Second rate? Maybe at the end but the G4s always outclassed Pentium 4s running at twice the clock rate. More expensive? Definitely, but the new ones are just as expensive and are nowhere near the quality of the PPC macs, but they are definitely better than you average crap x86/64.
Saying Intel is better than PPC is like saying an M16 is better than the AK47, sure the M16 has modern, but useless features, but the AK47 is robust, effective and simple in design, like PowerPC. The designer of the AK, quoted:
I don't see a drop in build quality with Apples x86 machines. They seem to be putting just as much attention to detail now as they did in the PPC era. It's not like they pulled a Packard Bell and started using recycled parts or lowered their standards for rolling out PCBs.
The biggest problem with PPC macs is probably the software. You have to admit when Apple was shoveling out G3 and G4 macs and advertising that they were the fastest thing ever seen, they ran like dogs compared to midrange PCs running win XP. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. For whatever reason their software stack did not do it any justice. Compare two identical PPC Macs, one running linux and one running OS X. OS X trundles along while linux flies.
Now compare two Intel macs, one with OS X and one with Linux. The performance is similar. If PPC was so great, why was Apple never able to truly take advantage of it?
