[microangelito]

Please sign this petition if you would like to see real Macs again! I personally think the PPC chip was and is the best and as of yet no intel chip can match the IBM PPC chips they currently have! Plus the Hackintosh thing of Windows on a Mac is just SO SO stupid. GET A MAC!

APPLE TO USE POWERPC CPUs AGAIN IN THEIR COMPUTERS! Petition

Thanks & please sign it!

[CharlesS]

Even Big Mac has given up on this by now.

[Andrew Stephens]

Originally Posted by microangelito 

I personally think the PPC chip was and is the best and as of yet no intel chip can match the IBM PPC chips they currently have!

mmm yes. I too love those super hot underperforming G5 chips. why oh why oh why do we have to put up with these stupid 10x faster intel chips. I miss my flakey, liquid cooling kludge of a fix. I miss my logic boards failing from heat stress. My heating bills have skyrocketed since I had to nix my old PowerMac, AND I have to cook sausages on the grill now instead of on my laptop.

Jeez!

OK troll fed. carry on.

[besson3c]

I like sausages. What are your favorite kind, Andrew Stephens?

[hatehereyes]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I like sausages. What are your favorite kind, Andrew Stephens?

hahaha.


but wow really now OP? You think they would go back to outdated technology?

[microangelito]

If Apple were to go back to PowerPC I don't think it would be for the old barbecue of a G5. If you haven't noticed since Apple stopped using the architecture PowerPC has moved on a LONG LONG LONG way. Look at the PS3 it uses a 7 core Cell processor which is POWERPC if you didn't know! THEY COULD USE NEW COOLER POWERPC CPUS!

I thought this forum was for Mac enthusiasts not idiots.

PowerPC is NOT a Mac only architecture. The best servers use it so it can't be bad! In fact it's the best. X86 is CONSUMER! POWERPC (RISC) IS SUPER COMPUTER POWER!

Maybe now you understand the difference between the past and a processor architecture!

[indigoimac]

You'll notice most macs are consumer level, if you want something that is PowerPC for a server or whatever, which is a relatively niche market compared to x86 servers these days, there are plenty of manufacturers that make a quality product.

Oh, and did I mention the price difference...

[besson3c]

microangelito, one of the reasons Apple went with x86 was because IBM was focusing the cell architecture on embedded devices and consoles, where for starters there are not regular updates every 6 months like Apple prefers for marketability reasons. There was also the volume issue, at that time the PS3 did not exist.

The move to x86 was absolutely the best move for Apple at the time. They had no viable PPC provider, but even then the company was always threatened by their provider falling behind Intel and AMD in the CPU speed arms race. From a business standpoint this was a liability for Apple. Now, the playing field has been leveled.

What might make sense for Apple looking into the future is not a switch back, that would be absolutely boneheaded to put the developers through all of that again. It would also result in Apple having to take a hit in not being able to entice new customers with the virtues of x86 virtualization and dual booting. Virtualization has a very interesting future from a practical standpoint, and allows Mac users to run apps and games that may never exist under OS X.

However, they could *also* support PPC, continue their universal binary scheme, and provide PPC as an option once again. However, this would serve more of an insurance policy for Apple, or something that might give them a slight edge someday should Intel or AMD fall behind. Right now, as long as Intel continues to crank out faster and faster processors, what is the point? Don't forget, both Intel *and* AMD would have to fail.

We are well beyond the point in computing where your average user simply doesn't need the fastest processors money can buy to run Office, do their email, surf the web, manage their iTunes collection, etc. Any edge that Apple might be able to provide would be most appealing to gamers (who are well entrenched in Windows anyway) and the high end market which both represent a minority to Apple. If Apple cared more about the high end users, they would do many things differently. This is not their bread and butter.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by microangelito 

Maybe now you understand the difference between the past and a processor architecture!

Is this a joke or are you actually trying to lecture us on CPU architectures?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Even Big Mac has given up on this by now.

I suppose I have. I'm even somewhat digging Windows 7! ROFL.

You do have my sympathies, though, microangelito. Keep fighting the good fight.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by microangelito 

Look at the PS3 it uses a 7 core Cell processor which is POWERPC if you didn't know! THEY COULD USE NEW COOLER POWERPC CPUS!

It's not a 7 core PowerPC. The SPE's are subsets and can't actually run PowerPC programs.

Read up here:
Cell Broadband Engine Architecture from 20,000 feet

And from IBM's own documentation:
"The second type of processor, the SPE, is optimized for running compute-intensive applications, and it is not optimized for running an operating system."

The PPE is the only core on the Cell designed to run an OS, and there is only one of it.

[Eriamjh]

PPC is dead. Long live the Intel Mac!

[sek929]

Is this guy for real?

The G5 was everything the PPC platform was supposed to be different from. The PowerMac ended up liquid-cooled for christsakes! They couldn't use it in a laptop, and lets be honest, the G4 was really damn long in the tooth by then.

My sub-$1000 refurbished iMac with the C2D is an amazing machine, long live x86 Macs!

[sadpandas]

I love my mac pro so i am good and havent had any of the problems some folks have had. BUT i will say VST makers are using ppc to drive their external VST units now which i think is interesting. T.C. Electronics comes to mind. Anyway, I have found, as others have said; multiple people still using (is it a Motorola or ibm chip?) the PPC chip sets to great success. I still love my mac pro and my g5 so... I am good .

love,
panda

[angelmb]

[imitchellg5]

Just wondering if the "various PCs" in your signature are Intel or PowerPC-powered.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by microangelito 

If Apple were to go back to PowerPC I don't think it would be for the old barbecue of a G5. If you haven't noticed since Apple stopped using the architecture PowerPC has moved on a LONG LONG LONG way. Look at the PS3 it uses a 7 core Cell processor which is POWERPC if you didn't know! THEY COULD USE NEW COOLER POWERPC CPUS!

I thought this forum was for Mac enthusiasts not idiots.

PowerPC is NOT a Mac only architecture. The best servers use it so it can't be bad! In fact it's the best. X86 is CONSUMER! POWERPC (RISC) IS SUPER COMPUTER POWER!

Maybe now you understand the difference between the past and a processor architecture!

That's like saying GM should go back to the old 3.8L V6 instead of the new 3.6L V6 because the 3.8L was hooked up to a 4 speed automatic because it has less friction and therefore less heat while operating than the 3.6L and the 6 speed automatic. They should stick with old technology and not even try to remain competitive because someone likes the old architecture.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by sadpandas 

I love my mac pro so i am good and havent had any of the problems some folks have had. BUT i will say VST makers are using ppc to drive their external VST units now which i think is interesting. T.C. Electronics comes to mind. Anyway, I have found, as others have said; multiple people still using (is it a Motorola or ibm chip?) the PPC chip sets to great success. I still love my mac pro and my g5 so... I am good .

You do realize that there's a considerable difference between a specialized VST effects modeling DSP unit and a computer?

The PowerPCs have gone the way of extremely specialized chips - great for DSP and other specialized purposes.

[Archiform 3D]

Maybe I am just repeating the obvious, but Intel are really making better and better chips. I dont mind being on the Intel bandwagon at all while the keep the pace up.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Archiform 3D 

Maybe I am just repeating the obvious, but Intel are really making better and better chips. I dont mind being on the Intel bandwagon at all while the keep the pace up.

Most of us are on the Mac OS bandwagon, doesn't matter much what it runs on.

[olePigeon]

PowerPC is a better CPU technology on paper, but with no market to drive development it is a dead-end technology for the desktop. It exists on servers because heat dissipation isn't as critical as it is with a laptop.

The Cells were originally designed to work with Power based CPUs, however, Toshiba (one of the companies responsible for the development of the Cell) has already demonstrated Cell SPEs working with an Intel based main CPU.

[Todd Madson]

I suspect the OP is a troll but you're DREAMING if you think a G5 is a match for a Core2duo or a Corei7.

Here's the only areas where a G5 BEATS the Core2duo/Corei7:

-The G5 generates more heat. Lots more.
-The G5 consumes more electricity.

That's all.

Don't get me wrong, I love my G5. But it won't run Snow Leopard, it leaked fluids all over the innards at least once
and while for its time it was competitive, my little Core2duo work laptop beats it in numerous mathematical computation.

[Todd Madson]

Checked his petition: ZERO signatures.

Nice.

[Simon]

Not even his own?

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Most of us are on the Mac OS bandwagon, doesn't matter much what it runs on.

So true. I don't care if it runs on faerie dust and unicorn horns.

[P]

Originally Posted by Todd Madson 

I suspect the OP is a troll but you're DREAMING if you think a G5 is a match for a Core2duo or a Corei7.

To defend him, he said nothing of the sort. The correct comparison is a Core i7 vs. a consumer version of a Power6+. That is a comparison that we know nothing about, because there's no consumer Power6+, but the real Power6+ is a monster even if it didn't quite live up to the high expectations.

Apple moved to Intel because it needed a better laptop processor than the G4. The G5 obliterated its Intel competition at the time (the P4 - the AMD Opteron held up well) and PPC is still a nice option for top performance. The point is that that doesn't matter. Good performance at a TDP that will work in a laptop is more important, and there were and are no PowerPCs that could compete with Core 2.

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Most of us are on the Mac OS bandwagon, doesn't matter much what it runs on.

Pretty much.

[mduell]

To add a car analogy (every technology thread needs one), x86 is like the 911: the triumph of development over design.

[turtle777]

Oh boy, timeline of history, anyone ?

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by AKcrab 

So true. I don't care if it runs on faerie dust and unicorn horns.

Actually, I would if it did.

[phobos]

On the other hand I think the 68000 Motorola series where the best.
So let's go back to the absolute greatest 68060 with 66Mhz speed.
It was and forever will be the best microprocessor of the known universe.


We won't be able to run OSX but who cares! mac os 8 was the absolute best.

[Maflynn]

Is this a joke?

The OP is clueless in terms of chip design/supply, i.e., who will do it. Marketing, i.e., consumers like the idea of running windows or OSX and regular updates to the chipset.

There was a reason we never saw a powerbook with a G5, IBM was unable to produce one that ran cool enough and didn't consume large quantities of electricity.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by phobos 

On the other hand I think the 68000 Motorola series where the best.
So let's go back to the absolute greatest 68060 with 66Mhz speed.
It was and forever will be the best microprocessor of the known universe.


We won't be able to run OSX but who cares! mac os 8 was the absolute best.

I can't remember a Mac with that CPU. Wasn't the Quadra 840AV with the 68040 40MHz the fastest classic Mac ever?

[phobos]

Originally Posted by angelmb 

I can't remember a Mac with that CPU. Wasn't the Quadra 840AV with the 68040 40MHz the fastest classic Mac ever?

Yep 68040 was the last motorola processor used.
68060 was only used in the amiga. I remember dreaming about this upgrade!!! I never managed to buy it

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by phobos 

On the other hand I think the 68000 Motorola series where the best.
So let's go back to the absolute greatest 68060 with 66Mhz speed.
It was and forever will be the best microprocessor of the known universe.


We won't be able to run OSX but who cares! mac os 8 was the absolute best.

Actually, from what you posted below, the absolute greatest 68060 with 66Mhz speed didn't even run OS 8.

So what's the point of all this again ?

-t

[turtle777]

Ok, I signed. But don't complain

-t

[P]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Actually, from what you posted below, the absolute greatest 68060 with 66Mhz speed didn't even run OS 8.

It may have, since it was 100% backwards compatible with the 68040. Apple veterans have stated that the 68060 was plan B if they couldn't get the 68k emulation under PPC to work, so presumably there was a box running 7.1.3 on a 68060 somewhere inside Apple.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So what's the point of all this again ?

-t

I think we left the point behind several posts ago.

[Leonard]

I don't think there was a point to the thread to begin with.

[sadpandas]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You do realize that there's a considerable difference between a specialized VST effects modeling DSP unit and a computer?

The PowerPCs have gone the way of extremely specialized chips - great for DSP and other specialized purposes.

Yes, i do understand that whole heartedly i was just saying that people still use ppc's that is all .

p

[msuper69]

Yes it was so nice being stuck at 500mhz for YEARS!!!!!!!!

[shifuimam]

I'm just curious to know if a single online petition has ever made an actual difference in whatever it's petitioning.

[msuper69]

To the OP:

re: your sig

ALL of your Macs are vintage.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by msuper69 

Yes it was so nice being stuck at 500mhz for YEARS!!!!!!!!

As opposed to currently being stuck at around 3GHz for the past 3 years?

MHz is not a viable metric for rating a processor.

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

As opposed to currently being stuck at around 3GHz for the past 3 years?

MHz is not a viable metric for rating a processor.

BS. Back when we were stuck at 500mhz and pee-cees were well past 1 Ghz, it damn well made a difference.

[tooki]

Uhhh... no?

MHz/GHz really are not a measure of performance, just like RPM is in no way a measure of a car's strength. Far too many other factors must be factored in. The Pentium 4 is really the chip that showed that GHz mean nothing, since it may have reached 3.5GHz or something -- that's 3.5 billion clock cycles per second -- but it accomplished so profoundly little during each clock cycle that its computational performance was abysmal.

In essence, the clock speed is how often the processor takes a "bite" out of a computation -- but it says nothing about how big each bite is, nor about how many bites can be taken simultaneously, nor how long it takes to "digest" each bite, all of which are fundamental to actual performance.

[Simon]

It's absolutely correct that MHz is not a proper measure of a system's performance.

However, that changes nothing about the fact that in most tasks expensive 500 MHz G4 Macs were getting creamed by top notch PCs. Not because those were running at >1 GHz, but because at most things they were just simply faster. There's no bullshitting around those facts.

[I italicized those two bits up there so we don't have to get into a pissing contest when some wise guy digs out a benchmark of that one special task than ran faster on a 300 GHz G4 than on a 3.5 GHz P4. Let's just say that's the exception that proves the rule, shall we? ]

[msuper69]

Originally Posted by Simon 

It's absolutely correct that MHz is not a proper measure of a system's performance.

However, that changes nothing about the fact that in most tasks expensive 500 MHz G4 Macs were getting creamed by top notch PCs. Not because those were running at >1 GHz, but because at most things they were just simply faster. There's no bullshitting around those facts.

...

My point exactly. Thanks!

[kylef]

I quite like my 'tel processor.