DeSnousa said:I really don't care what chip is used as long as Apple continues to do the great thing they have alway's done. Great hardware and OS.
Well said DeSnousa, could not have said it better myself!
DeSnousa said:I really don't care what chip is used as long as Apple continues to do the great thing they have alway's done. Great hardware and OS.
awulf said:The PowerPC is a better design for many reasons:
RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) i.e. PowerPC vs CISC (Complex Instruction Set) i.e. Intel:
RISC have a much simpler instruction set, making the hardware much simpler, faster and cheaper.
CISC are easier for compilers to translate a high level programming language to machine code, also makes programs smaller in size.
The x86 is backwards compatible all the way back to the 8086 from 1978, which makes the x86 awfully complex. The PowerPC 601 is from 1991, which is relatively new.
Also the PowerPC has a much simpler instruction set compared to the x86, so programming in assembly is much simpler on the PowerPC.
If as much R&D money were to be poured in the the PowerPC as it has been into the Intel, the PowerPC would be much more powerful, more power efficient and cooler than the Intel, but unfortunately Motorola and IBM aren't willing to spend that money on the PowerPC.
MUCKYFINGERS said:who here still loves powerpc because they just work great?
okay this is a useless thread but i wanted to stand tall for my love for the great PowerPC processor.
spencecb said:Going along with this idea, wouldn't it be possible for Apple to keep using Intel and PowerPC if they continue to embed the Universal Binary in their Developer's tools? That way the companies that are profficient at writing code for Intel chips will be able to make software for the Mac and have it compatible with PowerPC, and those of us that won't be able to buy a new Mac in the next couple years will be assured contiued support for our PowerPC based Macs.
Just a thought, but I believe it is one that is quite "do-able" and one that Apple should keep in mind.
nfs2 said:I love the power PC because i wont be getting an intel mac for at least a year.
ibilly said:The G5 is far superior to the intel core series at equivalent clocks. The dual core versions of each processor are much faster. IMO, the heat/energy consumption thing is the only thing that the core duo has that trumps the G5. I'm also pretty sure that the G5 is a lot cheaper.
So I guess you could say that I'm on the PPC side...
FFTT said:I'm suddenly reminded of what smog control engineering did to muscle cars after 1967.
The Intel switch is a good move for portables, still I can't help but wonder how we'll feel if and when IBM releases their Power5 dual cores.
jamesi said:the powermacs will always be long loved b/c they were supercomputers of their day. from editing video to listening to music, they did it all and ran like butter. but obviously, they wont run like butter in the next few years. computer hardware grows and gets outdated, it happens. but apple will always have unrelenting affection from the community that uses them. when the intel versions of the powermac come out they will blow away all the benchmark records held by the G5s....but thats ok
FFTT said:I'm suddenly reminded of what smog control engineering did to muscle cars after 1967.
The Intel switch is a good move for portables, still I can't help but wonder how we'll feel if and when IBM releases their Power5 dual cores.
![]()
plastique45 said:PowerPC roadmaps (from Motorola or IBM) have NEVER been CLOSE to reality. Remember the Motorola G5 du for 2000? The 3GHz G5 for 2004?