Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 3:18 pm, "Michael G.M." wrote: > The PS3 continues to be an amazing super computer gaming > system, even though they locked it with the release of the PS3 slim to > not be able to install Linux. Odd move considering the ability of the > earlier models actually increased sales for thi

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 7:52 AM -0700 10/11/2009, Linda Hungerford wrote: >On Oct 9, 7:09 pm, Bruce Johnson wrote: >> Apple differs from most intel-based PC's in that Macs do not have a >> BIOS, but instead use Open Firmware and EFI-based configuration. > > Nothing is stopping anyone from making an EFI-based PC.

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On 11-10-2009 16:52, Linda Hungerford, tallgrassprai...@earthlink.net, wrote: > On Oct 9, 7:09 pm, Bruce Johnson wrote: >> Apple differs from most intel-based PC's in that Macs do not have a   >> BIOS, but instead use Open Firmware and EFI-based configuration.   >> Nothing is stopping anyone fro

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 3:34 AM -0700 10/11/2009, Amanda Ward wrote: >On Oct 9, 2009, at 10:07 PM, Dan wrote: > > A picture is worth a thousand words! > > > > >Love it! (Secretly... I'd want one!) ;-) > >But why stop there... A G5 with

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 11, 2009, at 7:52 AM, Linda Hungerford wrote: > Still lurking mostly, but. could you translate this for this > novice? Don't know this terminology, starting with BIOS onward. All computers need some low-level 'smarts' so that they can start up, or 'bootstrap' themselves, a refere

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 7:09 pm, Bruce Johnson wrote: > Apple differs from most intel-based PC's in that Macs do not have a   > BIOS, but instead use Open Firmware and EFI-based configuration.   > Nothing is stopping anyone from making an EFI-based PC. > > -- > Bruce Johnson > University of Arizona > College o

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 2009, at 10:07 PM, Dan wrote: > > At 12:52 AM -0400 10/10/2009, Dan wrote: >> At 11:19 PM -0400 10/9/2009, Richard Gerome wrote: >>> >>> Isn't it true that the G5 was way too hot for the laptop??? >> >> The PowerPC 970 (what Apple called the "G5") was physically too big, >> too hot, and

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 10, 2009, at 3:12 AM, Mac User #330250 wrote: >> At 9:20 PM +0200 10/9/2009, Mac User #330250 wrote: >> Notice what Apple did: First they went to Intel-x86. Then they >> bought PA Semi. > > I never really understood what that was good for. Maybe just to > remove a good > CPU completel

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 12:12 PM +0200 10/10/2009, Mac User #330250 wrote: > > Notice what Apple did: First they went to Intel-x86. Then they >> bought PA Semi. > >I never really understood what that was good for. Maybe just to >remove a good CPU completely from the market? P.A.Semi CPUs aren't >being used in an

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

-- Original message -- Subject: Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel... Date:Freitag 09 Oktober 2009N From:Dan To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com > At 9:20 PM +0200 10/9/2009, Mac User #330250 wrote: > Notice what Apple did: First they went to Intel-x86.

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

-- Original message -- Subject: Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel... Date:Samstag 10 Oktober 2009N From:Dan To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com > At 11:19 PM -0400 10/9/2009, Richard Gerome wrote: > >Isn't it true that the G5 was way too hot

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

-- Original message -- Subject: Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel... Date:Freitag 09 Oktober 2009N From:"Michael G.M." To: "G-Group" > Some very interesting thoughts indeed. I'd argue in favor of the > PowerPC archit

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 12:52 AM -0400 10/10/2009, Dan wrote: >At 11:19 PM -0400 10/9/2009, Richard Gerome wrote: >> >>Isn't it true that the G5 was way too hot for the laptop??? > >The PowerPC 970 (what Apple called the "G5") was physically too big, >too hot, and sucked too much power. After I replied, I remembered

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 11:19 PM -0400 10/9/2009, Richard Gerome wrote: > >Isn't it true that the G5 was way too hot for the laptop??? The PowerPC 970 (what Apple called the "G5") was physically too big, too hot, and sucked too much power. It was a desktop/server grade processor, not designed for laptops at all.

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

otection really slows the computer down too ... I guess this G3-G5 list is a great thing here, Cool!!! CoolKat -Original Message- >From: Dan >Sent: Oct 9, 2009 9:49 PM >To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com >Subject: Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel... > > >At 5:

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 5:09 PM -0700 10/9/2009, Bruce Johnson wrote: >On Oct 9, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Richard Gerome wrote: > > I know I mentioned this before about the Intel Chips is because > > when Apple created the G5 it ran way too hot to run in laptop so he >> (Steve Jobs) went to Intel for help and they made t

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 7:53 PM -0400 10/9/2009, Richard Gerome wrote: >I know I mentioned this before about the Intel Chips is because when >Apple created the G5 it ran way too hot to run in laptop so he >(Steve Jobs) went to Intel for help and they made the Core Dual... >And when he contracted them they had to ag

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 2009, at 4:53 PM, Richard Gerome wrote: > > I know I mentioned this before about the Intel Chips is because > when Apple created the G5 it ran way too hot to run in laptop so he > (Steve Jobs) went to Intel for help and they made the Core Dual... > And when he contracted them t

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Richard Gerome wrote: > And when he contracted them they had to agree not to make PC's > with the ability to run OS 10 Tiger and Lep only Apple... Not sure I understand what you're saying here. I've heard that there are folks who *do* run Leopard & Snow Leopard o

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

un OS 10 Tiger and Lep only Apple... I'm pretty sure this is how it was and is still today??? I call it sleeping with the enemy... CoolKat -Original Message- >From: iJohn >Sent: Oct 9, 2009 7:29 PM >To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com >Subject: Re: PowerPC speeds a

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > Still doesn't change the fundamental issues: IBM does not desire > Apple's business sufficiently to provide chips Apple needs; they > cannot or will not produce a version suitable for laptop use. There's that ... but no one has mentioned the

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 2009, at 2:46 PM, Dan wrote: > > At 9:20 PM +0200 10/9/2009, Mac User #330250 wrote: >> >> When I see the CPU speeds of recent POWER chips (not PowerPC, but >> the G5 >> derived from the POWER4+) it is very hard for me to believe, that >> the PowerPC >> developement wasn't able to

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 3:20 pm, "Mac User #330250" wrote: > Hi! > > I would be interested in how you guys see this. > > When I see the CPU speeds of recent POWER chips (not PowerPC, but the G5 > derived from the POWER4+) it is very hard for me to believe, that the PowerPC > developement wasn't able to compe

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

At 9:20 PM +0200 10/9/2009, Mac User #330250 wrote: > >When I see the CPU speeds of recent POWER chips (not PowerPC, but the G5 >derived from the POWER4+) it is very hard for me to believe, that the PowerPC >developement wasn't able to compete with Intels /all-so-fast/ x86 chips. The switch was m

Re: PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

On Oct 9, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Mac User #330250 wrote: > Hi! > > I would be interested in how you guys see this. Still doesn't change the fundamental issues: IBM does not desire Apple's business sufficiently to provide chips Apple needs; they cannot or will not produce a version suitable for

PowerPC speeds and the switch to Intel...

Hi! I would be interested in how you guys see this. When I see the CPU speeds of recent POWER chips (not PowerPC, but the G5 derived from the POWER4+) it is very hard for me to believe, that the PowerPC developement wasn't able to compete with Intels /all-so-fast/ x86 chips. http://www-03.ibm