Jump to content
dorkbydesign.

Mac Veterans: PowerPC Pride!

42 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Advertisement

You want what's better for your product. At the time the G5s were going in the Powermac and Imac, you couldn't get them inside the Ibook or Powerbook, where as with Intel, dual core cpus for the laptops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the ways to drop PPC support, this is really the best. There aren't any new features in Snow Leopard for the PPC users to complain about not having (except Intel optimization, which would be useless to them anyways).

And since 10.7 probably wont be released until late 2010/early 2011, that makes the time difference from last PPC Mac deprecated to first OS with new features 6 years. Acceptable, considering Apple's past history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you think about it... G5s were useless in iBooks / PowerBooks because they generated too much heat and they used too much power. Apple ALWAYS try to have more than 5 hours of battery life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snow Leopard still has PPC binaries in it, I don't see why people would think it's getting dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because they believe everithing they read.

 

I remember that each year near MacWolrd Expo people insisted that Apple would close beause bankruptcy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that PPC is going to be dropped because the Developers Preview only works on intels. Hehe Meowy, do u own a iMac G4? I have one that I modded into a hackintosh. The half dome case is big enough to house GA-945GCM-S2L. It rules!!! (plus, its touch screen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not read anywhere about Steve Jobs saying Intel only.

 

Personally with the last G5s being sold in 2006 I doubt he will abandon PowerPC that quickly. Tiger worked on G3s Leopard works on a large number of G4s, and I reckon Snow Leopard will work on G5s. 10.7 no doubt will be Intel only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd be nice if the PPC were to be supported in the next OS release. I bought a G5 just as they were going out of production. It works fine. Tiger works great. Very stable. Very nice. No problems at all. If the next release of Snow Leopard works on the PPC, that'd be good news cuz it would mean that most of the mainstream apps will still work on it and be released for at least 2-3 more years to come. It's difficlt to see how Snow Leopard couldn't support the G5. I mean, the cutoff for a lot of memory intensive graphics apps still being released is still at the 64-bit G5. And they still work like a charm. If Snow Leopard comes in a 64 bit flavor, it'd only work better on the G5, wouldn't you think? Because the OS will finally be optimized for a chip was is native 64 bit and in many cases, dual core--a technology which Snow Leopard addresses. So Apple, if yer reading this, please continue to support the G5. If you come out with a 64 bit version of Snow Leopard, I will buy because I think it will work great.

 

If Apple does decide to drop support for the PPC, it'll be a business/political decision, not a functional one. Apple could easily support the PPC in Snow Leopard if it chose to. All these pro-Intel people should realize that's why Apple initially stopped using your chip after the LISA in the 80s. Because Intel was truly never made for versatile motion graphics. Still isn't. Was meant for static CAD vectors and spreadsheets. That's why the Intel chips excel at AutoCAD, but often fall short in After Effects and video editing. I've found that one shortfall of the Intel chips, is that they seem to run out of memory after a couple of hours, and regardless of whether it's Intel of Apple, they slow down, and the computer has to be re-booted. Intel Chips appear to suck the memory out of a computer.

 

Also, why when Apple dropped the PPCs, the gaming companies immediatly snapped them up that market share. Sony, Nintendo and even Might Wintel Microsoft use the PPC's for their gaming systems, because the Intel chips wouldn't cut it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd be nice if the PPC were to be supported in the next OS release. I bought a G5 just as they were going out of production. It works fine. Tiger works great. Very stable. Very nice. No problems at all. If the next release of Snow Leopard works on the PPC, that'd be good news cuz it would mean that most of the mainstream apps will still work on it and be released for at least 2-3 more years to come.

Indeed, it would be nice for apple to continue support for PowerPC, it is a fine architecture.

 

It's difficlt to see how Snow Leopard couldn't support the G5. I mean, the cutoff for a lot of memory intensive graphics apps still being released is still at the 64-bit G5. And they still work like a charm. If Snow Leopard comes in a 64 bit flavor, it'd only work better on the G5, wouldn't you think? Because the OS will finally be optimized for a chip was is native 64 bit and in many cases, dual core--a technology which Snow Leopard addresses. So Apple, if yer reading this, please continue to support the G5. If you come out with a 64 bit version of Snow Leopard, I will buy because I think it will work great.

Its dangerous to assume anything in the field of computing without thorough research. There have been many of people debating about "True 64-bit," "Native 64-bit" but I have yet to see anything supportive of either within the debates.

 

All these pro-Intel people should realize that's why Apple initially stopped using your chip after the LISA in the 80s.

What do you mean by "initially"?, are you saying that Apple considered using the Intel chip or that they used the chip at one time?. Apple never released a product using the Intel chip until the switch in 2006:

 

Apple I: MOS 6502 @ 1MHz

Apple II: MOS 6502 @ 1MHz

Apple II+: MOS/SynerTek 6502 @ 1MHz

Apple III/III+: SynerTek 6502A @ 2MHz

Apple IIe: MOS/SynerTek 6502 @ 1MHz

Apple IIc/IIc+: SynerTek 65C02 @ 1MHz(IIc), 4MHz (IIc+)

Apple IIe Enhanced/Platinum: SynerTek 65C02 @ 1MHz

Apple IIgs: WDC 65SC816 @ 2.8MHz

Lisa/Lisa2/Mac XL: MC68000 @ 5MHz

Macintosh 128k: MC68000 @ 8MHz

 

Because Intel was truly never made for versatile motion graphics. Still isn't. Was meant for static CAD vectors and spreadsheets. That's why the Intel chips excel at AutoCAD, but often fall short in After Effects and video editing. I've found that one shortfall of the Intel chips, is that they seem to run out of memory after a couple of hours, and regardless of whether it's Intel of Apple, they slow down, and the computer has to be re-booted. Intel Chips appear to suck the memory out of a computer.

Would you mind giving me a decent example(s) of where the x86 architecture has failed in motion graphics. Where have you heard this?, many computer history texts and documentaries which describe Intel's Microprocessor Endeavor, Intel had no particular vision for its early microprocessor(s) and surveyed those who bought and used their chips to see what purpose they were used for, and to collaborate with their customers to improve the architecture to suit their future purposes. You're referring to memory leaks which are related to bugs in binaries, the x86 architecture is used in many fields throughout the industry and depending on its purpose, its uptime can span years without a reboot and without a hit in performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd be nice if the PPC were to be supported in the next OS release. I bought a G5 just as they were going out of production. It works fine. Tiger works great. Very stable. Very nice. No problems at all. If the next release of Snow Leopard works on the PPC, that'd be good news cuz it would mean that most of the mainstream apps will still work on it and be released for at least 2-3 more years to come. It's difficlt to see how Snow Leopard couldn't support the G5. I mean, the cutoff for a lot of memory intensive graphics apps still being released is still at the 64-bit G5. And they still work like a charm. If Snow Leopard comes in a 64 bit flavor, it'd only work better on the G5, wouldn't you think? Because the OS will finally be optimized for a chip was is native 64 bit and in many cases, dual core--a technology which Snow Leopard addresses. So Apple, if yer reading this, please continue to support the G5. If you come out with a 64 bit version of Snow Leopard, I will buy because I think it will work great.

 

If Apple does decide to drop support for the PPC, it'll be a business/political decision, not a functional one. Apple could easily support the PPC in Snow Leopard if it chose to. All these pro-Intel people should realize that's why Apple initially stopped using your chip after the LISA in the 80s. Because Intel was truly never made for versatile motion graphics. Still isn't. Was meant for static CAD vectors and spreadsheets. That's why the Intel chips excel at AutoCAD, but often fall short in After Effects and video editing. I've found that one shortfall of the Intel chips, is that they seem to run out of memory after a couple of hours, and regardless of whether it's Intel of Apple, they slow down, and the computer has to be re-booted. Intel Chips appear to suck the memory out of a computer.

 

Also, why when Apple dropped the PPCs, the gaming companies immediatly snapped them up that market share. Sony, Nintendo and even Might Wintel Microsoft use the PPC's for their gaming systems, because the Intel chips wouldn't cut it.

 

Woah, I really don't know what you are getting at here.

Your argument was valid 15 years ago, but you're completely wrong now.

 

I like my G4 Powerbook, but there's no way it is superior than my Core 2 Duo Hackintosh because of its age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd be nice if the PPC were to be supported in the next OS release. I bought a G5 just as they were going out of production.* * *Intel Chips appear to suck the memory out of a computer.

 

You don't even have an iota of a fraction of an idea what the hell you are talking about. There is really close to nothing you can categorically say about "Intel chips" over the last 30 years except that some of them use some of the same instructions in 16-bit mode. The way they process has been changed again and again and again and again.

 

There is no basis for your claim that a certain CPU manufacturer uses more or less memory than another. Even if, say, the G4 chip was more efficient than the Pentium III, that doesn't mean anything about the relationship between Core 2 and G3 or PPC 801 and the 80386dx.

 

Nonsense.

 

You're just mad that you overpaid for a G5 that's going obsolete faster than you think is reasonable. The first line says it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't mind the PPC macs, but if I bought lets say a dual dual core 2.5 g5, with that money I could buy a MacPro, or even a high-end Imac. With laptops, with their price, buying PPC laptops isn't a great idea either, as all Intel Mac laptops are dual core(Besides the MacBook Air). Really is just isn't a smart investment if you're looking out for whats to come.

 

You're just mad that you overpaid for a G5 that's going obsolete faster than you think is reasonable. The first line says it all.

 

That right there is probably one of the main reasons Snow leopard supports PPC, and I really wouldn't be surprised at all if it were just the G5s that were supported.

 

Also, why when Apple dropped the PPCs, the gaming companies immediatly snapped them up that market share. Sony, Nintendo and even Might Wintel Microsoft use the PPC's for their gaming systems, because the Intel chips wouldn't cut it.

 

? The Intel chips that don't cut it right now can run miles around the 3 consoles. The Cell hardly has much to do with the PPC enough as it is. It doesn't even have real multiple cores. The biggest reason consoles didn't chose the Intel chips, is because that would mean building it on x86 or x64 platform, WHICH is a big no no. Why? Look at the Xbox, all the modding for one. It was easy to get inside of it because was basically a PC. Look at the AppleTV. It's on an Intel platform, which has been hacked to run a full Os X. Matter a fact, look at Osx86. Os X went from PPC, to Intel, then OSx86 came. And MICROSOFT DOES NOT JUST USE ONE BRAND OF CPU. Microsoft only reccomends the brand that's the best, Via, AMD, or Intel. That is stupid thinking right there, and you should hate yourself for it.

 

Edit-AND WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK INTEL CPUS ARE? All Core 2 duos and Xeons used in Macs are 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's unlikely that Apple will drop PPC support in 10.6 The normal product support life cycle is 3 years in most of the enterprise computing world, which means Apple should continue to support their products (G5) with their latest OS until 2009. That said, I think it equally unlikely that 10.7 will be a PPC OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd be nice if the PPC were to be supported in the next OS release. I bought a G5 just as they were going out of production.* * *Intel Chips appear to suck the memory out of a computer.

 

WTF? I don't think CPUs take up memory, its the applications and the services, am I right? Lyke in windows, it has a process called "System Idle Process", that takes up RAM. It also takes up CPU.

 

But wtf mate? What do you mean Intel Processors take up memory?

 

Please anyone with REAL knowledge, tell me if I am wrong! I would love to know.

 

No offense superchase, but I think you are way off, and your knowledge of your computers is way off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a bit of truth that certain cpus suck up memory, because their instruction sets, and therefore executable sizes, differ. However in the case of PPC vs. X86 it's backwards, PPC executables are almost always larger. Not that this has any real effect in an era of multiple GB's of ram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PPC executables are normally larger because of their architecture. They take up the same amount of ram.

 

WTF? MacBook Air has two cores... I think since its Core 2 Duo....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, the Atom is single core, the atom is in the Air. That's the biggest reason I would never buy it, that's just me personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still miss Mac OS 9. That's pretty painful for me to say the least. Now Apple's giving us the finger and abandoning PPC support. Thanks a lot. :D

 

I'll have fun with my B/W G3 thank you very much :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong, the Atom is single core, the atom is in the Air. That's the biggest reason I would never buy it, that's just me personally.

Sorry, but the MacBook Air does not use a Atom processor. It uses a Core 2 Duo "Merom". Maybe in the future apple will use a variant of the Atom in the MacBook Air or one of its Tablet offerings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×