Genesi & PPC

A lot of people out there aren't too happy about the move away from the PowerPC. Personally I feel the same way, the PPC from what I've read is a vastly Superior design to the Intel crap. Anyway, if Apple isn't going to offer more PPC machines then maybe someone else will:

http://genesi.pegasosppc.com/

I just thought it was cool that there's a chance that another computer company could pick up where Apple left off, and maybe even go beyond them. Of course I wouldn't expect the coolness of the Mac but hey it is a way to stick with the PPC if you wanted too.

I think I might .

Take care guys,

Mark.

Sounds pretty cool, im getting myself a PPC mac while I can...

Was talking to someone using folding@home as a benchmark, and found his dual 450 G4 to more than double his celeron 1.5Ghz. Thats saying something when the g4 was running big heavy macOSX, whereas the celeron was on a light, scaled-down gentoo stage1 box.

Really shows the PPC packs quite some punch!

Ive done intel my whole life, we've never bought an AMD surprisingly, and Im not happy with them, apple has only moved because it gives them an excuse to use TCPA, which IBM werent too fussed about putting into the PPC (the cell, however, was heavily laden with it). Apple had the chance to say `we are the alternative to all that rubbish, come enjoy your freedom`, but they stuffed it up, royally.

--James

I agree, PPC is the ****. The open standard is just wow, and being that it was created by John Locke. So if you want to support PPC, check out this site -> http://www.power.org

1. They needed a current class powerbook, and that simply could not be done.
2. They need better numbers, although a 2.7 G5 outperforms a higher clocked Intel, the public wants numbers.
3. Possibly, so they can have access to the Xscale and make video playback capable ipods. The ARM won't get them there.

Also, in a 4-6 years, all the apple binaries will be x86, and PPC mac will be useless, so that comp will only be good for running PPC based linux, which might go under with the Apple transition to x86.

Or not. Never heard of apple's much touted `universal binaries`?

I give it a few years before devs abandon PPC...

The PPC architecture is very much superior to x86: it uses less power, it's more efficient, faster etc. the only reason that x86 is used more IMO is to do with the Intel-Microsoft alliance.

In any case, AMD is a much better choice than Intel. It makes no sense that Apple would pick an obviously weaker company. AMD are more innovative after all.

People "need" low quality Windows after all, cracks included . Hopefully the world will wake up soon.

Mark.

Eventually, they're going to move past the universal binaries. When they stop making PPC versions of the OS is when the universal binaires will start getting faded.


Watch the WWDC on apple's website. The Intel has 15 watts per performance unit. The G5 has 70. It's far from using less power. So it is not more efficient.


One they get to tout the name of Intel, as most people aren't entirely familiar with AMD.

Secondly, Intel has SSE3. Rosetta, the one that translates PPC binaries, runs on SSE3. You suddenly manage to get a northwood in that 775 slot (I don't know if there is an adaptor), but anyway, you'll notice, that iTunes, still a Power PC binary will not longer run. And as you attempt to run any other power PC binaries, you'll notice, they, also will not run.

I believe those numbers are heat disipation numbers, not power consumption. But it's been a long time since I watched the wwdc.

Also, iTunes on a 3.2 Ghz with a fresh install of Windows(and a lot of things stripped out) runs slower than on my 800 Mhz iMac.

That's because that's the Windows version. You cannot say that the Windows version has any coralation to the mac version. When I used to run pear pc on my 2.8 GHz P4, Quicktime loaded FASTER in Pear PC than it did in Windows.