[Matt S]

Originally Posted by rhashem

What's evil about it? The fact that one big fish (IBM) was replaced by another (Intel)?



If anything, the new Macs will be more solid, not less. It seems pretty much every one of Apple's chipsets has some sort of quirk (eg: the memory controller on the G5 chipset). At least Intel's chipsets have a history of being utterly reliable and bug-free.

As for not being broken: who says Macs aren't broken? Isn't everyone tired of buying last-generation hardware at current-generation prices? Nobody is tired of the G4 and its late 1990's era performance? In almost everything I've run, my dual-core 2.3 G5 is the equivalent of a 1.8 GHz Opteron. That's a chip in a $2500 machine compared with a chip you'd find in a $1500 machine. Now, the new Intel chips (the ones that will be in the new PowerMac) are beating up on 2.8 GHz Opterons. If Apple stayed with the G5, it'd be the G4 fiasco all over again. I for one will be perfectlly happy when Apple starts using real desktop chips in their machines --- not neutered server chips or gussied up embedded chips...



Macs are already luxury PCs. I've got a dual-core PowerMac and a dual-core AMD Linux box. The only real difference between them is the CPU. The rest of standard stuff --- OEM hard drive, RAM, and graphics card, industry standard SATA, PCI-E, and USB busses, etc. There was a time when a Mac was a different sort of machine, with SCSI and Nubus, etc, but today, its a PC with a different CPU. The only thing that has changed here is that Apple has switched from a CPU that converts PowerPC into a undocumented native instruction set to one that converts x86 into an undocumented, native instruction set. If its the ISA that only even exists in the first four pipeline stages of the CPU that makes a Mac a Mac, well, I don't know what to say to that...

Intel has won in the integrator's market. PCI, for example, quickly became the standard because of the diminishing benefit of using MicroChannel, NuBus, and other arbitration mechanisms, as opposed to the standardization of the various pieces of hardware. No longer do video card manufacturers have to come up with multiple etches, etc. Sort of sad, really, because MicroChannel and NuBus were superior technologies; PCI was designed around the old ISA/VL/EISA architectures and forced the rest of us to step back five plus years. Plug and Play? No, it's still Plug and Pray. IRQ tweaking, thankfully, has gone by the wayside, well, mostly.

My concern with the PPC/Intel switch is that those who are still PPC based will be left behind as increasingly the software for Macs is no longer Universal, but Intel based. It's coming, believe me. Just as Windows 98/Windows ME users are being stranded and forced to leave their trusty, efficient machines behind for the megalomonolith that is Windows XP. Granted, won't happen for a few years unless Apple wants to die a horrible death, but before you know it, the new killer software won't be PPC compatible.

-- Matt S

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Matt S

Just as Windows 98/Windows ME users are being stranded and forced to leave their trusty, efficient machines behind for the megalomonolith that is Windows XP.

Windows ME... trusty... efficient...

Seriously though, yes, PPC will eventually be dropped. There are tons of topics specifically about this. The G3 was also dropped (see Aperture, etc...), as were the 604, 603, and 601. My guess (and feel free to yell at me if/when I'm wrong) is that the G5 will be supported in software for quite a while. A few really performance intensive apps will probably drop it first, just like with the G3.

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by mduell

IBM is missing a ~20-30W laptop/thin desktop chip today, however I haven't seen much on the roadmap for a ~50-80W desktop chip tomorrow (to compete with Conroe and Kensfield); are there rumors of a cut-down POWER5?

One big problem with any PowerPC alternative is that with GCC, you automatically pay a 10-20% "not x86" tax. So you have to be faster just to be equal. POWER5 wouldn't do it --- it's integer IPC is at the Core Duo level, not the Conroe level, and it wouldn't be able to clock as high anyway.

AFAIK the PPC970 chips are relatively cheap compared to AMD/Intel's 1Ku prices.

I really doubt that. A single-core PPC970 isn't appreciably smaller than a dual-core Yonah (~70sqmm versus ~90sqmm), and the dual-core 970MP is actually quite a bit bigger (~170sqmm). I doubt the development cost was appreciably lower, and I doubt that IBM"s yields are any better than Intel's. So how could it be cheaper? Perhaps IBM's margins on the 970 are very small? Possibly -- but that goes back to why IBM is reluctant to make chips for Apple.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by rhashem

One big problem with any PowerPC alternative is that with GCC, you automatically pay a 10-20% "not x86" tax.

I've heard just the opposite; GCC for PPC is closer to XLC on PPC than GCC on x86 is to ICC on x86. But I don't know a whole lot about compiliers.

Originally Posted by rhashem

I really doubt that. A single-core PPC970 isn't appreciably smaller than a dual-core Yonah (~70sqmm versus ~90sqmm), and the dual-core 970MP is actually quite a bit bigger (~170sqmm). I doubt the development cost was appreciably lower, and I doubt that IBM's yields are any better than Intel's. So how could it be cheaper? Perhaps IBM's margins on the 970 are very small? Possibly -- but that goes back to why IBM is reluctant to make chips for Apple.

I'm just repeating what some of the folks on these boards have said (I think it was Lateralus, but it could have been another mod).
Cost isn't the only determiner of price, there's also demand; I'm not in a position to judge how much demand there is for PPC970.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell

I've heard just the opposite; GCC for PPC is closer to XLC on PPC than GCC on x86 is to ICC on x86. But I don't know a whole lot about compiliers.

That's only true for the current re-incarnation on OS X of XLC. The latest Linux version supposedly gives a rather large boost in SPECmarks.

[Todd Madson]

Did anyone notice the Wikipedia entry on the G5 chip?
Apparently they did recently release a 3.0 ghz version of the FX chip.
How weird.

[lordarka]

As noted, one of the key motivators behind the Intel switch is the simple fact that Apple can build a computer around the Intel chips more cost efficiently; this in turn reduces Apple’s cost and inflates their margins (or lowers their cost to the consumer, if Apple decided to be less greedy), and I would venture to say that it may even improve reliability. Any G5 user knows how much extra crap is required to keep multiple G5’s cool. One Apple engineer I talked to equated it to a ‘dancing bear.’ If you can get a bear to dance, no one will critique how well it dances; they’ll be excited that the bear is dancing at all. The G5 is similar, in that for a long time, PPC adherents have pointed to its remarkable performance without bearing in mind the manufacturing cost and technical complexity of system with 9 fans, multiple cooling zones, and a liquid cooled heat sink in some cases. The heat sink on my 2.5GHz machine is bigger and heavier than my G4 Powerbook. And unlike that Powerbook, the G5 inexplicably crashes a lot more, and is inherently less stable (at least by Mac standards). If the Intel switch resolves these problems while not cutting in to performance, I won’t wax nostalgic for the good ol’ days.

Complaining about it would be much akin to the Porsche purists who complained when Porsche switched a liquid cooled (and hence far superior) engine in lieu of their traditional air-cooled approach; maybe some particular personality trait was lost, but the gains in reliability will appeal to far more people than the mechanical change will turn away. I seriously doubt that even the most diehard PPC users will abandon the Mac platform because it no longer uses an exotic processor with all of it’s ancillary mechanical baggage.

That said, I will probably be flogging my G5 until I can no longer get PPC native software for it anymore.

Arka C.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by lordarka

Complaining about it would be much akin to the Porsche purists who complained when Porsche switched a liquid cooled (and hence far superior) engine in lieu of their traditional air-cooled approach; maybe some particular personality trait was lost, but the gains in reliability will appeal to far more people than the mechanical change will turn away. I seriously doubt that even the most diehard PPC users will abandon the Mac platform because it no longer uses an exotic processor with all of it’s ancillary mechanical baggage.

Tangental to the analogy is the fact that Porsche's racing engines were water-cooled a decade before their road car's engines.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Todd Madson

Did anyone notice the Wikipedia entry on the G5 chip?
Apparently they did recently release a 3.0 ghz version of the FX chip.
How weird.

Yeah, they could do quad 3.0s... if they could work out how to cool it (80 watts per core, 60-80 for the northbridge... adds up pretty quick). A dual core 3.0 seems possible though; my guess would be that the yields aren't good enough, but it's hard to say for sure.

[F*ckDell]

Would 3.0 quads really be worth it tho? Don't get me wrong, as I wait for the new Intels to come out - I'd probably buy one. Would we see a difference from 2.5 to 3.0?

[mduell]

3Ghz is announced only for the single core parts (970GX), 970MP is still at 2.5Ghz.

Is anyone actually selling the 3Ghz G5s? The JS21s are still at 2x2.7Ghz (but with 1MB L2, indicating a 970GX part).

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by mduell

3Ghz is announced only for the single core parts (970GX), 970MP is still at 2.5Ghz.

Is anyone actually selling the 3Ghz G5s? The JS21s are still at 2x2.7Ghz (but with 1MB L2, indicating a 970GX part).

RealWorldTech indicates otherwise. I haven't heard of anyone shipping the 3GHz parts; I'd guess they either don't think it's worth the cooling hassle, or they're in very short supply.

[asodamiac]

I really don't understand the whole Mac cult thing. Yes, I'm a new user. This April will be my 1 year annivesary BUT I do NOT understand why there is this cultish, over zealous passion for Macs. I will NEVER go back to Windows, but I still don't see why everyone feels so offended because Apple decided to use Intel chips?

When people mentioned that Macs lost their "personality," I was some what shocked. As tooki mentioned, no one would probably notice whether they were using an Intel Mac or a PPC Mac. Everything else is the same. I do follow the Mazda analogy and it works perfectly well in this context, but it still does not "click" for me.

Oh well, I plan on purchasing a 20" Intel iMac sometime in the near future.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by asodamiac

I really don't understand the whole Mac cult thing. Yes, I'm a new user. This April will be my 1 year annivesary BUT I do NOT understand why there is this cultish, over zealous passion for Macs. I will NEVER go back to Windows, but I still don't see why everyone feels so offended because Apple decided to use Intel chips?

When people mentioned that Macs lost their "personality," I was some what shocked. As tooki mentioned, no one would probably notice whether they were using an Intel Mac or a PPC Mac. Everything else is the same. I do follow the Mazda analogy and it works perfectly well in this context, but it still does not "click" for me.

Oh well, I plan on purchasing a 20" Intel iMac sometime in the near future.

What you have to realize is that some of us (such as myself) have been mocked, and even punched, because of our choice of platform; in the media, there's been a persistent "Apple is doooomed" meme until quite recently. As a result, like members of any 'oppressed group', some mac users have formed somewhat fanatic attachments to the thing that defines their group. In general I've also found that the more technically knowledgeable a given user is, the less patience they have for platform wars, but that's not always the case. AMD fanboys are just as bad (you should see the whining in some of the threads about Conroe...).

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

AMD fanboys are just as bad (you should see the whining in some of the threads about Conroe...).

Yeah, but a good bit of it is warranted.

[new newton]

Originally Posted by asodamiac

I really don't understand the whole Mac cult thing. Yes, I'm a new user. This April will be my 1 year annivesary BUT I do NOT understand why there is this cultish, over zealous passion for Macs. I will NEVER go back to Windows, but I still don't see why everyone feels so offended because Apple decided to use Intel chips?

It's got to do with people not having a strong understanding of technologies, what defines a system, and how everything works. Combine that with years of indoctrination by the marketing wonks and egos that are more than a bit too strongly tied to a box of electronics, and you have your explanation. The whole thing is rather pathetic.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by new newton

It's got to do with people not having a strong understanding of technologies, what defines a system, and how everything works. Combine that with years of indoctrination by the marketing wonks and egos that are more than a bit too strongly tied to a box of electronics, and you have your explanation. The whole thing is rather pathetic.

very true, but it sure keep peoplo posting stuff in here.

[Screech]

I personally find this argument kind of silly.

All that should matter is the performance. If Intel is faster and better all-around, why does sentimentality even matter? Apple should be going for the best processors and not trying to "keep with tradition" while hindering the performance of their machines.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by new newton

It's got to do with people not having a strong understanding of technologies, what defines a system, and how everything works.

Ah. So somebody strongly favoring one processor architecture over a dominant one translates to that person having a limited understanding of the technologies involved? How presumptious of you.

[new newton]

Yes, it is presumptuous. What's wrong with that? People buy into the marketing, and develop emotional bonds to ideas that they apparently don't understand. Don't you remember the same whining back in 1994? The world didn't end then. The skies didn't darken when Apple chose the PPC 601 over Motorola's 68060. There was bitter complaining from some people who'd tied a great deal of themselves (rather inexplicably) to a CPU family, just as there is here.

[Stefdar]

I remember the last transition really well, ( I am 40), and I remember that for at least 2 years the 68040 machines like the Quadras were much faster than the PowerPC 8100s-7100s and such. It took Apple another 2 years after to have 50% of the System in PowerPC code. That was the first time Apple sove up our throughts a bad change.
Today of course Apple's marketing and all the "satellite" sites are doing such a great job trying to "sell" the Duos, that almost everyone thinks they are 5 times faster and more efficient than the G5s. Or maybe it's the fact that most of the people who actually buy those first Intel machines are previous oweners of slow (1 GHz and below), G4 or G3 Macs.

People want to "believe". Even I sold my AGP Dual G5 2 GHz and bought an iMac 20" Core Duo with 2 Gigs of RAM, beginning of February, which I happily sold one and a half weeks later, having enough beachballing, slowness, pageouts and classic "Intel machine behaviour" to last me for years, to end up with a Dual Core G5, and thank God I didn't sell my trusty 1.67 GHz PowerBook in the proccess of being stupid!

Each person perceives speed and effectiveness according to what he does on a Mac.
HD video may play better on a Duo, but Mpeg Export is 2 times faster on my Powerbook, (never mind the G5). On the Power Mac Forums there is a thread about Photoshop performance that relies on the Radial Blur filter and a horse photo, where the Core Duo finished in 60 secs with Rosetta, a dual G5 in 49, and a 1.67 Powerbook in 1.30 minutes. I did it myself and those are indeed the numbers...
Then I replaced the radial blur filter with the surface blur filter, and the Duo needs 3 minutes when the Powerbook needs 1 and the Dual G5 30 secs.
I realized then that all those specific benchmarks are just plain fud. What really matters is that at this time my PowerPC machines feel right, and my X Duo felt wrong.

At another thread somewhere there is the "big news": Universal Apps are now over a thousand, or something like that. A guy comments underneath: Which apps? Textedit clones? And it's the truth. Except minor exceptions like Cinema 4D, no other major app is universal yet. No Adobe, no font manager, no Toast, no tools, no Unsanity, etc. Two sides of the truth again.

The funniest part of all this is, that if 12 months ago I came here and started a thread about how I thought Apple should switch to Intel proccessors, I would be probably banned! :-) The same guys today will bash me for my current opinion I am sure, and they will start mumbling on about "power efficiency" and "performance per watt". Those are the same guys that just a year ago would kill defending the superiority of the G5...

Am I the only one who feels a little tired with all this? All that's left to happen is OSX retail DVD for every PC, and believe me, IT WILL HAPPEN in 2 years at the most.
And that is when every Macuser will feel really betrayed and ashamed.
I agree all we have now is OSX,
(us, Maxxuss and about 20.000 PC morons who spend all day trying to find the ideal motherboard for OSXx86 and loughing at Apple for it's unbreakable 10.4.4 and 10.4.5).

It seems I am not INTELigent either...

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Ah. So somebody strongly favoring one processor architecture over a dominant one translates to that person having a limited understanding of the technologies involved? How presumptious of you.

Actually, yes. Intel/PPC/AMD fanboys tend to have a very narrow understanding of technology. You seem to be under the impression that hardware defines a platform for a user when it is in fact the software (OS) that defines a platform for a user because that is what the user interacts with.

The hardware is irrelevant for the average person.

Most hardware fanboys that I've encountered seem to have an extremely limited understanding of their OS of choice let alone other OS platforms.

Stefdar, is a perfect example. Of course emulated software will be slower than native.

[Catfish_Man]

It's interesting to see how different peoples' opinions of the same hardware vary. Here we have a person saying their powerbook feels faster than their CD iMac... and here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/grou...m/588003708731 we have someone saying their CD iMac feels faster than their dual 2.5 G5 (and still more people in the thread saying it feels a bit slower than their G5 as expected, but faster than powerbooks). Are people just crazy/biased by their expectations? Are their system configurations different in weirdly important ways (i.e. does ram matter that much more for the mactels)? I honestly don't know.

I do know, though, that all the photoshop benchmarking that's been going on is utter BS. That sort of filter is very well suited (iirc) to both Altivec and Rosetta, and gives little indication of the general purpose performance of either. If you're doing blurs all day it's relevant; otherwise, not so much.

The specific benchmark that I care about (compile times) clearly favors Intel more than almost any other task compared so far, so I'm pretty pleased

[Stefdar]

Stefdar, is a perfect example. Of course emulated software will be slower than native.
[/QUOTE]

It seems you are the perfect example of someone who can't read a paragraph.
Emulated software is not slower in one filter's case, it's 2 times faster. With a different filter is 3 times slower, which means a lot of catching up to do even with a native Photoshop. MPEG Quicktime Export is supposed to be native, but it's still 2 times slower. But that is not even the point, the point is how easy is for pure Mac fanboys like you to call people names just because they don't agree with you..

And take a look at some of your own posts a few months back, and then go away :-)

[Stefdar]

In fact my friend Aristotles I just found an older thread you participated in with the following words, about the Intel switch, ALL YOURS:

""""Aristotles: I'm sorry but you guys are clueless if you think this would have zero effect on the users. A lot of software uses Altivec. X86 has nothing like it. SSE is anemic compared to it. X86 is completely incompatible with PPC.
X86 is register poor and there is the endian difference not to mention the huge pipeline which must be flushed with each context switch. Context switches occur all the time when you are multitasking.
You will never see multitasking in any SPEC test because it is designed to measure the optimal performance under "ideal" conditions. Those SPEC number Intel puts out are artificial with no real world frame of reference."""""

That proves my point beyond a doubt. Back then you were a PPC MANIAC. If you have any desency, you will just dissapear from this thread.

[Stefdar]

And another one from the very limited Aristotles:

Aristotles: There seem to be a lot of clueless comments here by people who don't understand the real differences between PPC and X86.
At Wall Street Journal Executive Conference last month, Steve Jobs said the following:

Q: porting OS X to other platforms
SJ: other platforms like XBOX? (((no laughs))).......... you mean like PCs, Intel......? we think we make the best hardware in the world......... generally the macosx customer likes good hardware............ we're sticking to our program right now ........

Can we stop talking about this bullcrap now? the WSJ and CNET have committed journalistic suicide.


You seemed to have changed your mind rather drastically in a few months. Talking about fanboys, hehe.

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

It's interesting to see how different peoples' opinions of the same hardware vary.

It is likely very dependent on what you use your machine for. People who run Safari/XCode/iApps all day will likely love the speed boost from the Core Duo Macs' much better integer performance. People who run highly optimized PowerPC apps in Rosetta will probably feel very differently. Of course, if someone is a Photoshop user with a PowerMac, why'd he buy an Intel iMac now? Apple doesn't expect him to do that until the new PowerMacs ship and Intel versions of workstation apps come out.

Some of the arguments people have trumped up against the Intel Macs are really ridiculous. Emulated Photoshop runs slower on an Intel iMac than it does on a dual PowerMac? Duh! The dual PowerMac should really be faster in all cases than the iMac. Both lines were updated recently with current-generation dual-core processors. The PowerMac got 170mm^2 100W+ workstation chips, while the iMacs got 90mm^2 35W laptop chips. The PowerMacs should really trounce the iMacs in every respect. The fact that they don't for things like XCode or Safari is a testament to how good an idea the Intel switch was.

[new newton]

What's wrong with someone changing their opinion?

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by Stefdar

Am I the only one who feels a little tired with all this? All that's left to happen is OSX retail DVD for every PC, and believe me, IT WILL HAPPEN in 2 years at the most.
And that is when every Macuser will feel really betrayed and ashamed.
I agree all we have now is OSX,
(us, Maxxuss and about 20.000 PC morons who spend all day trying to find the ideal motherboard for OSXx86 and loughing at Apple for it's unbreakable 10.4.4 and 10.4.5).

It seems I am not INTELigent either...

I know what you mean and that was the reason for this post.

Anybody can come up and tell me that Intels are better, performance per watt this and that.... whatever folks, u won this one already!
,, all we can do is keep whinning. i'll end up using a MacTel eventually, I have no choice and i am NOT getting a gateway either...at least macs will look sharp... until Apple stops building machines, so you will then get a PC compatible OSXI DVD free with the purchase of any 9th generation iPod.

my G5 can burn though work like the hottest mexican-pocket-knife through the softest butter...and i will defend it until i can't make any money from it. This baby pays for my beers and still leaves some coins to take care of my super-high electic bill...

not bad from a super unefficient, super inferior-to-Intel, super five-times-slower, super computer.



windOSXp?

[new newton]

Defend it from what? Someone's opinion? That's a great way to waste time.

[aristotles]

Wow. That's scary that you would waste your time searching for that. I used to be an assembly programer and back in the day the PPC was superior to the Intel offerings (G3 versus PII).

Welcome to the 21st century. I don't use assembly anymore and none of the software I write uses altivec.

Today's Core Duo chips are not the same as the P4's built on the Netburst architechure. As people in the know would attest, the Core Duo processors are descended from the P6 Core from the Pentium Pro.

I hate Netburst P4's with a passion. I remember when they were introduced and how they were slower than P3's of the same clockspeed. I considered the P4 to be a step backwards in processor design.

Until the Core Duo chips , the X86 were at a disadvantage regarding math that could be processed by a VPU and the G5 was very capable and competitive for "desktop" towers.

If you have the cash to burn the Quad G5 is machine to get right now for optimal PS performance.

I'm sorry but the PPC chips do not cut it anymore for mobile solutions and within a few months, the G5 Quad will lose it's PS performance crown with the release of new desktop and workstation/server chips from Intel combined with a native version of PS for OS X Intel.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by 24klogos

not bad from a super unefficient, super inferior-to-Intel, super five-times-slower, super computer.

Troll*. Read the posts of the people who actually understand wtf they're talking about**, and you'll get a much less exaggerated, much more accurate, version of reality (hint: most or all of the people in favor of the Intel switch in this thread agree that the G5 is a pretty fast machine, particularly the quad).

*yeah, I know, I shouldn't feed the troll :/

**you can identify them by the use of facts, reputable sources, and the tendency to refrain from inflammatory posts about how <insert large company here> has betrayed them

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by 24klogos

my G5 can burn though work like the hottest mexican-pocket-knife through the softest butter...and i will defend it until i can't make any money from it. This baby pays for my beers and still leaves some coins to take care of my super-high electic bill...

not bad from a super unefficient, super inferior-to-Intel, super five-times-slower, super computer.

Nobody claimed the G5 is 5x slower than the Core Duo. Even Apple's claims are that the Core Duo is 50% faster per core per hertz in integer, and about the same in FP. Those claims really should surprise no-one --- if you've ever run GCC on a G5 versus a Pentium M, you know exactly why the G5 scores so poorly in SPECint.

It's nice that the G5 runs your apps fast, but realize that just because some well-optimized apps run fast on the G5, that does not mean all of them do. The apps I use on a regular basis (Safari, various compilers, and Matlab), run substantially (I'm talking 50%+) faster on x86. So where does that put things?

A lot of people couldn't care less about Altivec performance or the traditional super-optimized applications the G5 can run well. As Apple's userbase grows and becomes more diverse, and as technology changes to move traditional Altivec tasks onto the GPU, this fact will only become more true. Apple needs to make a lot of people happy, and the G5 wasn't going to do that.

[Stefdar]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Wow. That's scary that you would waste your time searching for that. I used to be an assembly programer and back in the day the PPC was superior to the Intel offerings (G3 versus PII).

Welcome to the 21st century. I don't use assembly anymore and none of the software I write uses altivec.

Today's Core Duo chips are not the same as the P4's built on the Netburst architechure. As people in the know would attest, the Core Duo processors are descended from the P6 Core from the Pentium Pro.

I hate Netburst P4's with a passion. I remember when they were introduced and how they were slower than P3's of the same clockspeed. I considered the P4 to be a step backwards in processor design.

Until the Core Duo chips , the X86 were at a disadvantage regarding math that could be processed by a VPU and the G5 was very capable and competitive for "desktop" towers.

If you have the cash to burn the Quad G5 is machine to get right now for optimal PS performance.

I'm sorry but the PPC chips do not cut it anymore for mobile solutions and within a few months, the G5 Quad will lose it's PS performance crown with the release of new desktop and workstation/server chips from Intel combined with a native version of PS for OS X Intel.

What's scary is how you distort facts. Your words are not dated years back, they are dated July 2005... Clearly you are not talking about G3 vs PII.
Yonah's core is based on Pentium III. From my experience, a Centrino laptop with Windows XP performed exactly the same in everything like my PowerBook, clock for clock.
And what's really going to be funny, is that when the Intel Powermacs do come out, and when universal Adobe apps do come out, I am 99% certain the dual G5s will still smoke the Intels. I want to see what people will say then!!!

Two machines in my A/V dept. one dual Xeon 3 GHz with XPSP2 and Premiere PRO, and a humble G5 dual 1,8 GHz running the old Premiere 6.5, which is obviously not optimized for the G5s. In exporting the same video, the G5 finished in 1/3d of the time.

And please explain this review http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1935149,00.asp, comparing the G4 Mini with the Duo Mini.

[Stefdar]

My point though,
that all of you that today stand so firm for Intel would eat me alive if a year back I came here and proposed such a thing like Macs with Intels,
still stands, regardless of specs and hardware goodness. That proves how Apple can sell almost anything to it's loyal followers, (including me of course), :-)

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Stefdar

My point though,
that all of you that today stand so firm for Intel would eat me alive if a year back I came here and proposed such a thing like Macs with Intels,
still stands, regardless of specs and hardware goodness. That proves how Apple can sell almost anything to it's loyal followers, (including me of course), :-)

Man, you are really sad. Get a life.

Nobody could have known for sure that transitive software would be used by apple and that it worked seamlessly. There were no known publicly available implementations of that technology.

When people made those statements, they were going on the information they had. They could not have foreseen that the rumours of Marklar were true or that Apple would have an emulation framework in place to run existing PPC apps on Intel. We also did not have any solid information about the Intel Core Solo and Duo.

At the time those rumours were surfacing, the P4 netburst chips were faltering and the G5 was king of the performance hill for Photoshop and other programs based heavily on FPU math.

You also have to consider the source of these pre-announcement rumours. Nobody was talking John C. Dvorak and Paul Thurrott seriously. Even other members of the media scoffed at the idea of Apple switching chips.

[Stefdar]

After the obvious silliness and contradictions of your comments, it's you who should get a life...
If tomorrow Apple's relation with Intel goes bad and Apple will say "We are back to PowerPC", then you will cheer for PowerPC again. And then you have the nerve to talk about hardware fanboys and limited perceptions.
READ YOUR OWN 6 MONTHS COMMENTS MAN, and then just go away

I mean how silly can you be? None told you yet that the netburst Pentium 4s that you now hate run OSX much faster than the Duos? Go and check some facts before you come here and play the authority.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Troll*. Read the posts of the people who actually understand wtf they're talking about**, and you'll get a much less exaggerated, much more accurate, version of reality (hint: most or all of the people in favor of the Intel switch in this thread agree that the G5 is a pretty fast machine, particularly the quad).

*yeah, I know, I shouldn't feed the troll :/

**you can identify them by the use of facts, reputable sources, and the tendency to refrain from inflammatory posts about how <insert large company here> has betrayed them

Sure Mr addicted to Maccn member. whatever you say, please take my apologies for opening this post.

If i may add, one day i hope to have as many posts as you do, so I can call some other dummy *troll and get on a powerpc-trip.

[OreoCookie]

Cut it out, will ya.
So back on topic now …