I would take your post and edit the poll if i could.max_altitude said:It's a little hard to throw all of the PPC chips in the one boat isn't it? They're all very different to each other so I don't really think it's a good comparison to be making.
That could cause A LOT of problems. Some apps written for intel, others for PPC etc, it just wouldn't make sense later on.simon-says said:I liked being on the RISC architecture of the PowerPC's. While the Intel processors may be better for portables, I wished the desktop line stayed with PowerPC's.
No, you wouldn't. They're unionised and you'd end up giving them more time off than they'd work.Blue Velvet said:I prefer the processor that enables me to get my work done. For all I care, it could be powered by pixies.
Apple have been releasing universal binaries for both PPC and Intel for months now. It is the 3rd party developers that are holding the Intels back.Zwhaler said:I have played around on my friends Mac's and I perfer PPC G5 on Tiger, but I am sure that once Apple comes up with software that is built for an Intel Mac, it will be much better for Intel to be used.
Yeah, it's mainly the large applications that people are concerned about (Photoshop) as the smaller applications generally run without a hitch. I run Word and MSN Messenger at the same time, which are both PowerPC apps, and I don't even notice. In fact, Word seems much faster on my Intel Mini then it was on my PowerPC Mini.risc said:Apple have been releasing universal binaries for both PPC and Intel for months now. It is the 3rd party developers that are holding the Intels back.