Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > How important is the PowerPC architecture to you?

How important is the PowerPC architecture to you?
Thread Tools
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 05:19 AM
 
You may not at first see the relevance to OSX in this post but believe me it is lurking in here somewhere.

I ask the question posed in the topic as I am just quite interested to hear people's views on processor architecture and how it influences you decision if at all, when regarding choice of platform.

I use macs because of OSX, I have used them since my dad bought the family a Performa 5300 running 7.5.1 but more recently OSX is my computing life. At work I maintain a network of about 25 windows PCs, one of which is a HP, Dell makes the rest. I've had no problems with the build quality of the machines, just the usual printer driver incompatibility. I don't mind working with Windows, I haven't really had much time with XP, the machine at my desk runs Win2K, and on a whole it's quite pleasing to use. But when in OSX I feel like I'm in my element. Everything seems to be where I expect it to be and it is solid as a rock. I can compile the latest version of xChat whilst listening to some Velvet Underground in iTunes. I've only seen one Kernel Panic on my iBook, on startup after installing 10.2.1, I had to reformat (since the knowledge base article wasn't posted until later) but it wasn't too much of a hassle, as conscientiously I had backed up the previous day.

If Apple's computers didn't run OSX I wouldn't be using them now. I love my iBook but I love it mainly because of the operating system. Its size and style are fantastic, and I have no real qualms about its speed (although I wouldn't say no if you could magically make it faster) but I really wouldn't care if at the heart of my iBook was an x86 processor. With the new IBM chip seemingly set for Apple's new line in the semi-distant future how well do you think Apple will fare against the big guns like AMD and Intel? If Apple were to switch to x86 do you think they would license the OS again? Would we see grey boxes running our shiny operating system? Or would they work it in such a way that their implementation of x86 was in some way proprietary and OSX could only run on an Apple branded box?
Basically I'm wondering whether people's loyalty lie with MacOS X or with the PowerPC architecture or just the Apple brand.
     
Justin W. Williams
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Evansville, IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 08:48 AM
 
osx
Justin Williams
Chicks Really Dig Me
AIM - iTikki [NEW AND IMPROVED!]
http://www.tikkirulz.com
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 09:42 AM
 
The PPC architecture is important to me, but it's more out of a metter of principle than of merit.

Which isn't to say that the PPC architecture isn't better than the z86; it is. And I've studied them both. The x86 has been hobbled by blind insistence on backward-compatibility with its lineage, a lineage which goes all the way back to the Intel 4004, the very first microprocessor. It was designed for a desktop calculator.

IBM chose the x86 architecture for its first PC because it sucked. They wanted the market to die, so that their minicomputers wouldn't ever have to face the competition. And while the fact that Intel's achievements with this architecture are nothing short of miraculous, it's just plain sad, once you see how awful the architecture really is. It's got raw clockrate going for it, and also speed, and that's about it.

The current crop of Pentiums are not CISC chips, actually. This is oversimplifying things, but they're essentially running the x86 architecture as a kind of emulation mode which is built into the processor. What would Intel be capable of, if only they would let the worn-out x86 instruction set go? The PPC architecture might really be in trouble then.

So, why does this matter? Because Apple, with the PPC architecture, is choosing what is good over what is cheap. Intel, by chaining itself back to the x86 architecture, is doing the reverse; going for a halfhearted job to save money. I think Apple's taking the better stance as far as that's concerned, and moving to x86 would sacrifice a large part of that principle. That's why I'm so adamant about wanting Apple to stick with PowerPC, even if they change chipmakers.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 09:55 AM
 
I think I speak for most Mac users when I say that I would love to see OS X running on Intel hardware if it didn't compromise the OS AND it didn't compromise Apple as a profitable company

Regarding Intel and AMD, we are going to see them killing one another to make faster and faster x86 chips (this is why capitalism works in my opinion). Moto. and IBM aren't at each others throats, thus we don't see faster and faster chips [For the record, I know Moto and IBM are working hard on new chips] As a Mac users, I still get a little "WOW" when I see a 2.5 GHz system and someone that knows how to buy hardware [Fast RAM, SCSI hard drives, Fast system Buss].

Apple will only license the OS if one of the following things happen:
- They are in serious financial trouble
- They are not able to keep up with the demand
- They are bought out by someone else
- Linus Torvalds kills Jobs and assumes the CEO roll at Apple

---------------------
If Apple Went Intel
---------------------
I don't think they would unless there was a major shift in technology, but if they did, I'm 100% sure that they would make OS X Apple x86 compatable (the only issue is how they would do that so that people couldn't load it onto their PC via a hack).

Everyone knows that RISC is better, the only issue is it may not be better now. As many of you know, Intel and AMD are starting to use more RISC/CISC hybrids all the time.

--------------------
Apple Loyalty
--------------------
In my mind, as long as Apple continues to make an operating system and hardware that is more appealing the Windows or Linux, I will stick with them. I was there for the PPC jump, and now for the OS X jump... Until they screw me over... I will stay with them...
     
mrmister
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 10:34 AM
 
I think it is kind of a moot question: OS X has to run on PPC architecture, because porting to any other would KILL us right now. So I see them as interlinked.
     
McDriver
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Gothenburg Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 10:39 AM
 
Well it's a complex question and maybe it deserves a longer answer. I started out hanging around my friend who built his own computer, a Nascom with the Z80 chip and when eventually I could afford my own I went for the Amiga 1000 sporting the at the time very nice 68000. Then I slipped into the windows world driving a number of different pc:s. Even if I had looked at Mac's I did not find them very attractive because I did not grasp the interface as being more than eyecandy and it shut the user out from the underpinnings of the system . (I know, I know hear me out plz) After beeing computerless for a while I got a used Performa 6300 and started to explore this unfamiliar machine. After 3 months of experience I went to a friend and tried his pc and realized that even my Mac was slower and older (much older) it felt more intuitive and smarter. After going through a 7300 I ended up with a G4 350 agp wich I have overclocked to 450 without the slightest problem, going like a charm. When the discussions of a new operative system emerged I was very excited, think unix think big machines oooaaoo. When the beta of Os X came I bought it right away. Enter dispair, what a horribly sloooow thing it was. Now running 10.21 it's still slow comparing to os9 but who cares, because the experience is nice and that is actually my point. (took awhile to get there) For me the os is what keeps me in the Apple fan club, specially since I recognized that starting like 4-5 apps at the same time goes just as fast as starting one app. The user experience of the interface and the stability and the.......you know what I mean. So to get to the end of my answer to your question yes and no, apple put processors from Motorola and IBM in their machines and I drive their hardware with a smile on my lips, as opposed to driving the pc I have on the network (for games and file downloading) which is a pain in the b***. My answer in condensed form is "The feeling"

and on this issue I know I have the people behind me. Far, far behind me
     
eno
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fightclub
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 11:16 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
The x86 has been hobbled by blind insistence on backward-compatibility with its lineage, a lineage which goes all the way back to the Intel 4004, the very first microprocessor. It was designed for a desktop calculator.
You call that tiny thing inside your thick skull a "brain"???!!!!!!

If the the x86 is "hobbled" (reminder: P4s currently shipping at 2.8GHz) then what the hell is the current PowerPC line? (And speaking of hobbled, remember our 18-month roadblock at 500Mhz mark?)

You need to drop the snobby Mac-supremecist attitude and acknowledge that -- ugly history or not -- the x86 line has evolved to the point where it currently holds, and has held for several years now, the desktop performance crown by a significant margin; and all this at a price lower much lower than the Apple/IBM/Motorola "alliance" could deliver.

Bah, if you want to talk about a checkered history just look into the story of the AIM PowerPC alliance.

By the time we get these 970 chips in our Macs -- IF we get them in our Macs -- the "hobbled" x86 architecture which you so deride will probably be running between 4 and 5 Ghz (and goodness knows what bus speed, and what kind of crazy AGP multiplier... 16x?), while this 970 will be still under 2 GHz at the top end.

How much will these suckers cost, too? For my money I'd rather have one P4 running at 5 GHz than two 970s costing twice as much and only running at 1.8 GHz each.

The only, and I repeat the only, thing which has stopped me from gleefully switching camps to the "hobbled" x86 camp is Mac OS X. I simply like it too much.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 11:50 AM
 
if... if... if... IF........ Apple ever made a Intel version of X, it would be OS X Server ONLY (at first)... and I'm sure they would be worse then M$ regarding a key code etc...
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 12:05 PM
 
How important? Not at all.

I know it's the better system - but I don't care.

This is how simple it should be for everybody:

faster = better

Don't try to give me any bullshit on that. FASTER = BETTER, any way you put it.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 12:18 PM
 
Originally posted by eno:
By the time we get these 970 chips in our Macs -- IF we get them in our Macs -- the "hobbled" x86 architecture which you so deride will probably be running between 4 and 5 Ghz (and goodness knows what bus speed, and what kind of crazy AGP multiplier... 16x?), while this 970 will be still under 2 GHz at the top end.
Eno,

I understand where you are coming from (I do feel that the x86 architecture is more under the gun performance wise then IBM and Motorola), but I'm also tired of hearing about raw GHz to GHz numbers as they are only half of the story. The current situation of board design, RAM usage and APG are also issues with the "Power" Mac line. My dream system has a 1.8 GHz IBM chip, 8x APG, DDR RAM and has a buss that runs at 333MHz.

I hope everyone remembers a few of the PC magazine articles that indicate that there was only a 5% increase when going from a 1.5 GHz system to a 2.0 GHz system.

Intel and AMD are playing the marketing game and winning... You only have to ask someone what kind of computer they have to know that...
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 12:26 PM
 
Originally posted by Cipher13:
How important? Not at all.

I know it's the better system - but I don't care.

This is how simple it should be for everybody:

faster = better

Don't try to give me any bullshit on that. FASTER = BETTER, any way you put it.
From a system admin person... Faster doesn not = better.

Faster = Better is a consumer thing...

If I have a Performa 6400 that I use to write college papers with and check email... how is a 2x 1GHz system better... I can still write Word documents and send email... it may be a little faster on the faster system, but it's not better.

I want something that just works. I'm not going to lie... when I do a Photoshop filter that takes 2 mins. on my Mac and 1 min. on my PC... I get a little upset...

I would rather have stability over speed any day of the week...
     
bluedog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 12:28 PM
 
FASTER=BETTER

Translated:
A more elegant OS, means a more productive employee means the job is done FASTER AND BETTER.
--------------------------------

I keep imagining an image in my head when people say the speed of the system in raw power is the ONLY important factor: Picture this if you will...

A car that goes FASTER than anything else but has no brakes or a triangle for a steering wheel. You only CRASH faster or have little CONTROL.

With Intel and Windows you may have a 'faster' machine, but it really means you have more time to figure out where your OK button is or when the next time you'll crash.
     
Detrius
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 01:08 PM
 
Originally posted by bluedog:
FASTER=BETTER

Translated:
A more elegant OS, means a more productive employee means the job is done FASTER AND BETTER.
--------------------------------

I keep imagining an image in my head when people say the speed of the system in raw power is the ONLY important factor: Picture this if you will...

A car that goes FASTER than anything else but has no brakes or a triangle for a steering wheel. You only CRASH faster or have little CONTROL.

With Intel and Windows you may have a 'faster' machine, but it really means you have more time to figure out where your OK button is or when the next time you'll crash.

I was going to say that you could just strap a jet engine that's always running on top of your car. That would really suck for driving during rush hour traffic... even though it would definately be faster.

Also, Linux runs REALLY fast when you aren't using X11. Compare a 3GHz Intel running Linux without X11 to a 400MHz G3 running OS X... which is better for word processing?

If you are wanting to write a program that runs on a half a dozen different systems... well, writing it in assembly code on each of those systems means that it would run faster, but that would take a long time to do. Writing it in java means that it will take a very short amount of time to write, but it will be slow as OS X on an 8500. Which is better? Both can be considered "faster." It depends on what the project is... depends on if it needs to get out the door quickly or if it needs to run quickly.

Faster does not always equal better. This is what happens when you make rather ignorant blanket statements.
ACSA 10.4/10.3, ACTC 10.3, ACHDS 10.3
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 01:23 PM
 
A Faster OS X = A Better OS X
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 01:35 PM
 
Fast is indeed better. Don't make stupid analogies about jet engines strapped to cars because you're in denial about the speed of your computer. Windows might not be better than X but if a Photoshop filter takes a fraction of the time on Windows it is better for Photoshop users. If an effect in AE takes a fraction of the time on Windows running on a 2.8GHz chip compared to X running on a dual 1.25GHz PowerMac, Windows wins out again.

Computers are not cars, they are trucks. Windows on a fast PC is a big old Diesel clunker with enough torque to drag Jupiter out of its orbit. It might be ugly as sin and a pain in the ass to drive but it will get your job done in short order. X on a fast PowerMac is like a new gadget filled cross coutry 6 wheeler with a fancy airbrush paintjob. It will haul a load and win a beauty contest but it isn't going to do it in any sort of hurry (except win the beauty contest). To be competitive Macs need a power house under the hood to match their good looks. It doesn't necessarily have to be an engine with an AMD or Intel logo on it but it needs to be a bit more powerful than the pair of under-fed squirrels it has under the hood now. I want rabid mutant methamphetimine popping steroidal monster squirrels under the hood of my Mac.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 01:36 PM
 
IBM chose the x86 architecture for its first PC because it sucked. They wanted the market to die, so that their minicomputers wouldn't ever have to face the competition.
Huh? Just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true.

As for the arguments that some people have made that faster doesn't equal better, you are correct, but only to a point.

OS X is very nice, but as others have said, the faster it is the nicer it becomes. The rocket engine on a car analogy makes absolutely no sense of course.
     
Craig R. Arko
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 01:50 PM
 
Originally posted by ShotgunEd:

Basically I'm wondering whether people's loyalty lie with MacOS X or with the PowerPC architecture or just the Apple brand.
Basically I like that I have applications (thousands) which run on the OS X system I have. A switch from PPC to Intel would mean I had none, and it would be another round of time consuming, costly updates to get them. This would make me sad...

PPC 970 is my friend. I cannot shake his hand soon enough.

BTW, this does not preclude the return of OpenStep/Yellow Box running on top of XP, although it would still have precious little software support.
     
davechen
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Bethesda, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 02:32 PM
 
I'm gonna have to side with Milleneum. There's something to be said for aesthetics and design quality. PowerPC is just a much nicer, much more elegant instruction set architecture than the x86.

x86's are stuck with a restricted register set, pointless addressing modes, variable length instructions and a generally overly complex instruction set. Intel and AMD have had to pull all sorts of gymnastics to work around the crippled x86 ISA.

Of course because Intel has so much revenue, they've been able to throw huge amounts of resources (transistors / man -hours) at the problem. It's their bread and butter, so they have to make it perform. Motorola doesn't care nearly as much about performance. Plus their management has their heads up their butts.

But even Intel realizes the x86 ISA is brain damaged. That's why they're try to make clean break of it with the Itaniums. On the other hand, it sounds like they made some not so great choices with the Itanium ISA, but that's another story.

But as Fred Brooks said in my computer architecture class, hardware comes and goes, but software lives forever (or a much longer time, anyways). So the PC world is stuck with x86. There's no reason we have to get dragged into it.

If performance is the only thing that matters, sure get a PC and run Windows or Linux. But as a Mac user who appreciates good design, I'd much rather stick with PPC.
     
mitchell_pgh
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 03:20 PM
 
Faster does not equal better (I would be with you if you say "faster is more desirable"... but better?). If the computer was the end product, then yes, faster would be better, but I use my computer as a tool to create an end product (may that be a newsletter, music, article etc.)

My end product would suffer if I were to move to the PC, and I think many would agree.
     
Targon
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: a void where there should be ecstasy
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 03:27 PM
 
Not important at all if it continues to be much slower than the other arch out there.

If it was much faster than the other arch it would be very important to me.

Right now as it is, gimme me OS X on any AMD hardware. I would custom build the hardware to my requirements (Apple can't do it so why should i suffer?). As long as i get my OS an Apps.
     
SMacTech
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Trafalmadore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 03:33 PM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

I hope everyone remembers a few of the PC magazine articles that indicate that there was only a 5% increase when going from a 1.5 GHz system to a 2.0 GHz system.
No, obviously some here don't recall that. It is like saying the 2 cycle engine that hits 12k rpm is better than the 4 cycle engine that only goes to 8k or whatever. Cipher is deluding himself again with Faster=Better. My dual867 feels more responsive than this Dell 2.5ghz system with XP, and if the Dell is faster in some areas, which it probably is, it is NOT better.
     
oximoron
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my house
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 03:36 PM
 
That's the price you pay (which really isn't that bad) for using a Mac. It's what you get at the end which matters. It may take a little more time, but who cares as long as the job gets done?!
"Thundercats! Ho!!!!!" Liono's catchphrase.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by eno:
You call that tiny thing inside your thick skull a "brain"???!!!!!!
Yes, I do. And I strongly suggest you learn some tact. It is unwise to launch ad hominem attacks when you can't back up your claims.
If the the x86 is "hobbled" (reminder: P4s currently shipping at 2.8GHz)
There are two reasons that the chip has that high of a clockrate.

One, Intel knows how to make a decent chip. It's well-known that relative to the rest of the computing industry, Motorola's manufacturing process sucks long, hard, and mightily. It's not very well-known, but back during the development of the G3, IBM actually managed to get one of their prototypes up to 1 GHz. Of course, the technology wasn't very good at the time, so they never were able to make enough of them to make mass production feasible, but they could do it. Motorola never managed this with a G3, and has only barely gotten it to work on a G4.

This is one of the things about the AIM alliance, and why they split over the G3 chip. Motorola's G3 was basically a 603 with a nice big cache. IBM actually worked on improving the technology, creating a processor known as the "Mach 5 604". This was actually used in some of the PowerMac 9600 machines, but Motorola's G3 was cheaper and almost as fast, so Apple went with it. And we suffer for it, in the end.

And the other reason the current x86 chips get up so fast? Because they're not really x86 chips at all! Ever since the PIII, both Intel and AMD have essentially run the x86 instruction set in a kind of emulation, on top of a different architecture. They had to; it was the only way to keep the clockrate going up. This is also why each generation of Pentium has been slower per clock cycle than the previous one. There hasn't been a truly hardware-native x86 chip since the Pentium II.
...then what the hell is the current PowerPC line? (And speaking of hobbled, remember our 18-month roadblock at 500Mhz mark?)
Get it through your head: clockrate is meaningless across architectures. Heck; you can't even meaningfully compare clockrates across generations of the same architecture; it's well-known, for instance, that a 1-GHz Pentium4 is slower than a 1-GHz Pentium3.

There are areas where Apple is seriously behind. AGP multiplier speed is one of these. System bus rate is another. But the processor just plain isn't the major bottleneck.
How much will these suckers cost, too? For my money I'd rather have one P4 running at 5 GHz than two 970s costing twice as much and only running at 1.8 GHz each.
Historically, believe it or not, a single PPC chip has actually been cheaper than an x86 chip of comparable performance. Unfortunately, Apple inflates the price to an absurd degree, and the upgrade makers aren't too much better.

Maybe you should study something about these architectures before you proclaim which is better. Intel's borderline-fraudulent marketing terms are no meaningful meature, nor is price. Bottom line: what is cheap isn't always what is good. That's why I hope Apple stays with PPC.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
ckohler
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Evansville, IN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 04:23 PM
 
I'm interested in backwards compatibility with existing software and keeping existing Mac developers. So, by default I'm interested in keeping the PPC. It's as simple as that.
     
gorgonzola
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: New Yawk
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 04:55 PM
 
I don't care at all. I like OS X the best right now because I can run the few commercial apps I need, and the Unix stuff as well. It's stable, it's fast enough, it does what I need. I haven't used Classic in years now, so I don't really care that much about Classic, but I suppose it's nice that it's there.

In short, assuming that the switch to a different architecture would be done so in a way that wouldn't make the company go bankrupt, obviously whatever offers the widest range of hardware options and the best performance while still being able to run OS X and such would be the best.

I don't think anyone really cares at all about the hardware in itself -- most hardware concerns are related to concerns about software incompatibility (which is valid, but nevertheless still basically a software issue). And I certainly don't care about the Apple brand.
"Do not be too positive about things. You may be in error." (C. F. Lawlor, The Mixicologist)
     
voodoo
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Salamanca, España
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 05:05 PM
 
PPC all the way baby! From my POV, on my iBook I get 4 hour battery life and full processing power ON battery. On a wintel PeeCee laptop you get almost two hours and reduced performance. No question.

PPC.
I could take Sean Connery in a fight... I could definitely take him.
     
Charles Bouldin
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2002, 09:56 PM
 
PPC architecture matters to me. Also, I have to point out that the huge speed differences that are supposed to exist between Intel and PPC chips are greatly exagerrated, ie, things don't really scale by clockrate. I have a tibook/400 and a Dell 2 ghz P4 laptop that dual boots WinXP/Pro and Redhat Linux 8. The speed difference between that laptop and the tibook is not enough for me to really care under most circumstances, which includes web browsing, word/text processing, email, internet apps, program development in C and Fortran90.

The issue is that the software matters as much as the hardware. I literally brought WinXP to its knees downloading the 5 ISO CD images for RH Linux 8. OSX would have done the download without even breaking a sweat. (To be fair, so would RH8).

PPC matters to me, because, damn it, style and elegance and graceful solutions to problems are just BETTER than a large, fast kludge, which is just what the whole x86 world is about. With the IBM Power4 derivative (970) now on the horizon, I think it is much to soon for Apple to contemplate a transition to Intel chips.;
     
angelmb
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Automatic
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2002, 06:05 AM
 
well, I have two G3 PPC Macintoshes and an PPC Nintendo GAMECUBE, therefore, PowerPC is really cool for me
     
jcopeland
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2002, 03:09 AM
 
The first problem I see with moving to x86 is that Apple would be directly competing with Microsoft. I think this will cause MS to play even rougher than they already do. Second problem is that most people who call for the move to x86 want it because they want to build their own computers. This would 1. gut Apple which is a hardware company and 2. take away the tight integration between hardware and software, which is hard enough to maintain as it is.

I don�t know why Apples users let themselves be pulled into the Mhz argument. The question should be does a computer do what you want and does it work for you? Not, spec wise, how fast is my computer. Some professional environments my have problems using Apple hardware because slower processing can equal more money, but some times this can be offset by the interface which can make the user more efficient. In general most users do tasks in which the computer is waiting on the user, not the other way around.

I have a 600 mhz iBook with 384 MB of ram and I am able to edit video, watch DVDs, edit digital photos. Non of these tasks are easy for a computer, but my computer is able to handle them all well. My computer my not be the fastest for playing games, but that is largely an issue with the video card.

I short it is not a question of PPC <> x86, because no of us use just the processor, we use systems. You can�t convince me that a Windows computer is better than an OS X computer even if it is running at 4 Ghz.

BTW I am new to Apple, this iBook is my first, but it won�t be my last. This is because of OS X.
     
Cipher13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2002, 04:24 AM
 
Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:


From a system admin person... Faster doesn not = better.

Faster = Better is a consumer thing...

If I have a Performa 6400 that I use to write college papers with and check email... how is a 2x 1GHz system better... I can still write Word documents and send email... it may be a little faster on the faster system, but it's not better.

I want something that just works. I'm not going to lie... when I do a Photoshop filter that takes 2 mins. on my Mac and 1 min. on my PC... I get a little upset...

I would rather have stability over speed any day of the week...
A 243 GHz PPC G54 will word process just as well as your old 6400.

There's no advantage to the 6400, is there?

No.

Having speed does not sacrifice stability, unless you're gonna stupidly overclock your machine to ridiculous levels...

Your argument is null.

Originally posted by bluedog:
FASTER=BETTER

Translated:
A more elegant OS, means a more productive employee means the job is done FASTER AND BETTER.
--------------------------------

I keep imagining an image in my head when people say the speed of the system in raw power is the ONLY important factor: Picture this if you will...

A car that goes FASTER than anything else but has no brakes or a triangle for a steering wheel. You only CRASH faster or have little CONTROL.

With Intel and Windows you may have a 'faster' machine, but it really means you have more time to figure out where your OK button is or when the next time you'll crash.
Yes, well, we're not talking about cars, are we?

Your argument is null.

Originally posted by Detrius:



I was going to say that you could just strap a jet engine that's always running on top of your car. That would really suck for driving during rush hour traffic... even though it would definately be faster.

Also, Linux runs REALLY fast when you aren't using X11. Compare a 3GHz Intel running Linux without X11 to a 400MHz G3 running OS X... which is better for word processing?

If you are wanting to write a program that runs on a half a dozen different systems... well, writing it in assembly code on each of those systems means that it would run faster, but that would take a long time to do. Writing it in java means that it will take a very short amount of time to write, but it will be slow as OS X on an 8500. Which is better? Both can be considered "faster." It depends on what the project is... depends on if it needs to get out the door quickly or if it needs to run quickly.

Faster does not always equal better. This is what happens when you make rather ignorant blanket statements.
Your argument is not only null, but stupid. Go strap a rocket to your comp, dipshit. Lemme know the results, yeah?

Tell me - is a 1GHz G4 better than an otherwise identical 800 MHz G4? Yeah? It is? So the faster one is better? Cool.....

You're being an absolute moron

Greymalkin, Eug, thankyou for having some sense.

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Faster does not equal better (I would be with you if you say "faster is more desirable"... but better?). If the computer was the end product, then yes, faster would be better, but I use my computer as a tool to create an end product (may that be a newsletter, music, article etc.)

My end product would suffer if I were to move to the PC, and I think many would agree.
How can it be more desirable, but not better? Explain that, please.

Who cares what you do on your computer? Would it be BETTER IF IT WAS FASTER?

YES. That was sorta my point when I said "faster = better". I never said a word about compiling in pure assembly, or switching ISA's, or anything... but even still. If OSX could run faster on a 4.9GHz Pentium V with 1345 pipelines, I wouldn't ****ing care how messy the chip was. It's still faster.

Originally posted by SMacTech:


No, obviously some here don't recall that. It is like saying the 2 cycle engine that hits 12k rpm is better than the 4 cycle engine that only goes to 8k or whatever. Cipher is deluding himself again with Faster=Better. My dual867 feels more responsive than this Dell 2.5ghz system with XP, and if the Dell is faster in some areas, which it probably is, it is NOT better.
Y'know what then, Einstein? Your Mac is FASTER. I didn't MENTION MHz, did I? Wow, you people like to jump to conclusions.

(Oh, and btw, if your 867 feels faster than a 2.5Ghz P4 with XP... there's something wrong with your XP box, dude. XP screams).
     
Appleman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2002, 04:51 AM
 
I think that in the end it isn't about software or hardware, it isn't about the OS X or PPC.

It's all about an experience with a computer at the end of the day.

Experience also means how the box looks if you have it in your living room, how is the touch and feel of the OS, how is the speed of the entire system (does it give you plenty time to make another cup of coffee before the cd is burned, the PS filter is finished)

You would expect that the manufacturer of both hardware and software is capable of making things better, but Apple doesn't make the complete hardware.

I'm not into deep techno stories like Millenium seems to be, I simply always thought that risc was a better choice than cisc because it was a newer technology and the future for risc was supposed to be better. Until now, years after the very first ppc in Macs, I would say the cisc from Intel and AMD are still faster, and although Apple made this MHz-myth, which is understandable and sounds good/believeble, fact is that the rest of the hardware in a Mac isn't that state of the art, compared with peecee's.

Bottomline is that I think it all is about the total experience, and nothing more than the complete experience.

And yes, this slow OS X: I love it
( Last edited by Appleman; Oct 21, 2002 at 04:57 AM. )
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2002, 07:28 AM
 
PPC, it's just so fun to say!
not to mention it's fun to point out to PC users that their computer is completely incapable of running the same os as you and what not.

Not to mention I'll probably be buying an iBook right away, which means that I'll have a PPC computer, this means then that right after this if we went to x86, what happens two years down the road I can't get ANY SOFTWARE?!
I'm sorry but really the switch between OS X and 9 is bad enough and there you can at least emulate your old tittles. x86 can't emulate PPC, if I could get OS X running faster on a Sun proccessor I'd say go for it, but the thing is, the software won't run on it period soo... screw that idea. Unfortunately we dont' really have options at all. The Mac has to stay on PPC for at least another few years before it could afford the publicity for another big move.
     
NathanA
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Spokane, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2002, 01:27 PM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
What would Intel be capable of, if only they would let the worn-out x86 instruction set go? The PPC architecture might really be in trouble then.
Well we know exactly what they would do. They'd build Merced, then Itanium, then Itanium2. A 7 year long adventure that has cost a lot of money, underperformed all the competition, and still has no end it site.

So while the x86 architecture is QUITE terrible, especially the stack based x87 floating point system, it seems to fit better with Intel's engineering modus. Take something old that sorta works, then throw a bunch of man hours and money at it, then drag it along kicking and screaming, then call it new technology. Given their stint with their EPIC design series it would appear that they'd be better served leaving the R&D and innovation to other folks.

-Nathan
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,