iThread

[xxcloud417xx]

Does anyone here remember when Macs had the G series processors (last one was the G5)? What made them switch to Intel? and are Intel chips better or worse?

PowerPC.

PowerPC is a processor developed in the 90s by Apple, Motorola, and IBM.

Originally, PowerPC was notable as an example of a Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) design. Intel's x86 chips at the time used a Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC) architecture. RISC uses simpler and more limited machine code, meaning that certain operations that a CISC chip can do in one instruction have to be written out into several RISC instructions; the benefit is that it's easier to pipeline these instructions, meaning that execution of multiple instructions overlaps -- imagine the CPU as several different units arranged in an assembly line, with each unit doing its little part of an instruction and then passing it on to the next unit to finish.

Intel started designing CISC-on-RISC chips, which basically take in instructions in the old complicated x86 format but then transform them into RISC instructions for execution. Keeping the old machine code format allowed them to maintain backwards-compatibility with a lot of old code.

Over time, both the PowerPC and x86 architectures were improved and extended. For a while, PowerPC chips were notably for faster floating-point calculations while x86 chips did integer math faster. Both architectures added features like single-instruction/multiple-data processing. Motorola also came up with a few low-powered PPC designs for cell phones and other devices -- which IBM then used in their a massively parallel supercomputer designs. Overall, x86 chips changed a lot more than PPC chips -- partly due to a more dated original design, partly due to tight competition between Intel and AMD.

A few years back IBM ran into heat and wattage issues with their designs. This came at a time when Apple was getting more ambitious with its laptop roadmap. The company decided to switch to Intel processors because Intel chips were generally cheaper (mostly due to volume) and faster (due to a number of architectural and manufacturing factors). Intel had also stepped up development of cooler, lower-power chips for mobile devices, such as Atom and Celeron M.

Apple said that heat and performance problems were the main reason behind their move to Intel chips.

-- Alex

damn... thanks for clarifying...

 

[DrHobo]

Computers are INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY devices, so if you want to know the score look at the world of I T and see what the prevaling usage is.

You should ask a technically-knowledgeable user whose usage actually matches your intended usage.

Ask a big-company IT guy what his business does and he might tell you that Windows is this particular company's preferred platform because it runs a bunch of applications that you'll never need but their accountants do and because he likes domain administration features that you as a home user will never utilize. Then he might tell you that Microsoft Exchange is their favorite e-mail system because of some features that you will likewise never use. Not useful.

Another big-company IT guy from a software company might say they use a mix of Windows and UNIX for different tasks with a few fancy Macs for media work. (A company that only develops for one OS might just have only that OS everywhere.) Against, not that useful unless you're setting up a dedicated workstation for software development or something.

If you went back to the place I got my undergraduate degree you'd see the college's IT people managing an even mix of Mac and Windows boxes, with individual departments choosing one or the other for a particular application. If you were to wander into the Computer Science department you'd see all Debian boxes because their priorities are to teach students UNIX and to avoid attachment to an expensive and idiosyncratic IDE.

None of these are particularly relevant to a person who just wants to look at stuff in a browser (honestly that's like 80% of my computer time at home, despite the fact that I am awesome and knowledgeable and write software and all that), send some IMs, or play games.


-- Alex

Thanks for agreeing

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Why are Apple parts more expensive than regular PC parts?? $600 CDN for 2 GB Mac Pro RAM from apple store!

 

[superbleeder12]

Why are Apple parts more expensive than regular PC parts?? $600 CDN for 2 GB Mac Pro RAM from apple store!

Its the name. don't be fooled. You can use normal RAM.

Personally, I would never buy a mac computer. I'm a competent individual. But for an everyday user, macs are perfect.

 

[Enigmers]

Performance. Macs are really performant computers and they always have been. Go to Apple.com and look up the Mac Pro, it's insane.

Esthetics. They also do look pretty nice and sleek.

Annoyance. Vista vs. Mac OS X. That's all i got to say.

Service. Apple has a great warranty and they replace almost without question. Not only that, they now will transfer all your files from your PC to a Mac when you make the purchase of one, free of charge.

Marketing. I will admit I'm a slave to marketing, so are alot of people. And Apple knows how to present their stuff.

Performance: You could build a much more powerful PC for much less than a Mac.
Aesthetics*: Looking pretty is not always a sign of quality (Mac users are always so keen to bash vista, yet think "oh look at how pretty OS X/ Leopard is :3")

Annoyance? How about "I spent over a thousand dollars on a computer that can't even run Steam"?

Marketing: I'm pretty sure "HEY GUYS LOOK VISTA IS BAD BUY A MAC OR YOU'RE A NAZI" doesn't count as "Marketing," it counts as "Propaganda."

Other points I've heard and want to address:
Windows PCs mist certainly do not get viruses within 30 seconds of internet browsing. That's like saying a Macintosh can't run any programs. What I do know is that Windows is made so that it can run with just about anything anyone makes for it, ever. Find me a program made for Mac that hasn't been made for PC. Also, why do you need Boot Camp for a Macintosh? Are you giving up and saying "Okay I admit it, Windows is better! I'm still individual though, so take that, PC-users! >"

Using a Macintosh computer is like shaving with a bowling pin; sure, you won't cut yourself, but it's gonna take quite a bit of rubbing to shave your facial hair, and you're probably gonna look pretty damn stupid in the process to anyone taht doesn't realize how incredibly stupid it is to shave with a bowling pin.

Apple needs to, at least, start advertising why their computers are any good, as opposed to, as I've mentioned before, making up baseless facts about Vista. Newsflash: Vista is not the only OS that non-mac-users use.

Then again, I'm guessing my time typing this is wasted because any mactivist (see what I did there?) who's ever argued with me has ended with "Okay if you don't understand then there's no hope for you, go back to your crappy OS, you just have to try it to see, etc. etc."

Oh, and there are still many games that you can't use with a Mac OS (Without booting to Windows, obviously, and even then there's no guarantee that your hardware is good enough to run it; IIRC, it takes a MacBook from 2008 to run Spore - not so for PCs)

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Performance. Macs are really performant computers and they always have been. Go to Apple.com and look up the Mac Pro, it's insane.

Esthetics. They also do look pretty nice and sleek.

Annoyance. Vista vs. Mac OS X. That's all i got to say.

Service. Apple has a great warranty and they replace almost without question. Not only that, they now will transfer all your files from your PC to a Mac when you make the purchase of one, free of charge.

Marketing. I will admit I'm a slave to marketing, so are alot of people. And Apple knows how to present their stuff.

Performance: You could build a much more powerful PC for much less than a Mac.
Aesthetics*: Looking pretty is not always a sign of quality (Mac users are always so keen to bash vista, yet think "oh look at how pretty OS X/ Leopard is :3")

Annoyance? How about "I spent over a thousand dollars on a computer that can't even run Steam"?

Marketing: I'm pretty sure "HEY GUYS LOOK VISTA IS BAD BUY A MAC OR YOU'RE A NAZI" doesn't count as "Marketing," it counts as "Propaganda."

Other points I've heard and want to address:
Windows PCs mist certainly do not get viruses within 30 seconds of internet browsing. That's like saying a Macintosh can't run any programs. What I do know is that Windows is made so that it can run with just about anything anyone makes for it, ever. Find me a program made for Mac that hasn't been made for PC. Also, why do you need Boot Camp for a Macintosh? Are you giving up and saying "Okay I admit it, Windows is better! I'm still individual though, so take that, PC-users! >"

Using a Macintosh computer is like shaving with a bowling pin; sure, you won't cut yourself, but it's gonna take quite a bit of rubbing to shave your facial hair, and you're probably gonna look pretty damn stupid in the process to anyone taht doesn't realize how incredibly stupid it is to shave with a bowling pin.

Apple needs to, at least, start advertising why their computers are any good, as opposed to, as I've mentioned before, making up baseless facts about Vista. Newsflash: Vista is not the only OS that non-mac-users use.

Then again, I'm guessing my time typing this is wasted because any mactivist (see what I did there?) who's ever argued with me has ended with "Okay if you don't understand then there's no hope for you, go back to your crappy OS, you just have to try it to see, etc. etc."

Oh, and there are still many games that you can't use with a Mac OS (Without booting to Windows, obviously, and even then there's no guarantee that your hardware is good enough to run it; IIRC, it takes a MacBook from 2008 to run Spore - not so for PCs)

we went through all this before. So plz don't restart the Mac vs. PC argument. I said it was a question of using the right tool for the right job. As for the gaming. I agree it's not PC caliber but then again, Mac's market is not gamers.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Macs are better for media things. I couldn't do a lot of my work at sixthform without one. However, for everything else I'd have a pc.

 

[samsprinkle]

Mac is better than PC...you have the sheer NERVE to post this on a forum related to a gaming site! The outrage! The Nerve! I *ninja injects sprinkle with an anti-microsoft fanboy shot*. I guess I would say Mac's are fairly good computers for everyday use. I like the iPhone. My friends mom owns one and I think it is pretty cool.

 

[mikecoulter]

In my house, I have a PC a Laptop, and for those days when I just need a little novilty, I bought a mint Apple iMac G4 for £90 off a friend. Doubled the ram for a tenner and hey presto, gotta one lovely example of Macs at their best

I've used Windows 95, 98, XP and Vista. And Mac osx Tiger. And Must admit, I Do enjoy Vista and Tiger. Just good to relax with.

Plus, the added stability of Mac operating systems is always a nice feeling

 

[Enigmers]

we went through all this before. So plz don't restart the Mac vs. PC argument. I said it was a question of using the right tool for the right job. As for the gaming. I agree it's not PC caliber but then again, Mac's market is not gamers.

I agree with you; PCs are for people who need to do things related to technology and are smart enough to do so, and Macs are for people who like to waste money.

There was a time when Macintoshes could process more colours than Windows-based PCs, however, this is not the case anymore. There is simply nothing a Macintosh can do that a Windows-based PC can.

 

[GunnerGraye]

Why are we discussing Macs, on a gaming forum? That's like discussing squares in a forum that's about drawing circles.

Way too true. Seconded.