone 4 doesn't take the ship down with it.

It's not impossible, but it's highly unlikely that they'd do that except for maybe stuff like the Mac mini and the Apple TV.

The ARM chips like those in the iPad and iPhone just aren't suitable for the kind of heavy lifting that high-end desktops do. They're incredibly power efficient, but that will only get you so far.

 

[DesmoPilot]

I hadn't considered the manufacturing problems. Apple now has their own chip development company, however, in the guys who brought us the A4. You think perhaps they'll go back to work on a modern day PPC chipset, now that they're capable of rolling their own, so to speak?

Would be a pretty dumb move (for one they'd have to get rid of BootCamp, which I can tell you has been a huge selling point for Apple the last couple years); Intel's future looks quite bright (would look even brighter if they'd stop being a baby towards nVidia).