Intel Mac comes very poor second to PPC

[uncharted]

If you ever need a huge pile of excrement, for your roses or something, just visit an Amiga forum thread about Macs or CPUs.

There's plenty to spare!!!!

[uncharted]

Hyperspeed wrote:
Intel's chip designers probably design the bodywork for the Porsche range of cars - i.e. nothing ever really changes but it's packaged as a revolutionary new thing.

I kinda like dat compoota known as teh OMEGA!

Neat chipset inside this machine no?

EDIT:
Dammy: Appropriate company name there...  'ARS'

Er, were you ever dropped on your head as a baby?

[uncharted]

billt wrote:
The first Intel Macs aren't as fast as the last PowerPC macs. Didn't people complain about the same thing back during the 68K->PPC switch? Did they fall apart because of transistion the first time?

This transition is nothing like the previous one.  OS X has been running on x86 before it was even called OS X. Already a number of applications I use are Universal (I'm still running on PPC BTW).  I did a comparison of the Core Du and G5 iMacs at an Apple store, and the intel one was noticably faster in general use.

I think they'll survive and things will improve. When they do and prices come down, I'd love a Mac laptop, especially if it can run all my OSes, Windows, Linux, and even Amihon? Still haven't got that last one running on my AMD64 laptop though so the fancy new stuff might prevent it. :/ I'd have loved an iBook G4 for OS4, but alas it isn't meant to be and I'm left pondering other platforms for convenient portability.

The iBook is indeed a nice laptop, best I've ever owned.  IMHO running OS4 on it would be a waste.

[uncharted]

bloodline wrote:

I have no idea what you are talking about, but when MMX was introduced 3D games were becoming common, and GFX cards were little better than the Amiga Chipset.

I distinctly remember going into HMV and seeing that game that was the first to take advantage of MMX, that really crap racing game, can't remember it's name though.  That must of been nearly 9 years ago. Man, i'm getting old :-(

[uncharted]

Tomas wrote:
OSX dosent even run smoothly on systems with 512meg ram...

Complete and utter unadulterated bollocks.

Typing this on an old eMac 700MHz G4 with only 256MB, and it's running absolutely fine with 6 apps open.  I'm not having any performance issues.

[uncharted]

mdma wrote:

if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

.....then it's probably not a duck. ;-)

I was going to say:-

Then don't stand near to it if you're on a hunting trip with the Vice President :lol:

[uncharted]

Waccoon wrote:

It's possible OSX scales back automatically for older Macs.  

Perhaps I should of added that my brand new stock 12" iBook also does not have performance issues either.

I had to wait minutes for the OS9 version of Graphing Calculator to start!  

Erm, that is probably because it had to load OS9 first :-)

I'm not an expert on Graphing (my wife is the Mathematician in the family), but on my 10.4 system there is a program in Utilities called Grapher that seems to do the same job.

I don't run Classic on either of my Macs.

I hear, though, that 10.4 is much, much more resource hungry than 10.3.  My mini came with 10.4.

I haven't noticed that TBH, I know that 10.2 (which I run on my eMac) was not very well optimised. 10.3 was apparently much better resource wise than 10.2

[uncharted]

What's it like fan/noise wise?  Much different to the PPC PB?

What's the battery life like on it?

[uncharted]

mdma wrote:

I will not go out and buy an Intel based Mac because it's Intel based, I would try the OS out of interest BUT AS IT IS NOT ON AN AMD I CANNOT. ...f.c.o.l.

So if Apple released a Dual Core Athlon64 based iMac tommorow you would buy one?

Sure he didn't say it as clearly as he could, but if you read the whole thing and put that last bit into context, you 'll see that:-

Macs going Intel (x86) are not enough justification to buy one.

He's only got an AMD box and he (mistakenly) thought that MacOS X will only run on Intel CPUs.  He wasn't going to go out and buy an Intel box just to run OS X.

No Zealotry going on.

[uncharted]

bloodline wrote:
I think Apple need to sort out their batty life calculator... It's much too sensitive,  although I managed to get about 4hours on the MacBook's battery, the indicator would wildly swing from 2:14 to 3:38... depending upon what I was doing... it would then proceed to stay at one of the above values for a considerable period.

I've noticed that with my iBook, I now don't get it to display the time remaining on the Menubar (this is also partly because I'm only running 1024x768, so space is tight).

I've always wondered how much battery power is used up calculating the batterypoer remaining :-)

[uncharted]

Thanks for the info Agafaster.

Matt, have you had chance to play with  FrontRow yet?  It seemed a bit gimmicky to me.

What kind of res pics does the iSight take?