Apple to dump PPC for future Macs?

[teo]

Tomas said "Also the ppc is damn overprized so you also get alot more perfomance for the bucks with a x86. Sad but true"

Alkemyst said "Not true at all"

What are you on? Throw all the crap about the technology is better out, beacuse it all comes down to x86 is cheaper AND faster! theres nothing more to argue about, add that motorola's own low interest in keeping ppc up to date, and add that x86 is going 64bit soon with mostly new architecture to overcome old limitations (which is the only thing ppc loyalists can actually gripe about these days)

I may not like intel, but im not stupid. Dont be blinded by loyaties to hardware, especially when software is the most important aspect by far.

[Alkemyst]

@teotwin
 
its nothing to  do with  loyaties it to do with what ppl want.

AMD Athlon  was faster  than intels for sometime & cheaper as well but intel still was selling more
cpus than AMD.

its you PC ppl that just cant understand why ppl still use Amigas that cost alot  to keep running,

so ill tell you ITS COS WE WANT TO. its not cos we are blind can cant see the speed & cheapness x86.

WE WANT to run PPC why ? cos we want to.

i dont want to run x86 so the price & speed of it means nothing to me.

& i have no loyaties to PPC as i dont have one.

its that some ppls values are just different &  not like the mainstreams values.

mainstream values fast & cheap you have that its the x86 PC, so stop complaining

look at the mainstream music atm, it sucks but alot of ppl like it thats why its mainstream.

i used  to like maistream music in the late 70s  early 80s but for quite some years it makes me sick.

but i can still have the music i like cos there are song writers making the same sort of music i
like & that music used to be mainstream years ago, but just cos the mainstream changes it does not
meen you have to give up on what you like & follow that stream just cos the mainstream is aways the
cheapest & you should not no longer buy the non mainstream muisc that you love just cos it cost more
& takes longer to import.

sorry but just cos the x86 is the cheapest it does not mean it should get every OS put on to it &
everyone should be only on x86 you cant have your cake & eat it

[huronking]

This guy claims that making the OSX run on
non-proprietary hardware would doom the Mac
to the fate of Be and failed Linux distributions.

I personally think the opposite.

I think M$ would "port" Windows to support the
x86 "proprietary" hardware. (Not a big jump,
since its now on its native processor).

Probably as a dual boot at first, then the usual
Microsoft strategy of making the other installed
OS (OSX) more and more problematic
until the user gets fed up and defaults to
M$.

Anyone who remembers OS/2 knows what I am talking about.

[Valan]

@ huronking,
I think you are half right.
I think Microsoft will welcome OSX to x86, then it gives them a true competitor.

Microsoft have made it hard on Mac on PPC but the result is that users will use other apps. Browsers in particular are doing very well despite IE being the default. Microsoft have openly denounced its sales to Mac users and blame Apple.

I don't think Microsoft enjoys the same status as it did when it crippled OS2. I think people like the standards set by Office and want to work to them. If another product offers them the same standards but for less money and hassles then they will use it.

The recent OSX update 'Jaguar' is demonstrating how OSX can allow users to have less hassles. Even on PPC Apple is making the link to the Windows world easier so I doubt Apple will be angered by an abilty to boot Windows.

I think they really want a side by side comparrison.

Valan

[Hammer]

I am afraid that when they move the MacOS to the x86 platform, it will run so bad that people will abandon it. Sort of the BeOS story.

Wound it?

MacOS can’t be associated with BeOS since it(BeOS) doesn’t have a good brand recognition or comparable “good will”.

BeOS’s GUI is not even comparable with MacOSX’s GUI.

[Hammer]

@Valan

OS/2’s Win16 API (back in 1994/1995 era) didn’t give application programmers the incentive to port native software for the OS/2 platform.

Secondly, IBM didn’t complete with MS with bundling war.  

Thirdly, IBM did not compete with MS’s advertising bombardment.

Many things can be leant from ATI’s counter attack (against nVidia) i.e. “holding the line”, gaining opportunities, eliminating weaknesses and exploiting strengths.

[Hammer]

@huronking.

In the dominance of 68k Series CPUs during 80s, other 68k based PCs didn't kill MacOS.

[Hammer]

They prolly used dual 333MHz FSB x86 mobos
...

Intel chipsets doesn't run at "333Mhz DDR" for FSB, it runs ether at 533 mhz QDR (for late model 850) or 400 mhz QDR (for older intel 8xx chipsets).

AMD based chipsets runs either at 266 mhz DDR or 333 mhz DDR or 400 Mhz DDR for late model mobos.

Reference
1. Intel 845E chip set.
It was quoted that 845E has 533 Mhz (QDR) between Pentium 4 processor and system bus (with DDR RAMs running at DDR 266).

(the pricetags sure suggests so) pitted against single 166MHz FSB / 333MHz DDR PPC mobo. And the software was probably also non-altivec (G4). Or in other words: foul x86 propaganda at it's best...

Please provide proofs.

PS; Dell Precision 340 may have RDRAM/533QDR for that case.  I exceeded that price line when I selected following
1. Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor, 2.53GHz, 512K / 533 Front Side Bus (Northwood Core).
2. 256MB PC800 ECC RDRAM.
3. nVidia, Quadro2 EX™, 32MB, VGA (Dell Recommended)
4. 19 inch Dell (19.0 inch vis) 1900FP Flat Panel Monitor (Dell Recommended)
5. Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live! Value,Windows 2000 or XP Operating System
6. harman/kardon 206 Speakers
7. 80GB ATA-100 IDE,

Price: ~$3,383.00 (with price reduction)

Does Apple PPC has DDR ram?
As Apple's web site suggest, DDR can only applied for L3 Cache NOT for main ram (only at 133 SDRAM).

In terms RAW mobo MHZ speed, Intel packs allot of it(due to 533 mhz QDR). AMD comes second with 400DDR/333DDR.

[Hammer]

@Valan
What kind of x86 PCs? Are they Intel or AMD?

Depending on applications AMD has it’s strengths and Intel has it’s own strengths.

[JetRacer]

@Hammer: Yeah, you're right. The x86 figure is wrong in the case of the Dell. I was speaking in more general terms and compared with AMD.

The Articia chipset which Apple uses have›three versions (S, Sa, P), All 133MHz, All 166MHz and a combo 166MHz FSB 333MHz DDR (some extra b/w for the gfx board).

The dual PPC are able to work directly agaist a single 133/166MHz FSB (since beginning of time). And is generally compared with newer x86 machines with far greater FSB bandwidth or even dual FSB. Point is that the only thing that matters in large, simple data processing jobs is FSB bandwidth (cache and altivec is useless). Do the same tests with f.ex. lightsource rendering using three clustered 600MHz PPC (preferably, but not necessarely G4) and the result will be devastating for the single 2GHz x86.

To someone else: x86 is crap. The quality of the PPC allows the use of Asm optimizing. And we all know what the difference between Asm and C in critical code. Try writing a 3D demo for the classic in C using maximum priority and you'll get the point. It's dead slow no matter priority. It's the assmebler that makes the difference, not the lack of multitasking. It's no sensation if someone manage to squeeze out twice as much performance due to asm optimizing. Nor x4 for that matter.