|
T O P I C R E V I E W
|
Welly
Member # 8098
|
 posted April 26, 2007 14:16
Any of you out there? PPC or Intel? I'm a "switcher" so excepting my early but brief G4 machine, I'm intel all the way.
|
Rhonwyyn
Member # 2854
|
posted April 26, 2007 14:21
You SWITCHED from a perfectly good Mac to a washed up Intel? Oy! ![[crazy]](graemlins/crazy.gif)
|
Stereo
Member # 748
|
posted April 26, 2007 14:28
Plenty aroud. I am one, going strong with my iMac G5, so no Intel for me for another couple of years. (Unless I win the lottery, but that's not going to happen, as I don't buy tickets.)
|
Snaggy
Member # 123
|
posted April 26, 2007 14:29
I bet Welly means an Intel Mac.
Welcome Welly, lots of Apple koolaid drinkers here. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
|
WinterSolstice
Member # 934
|
posted April 26, 2007 14:37
Yeah, this place is kinda Mac heavy.
I have a 68k, 4 PPCs, and an Intel.
|
Just_Jess_B
Member # 2161
|
posted April 26, 2007 14:57
quote:
Originally posted by WinterSolstice:
Yeah, this place is kinda Mac heavy.
I have a 68k, 4 PPCs, and an Intel.
One of those is probably my 12" . . .
Let's see, we've got the old Mac, we've got the Mini, we've got the G4 tower, we've got the 15" TiBook, and we've got my 12". That's the 68K, and the 4 PPCs, right?
Then WS has his laptop.
|
quantumfluff
Member # 450
|
posted April 26, 2007 18:38
I'm curious. Does anyone who is not a C programmer care about the processor architecture? PPC, Intel, MIPS, Sparc, HPPA - they are different, but that difference is invisible at the application level. I'm a weird case, since I happen to write software that must run on all those processors and we do nasty stuff like pointer swizzling, so I know the arcane distinctions between them. I just can't understand why anyone else would possibly care what chipset they use.
|
iWanToUseaMac
Member # 4993
|
posted April 26, 2007 21:45
Ok Classic lovers, resistance is futile! Intel FTW! (Until AMD comes up with something better ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) )
|
uilleann
Member # 1297
|
posted April 27, 2007 01:05
quantumfluff: Rosetta performance and stability perhaps, depending on what applications you want to run and whether there are native versions (or whether you want to spend lots of money upgrading to Intel versions). Or a desire to run really old games from way back (like, oh, TheZone), although apparently Sheepshaver will work as a replacement Classic emulator on Intel Macs (just not as nicely integrated with the host OS).
I can't use elitist superiority of the PPC range as an excuse as I've spent over two years running Windows ...
|
Tominfla
Member # 6767
|
posted April 27, 2007 01:45
UILLEANN! Welcome back!
I have a G5 PPC iMac. I recently sold my G4 PPC tower. At present that suffices. I still use Classic to play games. I have a friend who has an iMac Intel and I am impressed by its ability to dual boot to Windows and the graphics are better than mine in games like World of Warcraft.
For the record, my Windows computers are: laptop, Intel; desktop, AMD.
I have a 64K Mac Performa 575 in the closet that still runs.
|
Ugh, MightyClub
Member # 3112
|
posted April 27, 2007 11:36
hey, uill, good to see you around again.
MightyClub family priorities have caused a stall on computer replacement, so our newest is an iMac G4 (1GHz). We also have an even more ancient iMac DV in daily use. And my sis-in-law recently returned the PowerBook Duo I had loaned her for college way back when. Amazingly, it still boots after sitting in closets and basements for years, but the trackball doesn't seem to function anymore and I have no ADB mouse in the house. Finally, I have a couple inherited Apple clones in the basement which may or may not work.
|
iWanToUseaMac
Member # 4993
|
posted April 27, 2007 11:49
I think the power relies more on the software than on the hardware of the computer. For example, Windows Vista has all that niceties at the expense of the need of much *more* resources than Tiger does. I doubt you can get the same performance on a Lime running OS X on a "comparable" computer running Windows.
Resource management must be the first priority in developers agenda, because Moore's Law is not lasting forever, so software is not going to have much water in the fountain in the future.
|
dragonman97
Member # 780
|
posted April 27, 2007 14:06
Say what you will, but Tiger on my MacBook positively smokes my Mini.
Specs:
MacBook: Intel Core2 Duo 2.0 GHz / 1 GB
Mini: PowerPC G4 1.25 GHz / 512 MB
|
Ugh, MightyClub
Member # 3112
|
posted April 27, 2007 17:25
And why wouldn't it, with twice the cores and twice the RAM? That said, yes, processor architecture can have a drastic impact on performance of the same/similar code.
|
Serenak
Member # 2950
|
posted April 27, 2007 18:00
We are not exactly a Mac board but there are a lot of Mac users here... there are also a lot of Linux users here and probably a lot of Windows users too
and this is GEEK culture... so you will find a lot of the Mac/Linux/Windows users also run at least one other OS from the triad regardless of their primary OS ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Me? I am a Mac boy, with a bit of Linux "easy" distro use and a Winbox in the corner "just in case" - I doubt that is unusual here.
But be welcome and ask pertinent questions and answers will find you - or at least pointers on how to find answers for yourself...
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
|
uilleann
Member # 1297
|
posted April 28, 2007 00:08
Hey, what MacBook? Is that a work one or did you just get yourself an upgrade?
iWanToUseaMac: Oddly, few people understand that concept yet. Maybe Vista will finally bring home, in an exaggerated sense, that the design of the operating system has fundamental implications for the efficiency of the machine. Generally, though, it's more subtle than that and it's only the users of older machines that lose out. For example, why is GTK+ for Windows so astonishigly slow? Keep buying new computers and you can mindlessly sacrifice more CPU power to the bloat. I can't say that the forcible obsolescence of older machines pleases me, even just in terms of the level of industrial waste it creates.
As I've pointed out ... my first word processor was on a 2 MHz computer and it ran just fine. (Heck, there was even a WYSIWYG word processor for that machine, with fonts. You can guess who, at school, accidentally pressed the "self destruct" key that caused it to implode and corrupt itself? Boy was the teacher pleased ![[evil]](graemlins/evil.gif) )
|
Ashitaka
Member # 4924
|
posted April 28, 2007 03:18
Can we all agree that 90% of the population will always use MS despite the availability of better options.
(I am on a roll do taday and having fun. Weeeeeeeeeeeee.)
|
quantumfluff
Member # 450
|
posted April 28, 2007 06:22
I won't agree to anything of the sort. "The population" includes 100s of millions of people who don't have the economic resources to run (licensed) Windows. This will drive the adoption of other OSes (which may or may not be Unix based). On top of that, I don't think any popular desktop OS (windows, linux or osx) has the right security model to stand up to the threats evolving in this century. I think huge changes are coming.
|
Mr. Dave
Member # 1977
|
posted April 28, 2007 17:55
Mac users? You might find one or two around here; then again you might find one or two of practically anything around here. (Anyone using zOS or MVS?) If we're comparing notes, I have a semiretired Quadra 660AV (68040 plus the DSP chip no-one wrote anything for), a first-gen TiBook, as well as a 486!! happily running FreeBSD, and a Wwwww... Wwwiii... Wwwwiiiwww... er, that other thing, you know, from Redmond? I also might try to grab that old quad Sparc I saw in the neighbourhood, if it's still available. (Hello. My name is Dave, and I am a packrat.)
As for security, the BSDs seem to me to have a good start, but no security model is going to be worth squat until the Great Unwashed can be made to realize that computer security is both an ongoing, neverending process as well as a frame of mind. If you locked your doors and windows last night, you still have to lock them again tonight. You also have to make sure that the locks actually work and that they haven't broken, keep track of who has keys and replace them all if someone loses one... (Am I preaching to the choir here? I hope so.)
As for Micro$oft, I consider them a working proof of Sturgeon's Law...
|
Infinitesimal
Member # 4865
|
posted April 28, 2007 21:09
I have a PPC mini sitting in a nook in my desk, running linux and apache. Mostly for development purposes but it also hosts some photos and stuff.
It does have an OSX install, but that isnt seeing any use atm.
|
Welly
Member # 8098
|
posted April 29, 2007 11:37
quote:
Originally posted by quantumfluff:
I'm curious. Does anyone who is not a C programmer care about the processor architecture? PPC, Intel, MIPS, Sparc, HPPA - they are different, but that difference is invisible at the application level. I'm a weird case, since I happen to write software that must run on all those processors and we do nasty stuff like pointer swizzling, so I know the arcane distinctions between them. I just can't understand why anyone else would possibly care what chipset they use.
I haven't had a long enough background with Macs to care much about the PPC architecture. I was Windows from 92 to 06, with a few brief spells with Linux. Now I'm Mac only on the desktop, my web server runs Ubuntu and I use XP under parallels for testing websites in IE6/7. What I moved over to the Mac world for was stability, a better and better supported operating system and less "pissing about" which I have always had to put up with with windows. I've got all that now, what chip is under the hood makes no odds to me.
|
HubmaN
Member # 7554
|
posted May 20, 2007 07:31
So sue me.
I use a first gen MacBook. I'd kill for a 14-inch PB (probably Ti or Al would be good), but then again, I suppose Intel Ds are RISC-ish enough already. But you do need a lot of RAM. I have 512 MBs of RAM, but I wish I had 1G, because I have to go to Kinko's whenever I want to do heavy Photoshopping.
|
|
