Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ppc advantages and comparison

these arm chips have a bit more to offer http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php
and would bring down apples ridiculous ghz race on their consumer Mac's which apple itself always always said is not necessary , at least thats what apple was telling us before the transition to intel , but i guess apple is not alone there its just that today it seems a quadcore processor is absolutely needed for word processing or for sending a email or for surfing in the deep space of the www , because thats what the majority of computer users do as the most demanding things on their computers :confused: but maybe its just me that got lost in time
i just think all should go back to reality , or past however you see it , in the ppc times if you did want a high performance Mac then you had to buy a powermac g3/g4/g5 , all others had been consumer Mac's e.g iMac , mini, and a laptop was never meant to replace a desktop ,
but today everything goes bonkers " help need a mini with a i7 processor and at least 3 ghz and 16 gb ram , a graphics card with at least 2 gb ram because the present intel one needs 0.8 seconds to open the macrumors forum and i cant play 10 different 1080p films simultaniously on 5 monitors " :confused: sorry for the exaggeration , but the mini was meant as a entry level Mac and it WAS the base 1.25 G4 did just cost £339, and did what its supposed to do and still does ,as a entry level Mac, but today the entry level mini cost double that , and maybe it is better in many ways , but its more then you need from a entry level Mac.
i took the mini because i think the best example because back then there was a clean cut between entry level consumer mac and pro Mac
 
I would love a move back to PowerPC but I honestly can't imagine that will ever happen.

The sad fact is that in a few years I am going to have to bite the bullet and buy x86.
 
Eh, technology marches on. I'm happy with my MacBook Pro. The G4 has lasted me 10 years, but with the lack of support for 10.4 on the new iPhones and near-abandonement by developers of PPC (10.4 especially), it's time to move on.
 
i refuse to move on ,nobody dictates me what i have to use and what i need ,
not even apple , and if software does not run on my ppc mac's then its not worth having that software , no need for software made by ........ who don't know how to code for ppc :D
 
why ppc is better than intel and why intel is better than ppc.

i think that for my needs, a macbook is best, but even with the lightning-fast performance, i still would prefer ppc macs if i had to live with 1 architechure forever. i think part of the love of ppc macs that still lives on today is nostalgia, and another part is that i can pick up an old imac on craigslist for $20, of free, and still get tons of usage from it. you cant get an old intel based mac for $20. maybe the lowest would be $400 for an used early mac mini. unless you are a gamer or a professional that needs current software, ppc macs can do anything you throw at them. i personally over the years have owned like 8 ppc machines, 1 obook, 3 imac g3s, 3 powermacs, and an imac g4. i guess speed is not a real basis of comparison, considering that intel core was basically the generation succeeding ppc. intel macs are always faster, but ppc ones just feel so solid. whereas my macbook randomly has little jumps and pauses in basic tasks, ppc machines always feel like they are going at the same speed, and they dont randomly stop for no reason for a split second. my old ibook may not play youtube at 30fps, but at least it keeps playing at the same fps all the time. i also think that the designs for ppc based macs were superior. i could get deeper into this but i gotta get some sleep, so bye for now.
 
I definitely think my use of PPC Macs has a lot to do with the fact that these machines have lasted me so long and that they were and still are so reliable. I use both PPC and intel Macs and though the intel Macs are faster at the tasks and games I need it for, my PPC Macs are simply super-stable. Also, as mentioned before, nostalgia plays a large factor. I still use my Sawtooth G4 along with the original graphite keyboard and hockey puck mouse.:cool: (though I did upgrade the processor)
 
drewdle said:
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.
Click to expand...

PPC is not faster than Intel; you are high.
 
DesmoPilot said:
PPC is not faster than Intel; you are high.
Click to expand...

I believe what I said was "faster in certain areas". Software update happens to be one of those areas. It's also far slower in other areas, such as Flash processing (or really video processing of any kind; you could encode a DVD in about five days with my iMac, which would only take 55 minutes on the MacBook). I also believe that I appreciated the speed of my machine to "a few seconds off the pace of my wife's MacBook", which is a far cry from "PPC is faster than Intel". I think the problem here is you're thinking in blanket statements, while I'm making a detailed analysis.

Though judging by your highly educated response, I'm sure you knew that.
 
MacHamster68 said:
no he is not :D because he said in certain areas

never heard of the megaherz myth ?
these nice story's about it ?
steve and others at apple told us about in several videos about how superior the ppc architecture is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKF9GOE2q38

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSYr-Tx8vEI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwBY2Vft7wY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve3O6VtBmdc&feature=related
Click to expand...

Yes I know what the Megahertz myth is; fact is it just doesn't apply. These Intel chips are just plain faster; they're generations ahead. Hell, my Dual 1.25GHz MDD G4 had trouble with HD video (something a measly Intel Atom handles fine).
 
DesmoPilot said:
(something a measly Intel Atom handles fine).
Click to expand...

Not strictly true. The graphics chipset is where the HD decoding takes place.

But the benchmarks do speak for themselves. Even a Core Duo Mac mini bests a quad G5. However, there are other charms to PPC machines, especially the G4 and G5 towers.
 
Judging a CPU strictly by how it plays video is pretty foolish. Computers can do many other things you know..

Besides, format is what it's all about. Flash is a CPU hog and offers bad quality. With divx/xvid you get much better quality and far less CPU consumption. I have watched 720p HD video on my single 1.8GHz G4 and it takes 40% CPU max.
 
is my g4 really that old:eek:

anyways i wouldn't say a atom would beat a g4, on boot up time my single 1.2 g4 thrashes my advent 4211 whether the advent boots osx windows xp or ubuntu
 
max¥¥ said:
is my g4 really that old:eek:

anyways i wouldn't say a atom would beat a g4, on boot up time my single 1.2 g4 thrashes my advent 4211 whether the advent boots osx windows xp or ubuntu
Click to expand...

Boot up speed has more to do with HDDs than anything else. Bootup/shutdown speeds are a pretty piss poor way to judge the "speed" of a computer.
 
DesmoPilot said:
Yes I know what the Megahertz myth is; fact is it just doesn't apply. These Intel chips are just plain faster; they're generations ahead. Hell, my Dual 1.25GHz MDD G4 had trouble with HD video (something a measly Intel Atom handles fine).
Click to expand...
you should be comparing apples to apples (so to speak). compare the highest end Intel Xeons to the highest end Power7 chips. then thats fair (p7 FLOGS btw)
 
I love PowerPC. They literally blow Intel Pentiums out of the water.I have 2 PowerMac G4's,a MDD and Quicksilver,both smoke my mom's HP Pentium 4 3Ghz desktop.She loved the quicksilver but never got used to the Mac OSX Leopard. :(
 
While technology marches on, I think what we're seeing here is people hanging onto the last vestiges of machines that were built to last. I don't think PowerPC needs to prove anything in this regard; aside from problems caused by Apple's sometimes less-than-stalwart engineering decisions (so, whatever they did to the ice iBook, and the problems with G5 processor cooling) the machines have proven rock solid. There's no other reason for my B&W G3 to still be running, and yet, on fairly stock components, it still is. Ditto the iMac.

Also, if your needs haven't changed, why should your computer? If you computer does exactly what you need it to, and you're satisfied with it's performance, then more performance isn't really necessary. There's nothing wrong with embracing that concept and not running out to buy the latest and greatest every year.
 
666sheep said:
I'd like to have Dual 1.8 7448 from Newertech, but its price kills my enthusiasm :( I got one nice Quicksilver, it would fit perfectly together...
Click to expand...

Sell it and get a Mini. PPC is dead.
Kidding, completely kidding, I couldn't resist that after the anti "get a mini" rant.
Better yet, if you could afford it, get a G5. Mine is quite fast and nice, it can't do anything my Intel Macs can, and it does it with this really nice vintage feel to it that the Intels can't quite match.
 
drewdle said:
While technology marches on, I think what we're seeing here is people hanging onto the last vestiges of machines that were built to last. I don't think PowerPC needs to prove anything in this regard; aside from problems caused by Apple's sometimes less-than-stalwart engineering decisions (so, whatever they did to the ice iBook, and the problems with G5 processor cooling) the machines have proven rock solid. There's no other reason for my B&W G3 to still be running, and yet, on fairly stock components, it still is. Ditto the iMac.

Also, if your needs haven't changed, why should your computer? If you computer does exactly what you need it to, and you're satisfied with it's performance, then more performance isn't really necessary. There's nothing wrong with embracing that concept and not running out to buy the latest and greatest every year.
Click to expand...

I do have to say that the older hardware seems to be of a better quality. Even after they stopped building them in Ireland, they still seemed to hold up well, until '03 or so I rarely heard of people having issues.
 
Quad 2.5 G5 =) said:
Sell it and get a Mini. PPC is dead.
Click to expand...
:D

Better yet, if you could afford it, get a G5.
Click to expand...

This is the one I want (Quad), but I don't really need it. :p For hard work I got quite loaded 1st gen MP. I've get it only beacuse at that moment there was no brand new Quads available and I wanted my main machine to be new (me - 1st owner, warranty etc). Plus, the price was very good.
But rest of my Macs are PPC: almost all are "top" specs - MDD 1.42DP, PB 1.67 17", Clamshell 466SE :D and some others. G5 Quad would perfectly match my collection, but it would be a waste of power I think.
 
MacHamster68 said:
these arm chips have a bit more to offer http://www.arm.com/products/processors/cortex-a/cortex-a9.php
and would bring down apples ridiculous ghz race on their consumer Mac's which apple itself always always said is not necessary , at least thats what apple was telling us before the transition to intel , but i guess apple is not alone there its just that today it seems a quadcore processor is absolutely needed for word processing or for sending a email or for surfing in the deep space of the www , because thats what the majority of computer users do as the most demanding things on their computers :confused: but maybe its just me that got lost in time
i just think all should go back to reality , or past however you see it , in the ppc times if you did want a high performance Mac then you had to buy a powermac g3/g4/g5 , all others had been consumer Mac's e.g iMac , mini, and a laptop was never meant to replace a desktop ,
but today everything goes bonkers " help need a mini with a i7 processor and at least 3 ghz and 16 gb ram , a graphics card with at least 2 gb ram because the present intel one needs 0.8 seconds to open the macrumors forum and i cant play 10 different 1080p films simultaniously on 5 monitors " :confused: sorry for the exaggeration , but the mini was meant as a entry level Mac and it WAS the base 1.25 G4 did just cost £339, and did what its supposed to do and still does ,as a entry level Mac, but today the entry level mini cost double that , and maybe it is better in many ways , but its more then you need from a entry level Mac.
i took the mini because i think the best example because back then there was a clean cut between entry level consumer mac and pro Mac
Click to expand...

i know what you mean when we brought my refurbished mini in 2005 it cost just £215, i looked last year at upgrading to an intel mini but even a refurbished one would cost £650 - £700, that's not far off what the high end mac cost back in 2005
 
Hense, why they don't want to support

Windows running on a mac. As for PowerPC I owe the G5 Quad a very high debt of gratitude since it was this very model which allowed me to move into a Mac Pro - my transition was complete in late 2008-2009 when I decided to get my 1st mac pro.. it was the 1st generation 2006 mac pro 2.66 Woodcrest. I found out that because of an EFI 32/64 limitation I started to go back thinking maybe it was dumb to have sold the G5, but low and behold I got ahold of a 2008 Mac Pro - EFI64 and I was in business!

Now, it is later 2010 and just recently sold off my 2008 3.0 harpertown for a Quad-core single Nehalem and just finished upgrading the 2.66 to a 3.33 - w3580 processor. It was just like the old days of upgrading processors, however for those with dual 2009 mac pros their upgrading of the processors is far more TEDIOUS than those with singles.



KeriJane said:
Where were the G5-era Macs made?

I know the old Macs came from California but when did they move to China?

I'm a bit of a technician for a living. Not to get too far off topic but...
The build quality of my Mac Pro is fantastic. The fit and finish of the metal parts amaze me. Not even a $300+ Lian-Li PC case matches it.
The PSU is an unstoppable tank, cooling is phenomenal, it's just physically astounding inside and out.

Then I salvaged the poor broken G5 iMac and had a look around. Other than some cheaper capacitors in a very hot place of the PSU, the build quality was as good as the MP. The components such as internal fans, speakers, CPU cooling parts, even the metal chassis itself... all made to a high standard and finish even though practically no customers will ever see them.

Being used to "cost effective" PC construction, it's a bit of a shock.

Seeing the internal attention to detail, it's a wonder that Macs cost as LITTLE as they do.

So my questions to the more experienced are:
Has Apple always been this fanatical with their build quality?
I am aware of the difference between the words FASTER and BETTER, but what is the "better" part of the PPC architecture? There apparently is one, else the Space Industry, IBM, etc... would use something else.

Thanks for any insight.... I'm just curious.
Keri

PS> I strongly suspect that Apple is going to eventually drop Intel CPUs.
Why? Mostly because they have the resources to make something better (for their purposes) and maybe just a tiny bit to separate themselves from the PC crowd. The x86's ancient, backwards roots and holdovers (for PC compatibility reasons) has gotta be driving them nuts.
Maybe ARM / A-Series for portables and ??? for Desktops?
Click to expand...
 
For me..

PowerPC was the REAL MAC.. and yes, although I have left the PPC way behind now I still reminice about it and perhaps might pick up a cheap G5 somewhere just to play with it.. I don't think it will be a G5 Quad as those are still demanding high dollar, but a 2.0 or 2.3 dual-core would be nice.

I think I am over the G4 though, as my last G4 which was sold in 2008 was a G4 MDD 2003 with dual 1.42(was 1.25 after processor upgrade) with 2GB of memory(using two 1gb sticks).


zen.state said:
Some thoughts..

I really am in awe of all the people coming here and dogging PowerPC. We PowerPC lovers/users have but one little area on this gigantic forum. All the other areas are dedicated to current Apple products etc.

Maybe leave us be? We understand PowerPC is less powerful. We get it. We still choose to use it.

Any person that truly embraces technology knows it's always about using what you're comfortable with and in turn works the way you prefer. For me and the other regulars here it's PowerPC Macs.

End rant..
Click to expand...
 
I love my G5 so much. It's blazing fast...and when it gets slow I pop in another 2 GB of RAM.
XD

Oh and I also love my PowerBook G4 12"...I'm taking it to college!! It's eight years old now, and the only thing it needs to work like new is a new battery.

Anyway, I love the new macs just as much as I love these "vintage" macs. However, I miss the fact that the batteries used to be swappable in the Apple notebooks. It's sad that they are now built in...
 
hansolo669 said:
hey guys
since this is a ppc forum and the Intel haters *mostly* leave it alone, i have probably the biggest question for all you amazing ppc mac owners. (disclaimer i myself own a lower end g4 system and love every minute of it.....even though its vid card crapped out)
why: why in 2010 do you still you ppc? do you use ppc exclusively or do you have an Intel mac? why would you recommend ppc over intel? do you think its worth it to buy into a slowly dying technology (that is still awesome)?


now if you think I'm dumb to ask this question, ask yourself.....weren't you wondering to?

(pleas point out any spelling or grammatical errors to me (pm please) English is my main language and yes i do know how to type and i type well, i just have a slight problem with spelling and stuff.
Click to expand...

I use intel and PPC Macs side by side, for different things. :D I use intel for the more heavy stuff my older PPC Macs can't handle... and I use PPC macs for gaming old games that intel doesn't support, for running Mac OS9, and for using software that is not supported by intel. And I must say, some of the best software out there can only be used on PPC Macs :cool:

Go the G3, G4 and G5s!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back