On Apr 17, 2012, at 12:49 PM, Douglas Mencken wrote: >>> Since they killed ppc and put profit above quality, >> >> Oh puleeeze. Look at the service history of the G5 iMac versus even the >> first-gen Intel one, it's no contest. > > Hang on. I do have first-generation 17" iMac G5. It works well. Worked > for 7 years, in 24/7 mode. > >> As for the dumb "PPC is better" argument, that, too doesn't hold up. > > "PPC is better" is obviously incorrect. Better than that? The correct > statement is "PPC is different". > >> As I noted, nether Motorola or IBM were able or interested in producing >> high-performance, low power CPU's for the laptop market, or anything for >> Apple, actually. > > Apple neither. They just wanted Microsoft® Windows® support on desktop > and notebook market, as many and many users requested it. Native > Windows® support.
I was around at the time, performance was very MUCH on Apple's mind because nearly every review of any new Powerbook was 'well, still no G5 powerbook and cheaper Wintel laptops are much faster, longer battery life, etc. Apple, was losing their place rapidly/ > > I also have a cool^Wgreat link for you: > http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/10/5486.ars Here I have some cool facts for you: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_970#PowerPC_970MP> "PowerPC 970MP IBM announced the PowerPC 970MP, code-named "Antares", on 7 July 2005 at the Power Everywhere forum in Tokyo. The 970MP is a dual-core derivative of the 970FX with clock speeds between 1.2 and 2.5 GHz, and a maximum power usage of 75 W at 1.8 GHz and 100 W at 2.0 GHz. Each core has 1 MB of L2 cache, twice that of the 970FX. Like the 970FX, this chip was produced at the 90 nm process. When one of the cores is idle, it will enter a "doze" state and shut down.[5] The 970MP also includes partitioning and virtualization features.[6][7] The PowerPC 970MP replaced the PowerPC 970FX in Apple's high-end Power Mac G5 computers, while the iMac G5 and the legacy PCI-X Power Mac G5 continued to use the PowerPC 970FX processor. The PowerPC 970MP is used in IBM's JS21 blade modules and IBM Intellistation POWER 185 workstation. Due to high power requirements IBM has chosen to discontinue parts running faster than 2.0 GHz. [edit]PowerPC 970GX The PowerPC 970GX is a cancelled single-core version of PowerPC 970MP. It featured a 1 MB L2 cache and would have been available in frequencies of 1.2 to 3 GHz. Power dissipation would have been 16 W at 1.6 GHz, and 85 W at 3 GHz. It was to be fabricated in the same 90 nm fabrication process as the 970MP.[8]" See Jobs, S "Real artists ship" Compare this to : <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonah_(microprocessor)> The original Core Duo used 31 watts max for a dual core processor at 2ghz. The IBM 970gx would have had to have been a dual CPU design to match the Core Duo, which would have probably put it at 45-50 watts. So no, the Ars article is not correct, at least in the implication that IBM in fact intended to produce truly low-power laptop-capable CPUS in the G5 line. These were indeed LOWER power than previous designs but for FSM sake those WERE the CPUS put into the last gen G5's. Have you ever been into a G5? Seen the gargantuan amount of engineering that went into keeping those space heaters cool? > >> I am confident that Apple would be nowhere near where they are today, if >> they existed AT ALL, without their switch to Intel, and the odds on the 'no >> longer existing at all' were by far the better ones. > > Without switching to Intel at least in servers (Xserve) and hi-end > desktop systems (Mac Pro), Apple would have been acting much more > nicely to the Mac community, to the PowerPC community, to the "Think > different" community. NO THEY WOULDN'T. Have you actually USED any Intel-based macs, head to head against a PPC system? Even the first MacBooks crushed the previous top-end Powerbooks, let along the iBooks they allegedly replaced. I was there, I've used both, extensively, even running that bodged version of 10.4 the Macbooks were head and shoulders above the performance of the Powerbooks, and with the advent of 10.5 and later 10.6 they were even better. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
