Watch out for random assinations at Mot!

imacfan

Hi,



Now, if this MacUserUK report about the new G4s being Dual 1Ghz, tops is correct, I think that Apple will, albeit behind the scenes, blow its lid. With Johnathan Ive and co powering such innovation on the design front, and equally wonderful ideas about the OS and other technologies, Mot has really let us down again.



For goodness sakes, this is their flagship product, and they are so embarassed about it that they only release a press statement?



Dave



P.S. - Did you know that apparantly Apple designed the WallStreet PB so that they could make a Pentium-Based one, if Apple folded. How many of you wish that they had found another supplier of processors?

suckfuldotcom

I did not know that.



Do you think Intel will build PPC procs?



Signs point to 'no'.



SdC

gustav

"Assinations"? Well, I don't know about Motorola, but I've seen many assinations on this forum.



Seriously, would MacOS X really run that much better on Intel?



Does anyone run Darwin on a 2.2 GHz P4? Is it faster than Darwin on a Dual-800 G4? How much faster?



Seriously, I couldn't care less if Apple switched CPUs, as long as all of my software ran exactly same (only faster), which would be a huge undertaking.

fotns

Darwin for Intel only supports the 440BX line of Intel motherboards, introduced in '97 and used until '99. The fastest CPU that motherboard supports is the 1Ghz PIII, I believe. Plus it supports a very limited number of Ethernet cards etc. Darwin has a kernel panic if you attempt to boot it on any Athlon or P4 machine. Finally, there are virtually no applications for Darwin Intel that would be useful for benchmarking.

g-news

Only 6 words:



Forget about MacOSX on x86!!!

imacfan

Please, I do NOT want OSX on x86, I was just suggesting that Apple should have dumped Mot years ago, either buying the PPC intellectual property, or switching to another type of chip : doesn't have to be x86!

kidred

[quote] Only 6 words:

Forget about MacOSX on x86!!! <hr></blockquote>



I count five.

wrong robot

[quote]Originally posted by G-News:

<strong>Only 6 words:



Forget about MacOSX on x86!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>



well in all technicality its

8

forget(1) about(2) mac(3) operating(4) system(5) ten(6) on(7) xeightysix(8)

heinzel

Although it truely *is* disappointing that the PPC processors don't scale as well as the Intel and AMD offerings they have one big advantage, which is low power consumption. For example, the small footprint of the new iMac would just not be feasible using a Pentium 4, and even a Pentium III processor would only work if it would be an ultra-low power - and s l o w - PIII (which doesn't come in GHz flavours yet). SIMD performance would be abominable and the "Digital Hub" would be a poorly greased one... .

Another "benefit" of the weaker performance of the current crop of PPC proc is that MacOSX has to be seriously optimized to reach acceptable level of perceived performance, making it leaner and meaner with every revision.

The fact that Motorola has an expertise in embedded chips *does* give Apple an effective performance advantage in small form factors/the consumer section, and in the long run a non-bloated system which will translate into a nice combo together with new chips - which will be there sooner or later (...and hopefully before every poweruser will have defected to X86 boxen...).

belle

I don't know what a random assination is, but it certainly sounds like a nasty punishment for those poor Motorola workers.

ghost_user_name

lets kill them by slowly lowering them into a nice rolling boiling oil. Fry the ****ers for sucking so much.

mmicist

[quote]Originally posted by heinzel:

<strong>Although it truely *is* disappointing that the PPC processors don't scale as well as the Intel and AMD offerings they have one big advantage, which is low power consumption. For example, the small footprint of the new iMac would just not be feasible using a Pentium 4, and even a Pentium III processor would only work if it would be an ultra-low power - and s l o w - PIII (which doesn't come in GHz flavours yet). SIMD performance would be abominable and the "Digital Hub" would be a poorly greased one... .

.</strong><hr></blockquote>



The PIII currently goes up to 1.4GHz, and there are mobile PIII-Ms at 1GHz with lower power consumption than the 7450/7451 PPC at 867MHz.



Michael

brian j.

[quote]Originally posted by Kevin Hayes:

<strong>"Assinations"? Well, I don't know about Motorola, but I've seen many assinations on this forum.



Seriously, would MacOS X really run that much better on Intel?



Does anyone run Darwin on a 2.2 GHz P4? Is it faster than Darwin on a Dual-800 G4? How much faster?



Seriously, I couldn't care less if Apple switched CPUs, as long as all of my software ran exactly same (only faster), which would be a huge undertaking.</strong><hr></blockquote>



I'm not a supporter of x86 OS X movement (yet) and I am satisfied (but not ecstatic) with the performance of my iBook. However, it would be interesting to see a real performance comparison between the two CPUs. Those Photoshop bakeoffs are not very scientific, to say the least. I mean, no test is perfect, but comparing a cooperative multitasking operating system to a preemptive multitasking operating system is like comparing apples to oranges. And just testing one app is not enough. So has anyone ever done extensive tests between a PPC system and x86 system both with the same RAM, harddrive, video card, etc and both with the same operating system like Linux or FreeBSD (don't remember if that was ported other to Darwin)? I'm pretty new to the Apple scene, so I don't know. It would be very interesting to see. Maybe there's a Photoshop myth...