# For Pro users - Intel versus PPC .... future plans



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Now that some major apps and Snow Leopard are moving to Intel only ( would someone provide a list perhaps ).

What is your strategy with legacy PPC - ie G5s

Run them into the ground??

Server use ( they are excellent servers )...??


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I know there are some diehards with reasons ranging from "very reasonable" to "you're a loony," but for the average user PPC is as dead as Lincoln.

Whether you like them or loathe them, there's only so long before you're switching to an Intel, so why make life more difficult and complicated for yourself?

Keep your PPC as long as you can ... I applaud not putting them in landfills ... but be realistic and get an Intel machine for your "new toy" and start the transition already.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> " .... future plans"


Those are the only kind of plans I have.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

The other option would be, when I have the need to replace my G5 based Mac then I will upgrade because I like the design of the Mac Pro.

But I have no need to upgrade at the moment so why spend the money on a fashion statement.

K


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> " .... future plans"


To paraphrase John Lennon slightly, Life is what happens to you while you're busy making [future] plans.

The PPCs are as dead as the 68k series. Some of both types just don't 'know'  it yet...


----------



## Manatus (May 11, 2009)

I'm Intel already, but more for the performance (and "newness") than software. Maybe it's because I'm not a professional user or heavy photo/video type person, but I don't find Leopard better than Tiger in any substantial way, so I'm a bit confused by all the "ooooh Snow Leopard's coming and is going to make everything else crumble into nothingness!" talk. I probably won't get it unless it comes with a new computer that I buy. I'm just happy with what I have I guess, no real desire to try new things.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Im powerPC cuz intel is unreliable.


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

Jump to Intel as soon as is reasonably possible. You should be there already if possible. The speed difference and software support has clearly put PPC out on the curb!

I have a titanium PowerBook hanging around, but it's only for Internet radio. My iMac and MacBook do all the heavy lifting.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

The G3 Man said:


> Im powerPC cuz intel is unreliable.


Unreliable how, exactly? I've owned both PowerPC and Intel Macs and the only difference I've noticed between the two is that the Intel Macs are much, much faster.


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

The G3 Man said:


> Im powerPC cuz intel is unreliable.


What!!!


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Ive NEVER EVER, had my tiBook crash, My MacBook has crashed, and had serious hardware issues. Im going to get rid of the MacBook and upgrade my tiBook. screw Snow Leopard.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Please people - *Pro users* - read the title 

Consumers are generally over to Intel....some Pro users have "issues" that affect their situation.

I don't mind the consumer comments but don't make wide ranging assumptions about the Pro market based on your consumer situation..


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

The G3 Man said:


> Ive NEVER EVER, had my tiBook crash, My MacBook has crashed, and had serious hardware issues. Im going to get rid of the MacBook and upgrade my tiBook. screw Snow Leopard.


I think you're just unlucky and got a bad MacBook. My finaceé has had no end of problems with her PowerBook G4, but that doesn't mean PowerPC processors are buggy. It just means she got a bad PowerBook.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

YAY, I'm in the winning group!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Please people - *Pro users* - read the title


Define "Pro User"... 

I assume you mean the activity that makes the money....

Our lab has been all Mac since 1987. Our bread and butter program is/was SPSS. We went Intel the moment SPSS was available for it - in fact we had Intel machines ready and waiting while SPSS dawdled to get their Mac version to market - something of a joke as they already had a Unix version..... We were 'desperate' (hyperbole) for the speed to get our numbers crunched in a reasonable time. I remember the early versions of SPSS for Mac where for some complex analyses it literally ran overnight....

OTOH, now that I am mostly just writing articles for journals I could easily get by quite happily with my still perfectly functional Colour Classic - that said I am not giving up my MBA.

So it depends on "Pro"...........


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

This is a tricky survey to answer since there's no option that covers having a mixed fleet. 

MacBook Pro laptops are popular at work. Buying Mac laptops only really took off relatively recently so there are the odd PowerBook here and there and the occasional MacBook, but as far as Mac laptops go the vast majority are Intel with a couple of odd exceptions.

As far as Mac desktops go, there are a large number of Mac Pros for heavy data processing use along with a couple G5 towers that were bought at an earlier date. There are also a good number of Power Mac G5s in use as well for graphics design etc. that are mainly used with Adobe CS. Junking perfectly good - and very expensive - quad core G5 systems that run Creative Suite 4 fine just cuz doesn't make good business sense. Simply put, the Power Mac G5s are going to remain in place doing what they're doing until there's a sound business case for replacing them and that hasn't really come up yet.

There are a number of older OS 9 and 7.5 Macs hanging around that are in operational condition to run some legacy software but I think I've only ever seen that system used once so I'm not sure whether those should be counted or not.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Just because everyone uses intel macs, doesnt mean its right. WHO WANTS TO CHALLENGE MY G5 QUAD?

Seriously i hate the intels. I have 10ish PPCs and 2 intels

I find that although the intels have a lot of "Horse Power" and the PPC has a lot of torque.

MoRgAn


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

The G3 Man said:


> Seriously i hate the intels.


:yawn: :yawn:


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

All the people who jumped on the Intel Macs got screwed. CrackBooks. WhineBook Pro, Heater Pro, iLag, Mac Mini-Heater. MacBook BLARE (as in the fans when you try to do something useful beejacon)

Morgan


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

All the people who jumped on the Intel Macs got screwed. CrackBooks. WhineBook Pro, Heater Pro, iLag, Mac Mini-Heater. MacBook BLARE (as in the fans when you try to do something useful beejacon)

Morgan


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

AND YET, you cannot explain why the Mac marketshare and userbase has EXPLODED in size since going with Intel.

The truth of the matter is that the PPC line is MUCH more strewn with "road apple" wreckage, faulty design flaws, unreliable/buggy machines etc than the Intel line. The truth of the matter is that since moving to Intel, Apple has grown in an EXPONENTIAL manner, and boasts tens of millions of happy, satisfied customers (or are Consumer Reports and all the various analysts "in on the conspiracy" as well?).

Next you'll be telling me Obama was not born in Hawaii ...


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*Torque or Talk*



The G3 Man said:


> Just because everyone uses intel macs, doesnt mean its right. WHO WANTS TO CHALLENGE MY G5 QUAD?
> 
> Seriously i hate the intels. I have 10ish PPCs and 2 intels
> 
> ...



Sounds SiMiLaR eh?


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> Please people - *Pro users* - read the title
> 
> Consumers are generally over to Intel....some Pro users have "issues" that affect their situation.
> 
> I don't mind the consumer comments but don't make wide ranging assumptions about the Pro market based on your consumer situation..


In our case we can't switch over because the program we use to assemble the paper every night will not run on the new architecture. I have been using Citrix to work around some of the issues but it is not reliable and therefore a non starter.

Once Newsgate is implimented then things will change but that may be a while yet.

K


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

The G3 Man said:


> er. MacBook BLARE (as in the fans when you try to do something useful beejacon)


Complete bull crap!!  You are grossly ill informed.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Once my PPC hardware dies off in a number of years - it's all about migrating to another platform, probably a Linux distribution. I am not interested in Intel garbage at all, and would rather see something cool on say, a Cell processor or a G6 or something.

If in the future there is no practical alternative, and Intel is a monopoly, I'll just end up with some Windoze piece of garbage to do a few small things, and give up on most of the things I use computers for. But that can be a long way away, Apple's PPC stuff was awesome, and still is awesome - entirely reliable. The main problem is the ever shrinking pool of software offerings for OSX - which will really make a push to go Windoze in the end just in order to run some applications, and give up on most other tasks, like photographs and music and stuff...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Amiga2000HD said:


> This is a tricky survey to answer since there's no option that covers having a mixed fleet.
> 
> MacBook Pro laptops are popular at work. Buying Mac laptops only really took off relatively recently so there are the odd PowerBook here and there and the occasional MacBook, but as far as Mac laptops go the vast majority are Intel with a couple of odd exceptions.
> 
> ...


I/we are in a similar situation. At home I still regularly use both an Intel iMac and a PPC G4 tower. At work use an 8 core Mac Pro, a quad G5, and a G4 eMac everyday. All over the shop we have G5s, Mac Pros all doing the same work, running the same apps, and a few G4s doing light duty tasks. 

Every so often we replace a couple of the oldest (or most problematic) machines with a couple of the latest and greatest, and the fleet transforms over time. There's no compelling reason to do a mass exodus from the PPCs when they still work perfectly well.

...so no, there's no suitable option in that poll for me either.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yup. PPC was such a great time... no G5 laptops, delay after delay after delay as Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony tied up IBM with orders to meet demands for next-gen consoles.

Forget it. You guys are on crack.



The G3 Man said:


> WHO WANTS TO CHALLENGE MY G5 QUAD?


My 2 x 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon is always up for a challenge. 

But I find this more amusing to look at.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

The G3 Man said:


> WHO WANTS TO CHALLENGE MY G5 QUAD?


Not I.


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Once my PPC hardware dies off in a number of years - it's all about migrating to another platform, probably a Linux distribution. I am not interested in Intel garbage at all, and would rather see something cool on say, a Cell processor or a G6 or something.
> 
> If in the future there is no practical alternative, and Intel is a monopoly, I'll just end up with some Windoze piece of garbage to do a few small things, and give up on most of the things I use computers for. But that can be a long way away, Apple's PPC stuff was awesome, and still is awesome - entirely reliable. The main problem is the ever shrinking pool of software offerings for OSX - which will really make a push to go Windoze in the end just in order to run some applications, and give up on most other tasks, like photographs and music and stuff...


Newsflash: it's not 2002, you don't have to try to convince yourself that PowerPC is always better. Intel won, and it's perfectly stable when everything else is in order.

Moreover, Macs can often make somewhat better use of multi-core Intel chips than many Windows PCs can. Especially with Snow Leopard coming up, they're better at balancing a load more gracefully. I'm still surprised at how fluid my iMac with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo -- from 2007 -- is at handling a fairly significant load with several apps running.

You won't see a G6 or Cell Mac anytime in the next few years, if ever. IBM and Motorola both backed out of mainstream PowerPC; Cell isn't nearly as fast as you think it is. It's not an 8-core processor, it's a single-core chip with 7 vector units. My MacBook could probably outrun it, all other things being equal.

So modernize yourself and stop equating Intel with Windows. A Mac with an Intel chip can be what you're looking for.


----------



## Jarooda (Jul 18, 2006)

My 13" uMBP got a better rating than a quad G5.

Sorry G3 Man, old superheroes must fall as new ones are born from the ashes.


----------



## Jarooda (Jul 18, 2006)

ScanMan said:


> Not I.


Hacks >_>


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> Once my PPC hardware dies off in a number of years - it's all about migrating to another platform, probably a Linux distribution. I am not interested in Intel garbage at all, and would rather see something cool on say, a Cell processor or a G6 or something.


A Cell-based Mac would be slower than the slowest Intel-based Mac.

A POWER6-based Mac would cost more than my car and not necessarily be any faster.

PowerPC may not be a dead architecture, but it's a dead-end architecture.


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

I'm not technical enough to vote for one more than the other, but for pure obvious speed and performance enhancements, along with the fact that PPC simply isn't being used for new systems, I'm going all Intel soon enough.

my G4 and G5 still serve me well faithfully and I appreciate their efforts


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

double


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Our last two PowerPC desktop systems will be replaced in the very near future and those users already have company provided Macbook's for working at home. 

A single G4 will soldier on for the foreseeable future as a server for an application that won't run on our HP Windows based server and a G4 Mac Mini is hooked up to a big TV and only really used for Power Point, but otherwise its all Intel and Snow Leopard ready.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

Dennis Nedry said:


> This is no different then saying "OMG, PowerPC sucks, long live 68K!".


I don't recall a whole lot of 68k nostalgia, except from the guys into Amiga and Atari virtualization on Macintosh.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

Dennis Nedry said:


> I could have sworn the forum title was "For Pro Users".


Bingo.

Other than speed of use, application support and reliability, why would anyone care what's under the hood?

Apple could switch to AMD for all I care, as long as it's faster, runs my programs and is reliable.

All the other loyalists on this site are just plain weird. Give up your computing needs just because Apple switched chips suppliers? You might be intelligent, but you sound really stoopid.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

In our office we are now entirely Intel - that's about 30 Macs. We have a bunch of PowerMac G5s lurking around, but if they are used at all it is for testing stuff. About half the Macs are notebooks, the rest MacPros.


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

rgray said:


> Complete bull crap!!  You are grossly ill informed.


oh yeah. Its the MacBook BL*AIR* Someone i know has one. I am more informed then thou apparently.

Morgan


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

chas_m said:


> AND YET, you cannot explain why the Mac marketshare and userbase has EXPLODED in size since going with Intel..


Yeah, cuz Macs act more like PC's now. 

Morgan


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

bsenka said:


> I/we are in a similar situation. At home I still regularly use both an Intel iMac and a PPC G4 tower. At work use an 8 core Mac Pro, a quad G5, and a G4 eMac everyday. All over the shop we have G5s, Mac Pros all doing the same work, running the same apps, and a few G4s doing light duty tasks.
> 
> Every so often we replace a couple of the oldest (or most problematic) machines with a couple of the latest and greatest, and the fleet transforms over time. There's no compelling reason to do a mass exodus from the PPCs when they still work perfectly well.
> 
> ...so no, there's no suitable option in that poll for me either.


We are in the exact same position at work. I have a mix of old and new machines our G5's are still perfectly fine for the tasks they are required to do and fast enough.

Our designers have moved over to Intel Mac Pros because well that's what they needed but to justify a capital expense on hardware that is still perfectly fine won't fly given the current economic times. Heck even office supplies are now tightly controlled.

We only just replaced the bulk of our G3 and G4 towers with iMacs in advertising though I still see a B&W G3 hiding in Sports. We kept the G4's around for quite a while because they were needed to run the older hardware such as large flatbed scanners and film scanners that were used in production. Now we have an iMac set up with a Super Coolscan 9000 and have replaced all our Epson scanners with newer ones. 

We also sent out skidloads of CRT monitors, most still perfectly fine but nobody wanted when offered to staff for free....

But again with times the way they are it's a lot tougher to justify spending the $$$ when the hardware is still useable and that will keep older Macs soldiering on in our operation for quite a while.

K


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

The G3 Man said:


> oh yeah. Its the MacBook BL*AIR* Someone i know has one. I am more informed then thou apparently.
> 
> Morgan


My main computer is a 1st gen MBA. I have had it since the first day of release. I use it for everything including SPSS, resource pig that it is. The problem you describe DOES NOT occur unless the vents are blocked.

Amazing number of Intel-phobic people here.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

Dennis Nedry said:


> I could have sworn the forum title was "For Pro Users".
> 
> These days, sticking with any of the Gx series because they're "PowerPC" is being nostalgic, and downright stubborn. What has happened is precisely what happened with the 68k -> PowerPC transition (albeit the Intel move happened a heck of a lot smoother). This is no different then saying "OMG, PowerPC sucks, long live 68K!". PowerPC was nice. x86_64 is the future. Get on with it.
> 
> ...


Actually for some the architecture DOES matter. An example would be the Leafscan 35 film scanners I use for scanning my personal negs and slides at home. There is nothing that can come close to it in terms of quality. Not even the Nikon 8000 I have in the other office. The last sw available for it runs on OS9 and the scanner is SCSI. Though slow quality is my main reason for keeping it.

Quicker and saving time and money, sure my time is valuable as well. Granted I can also multitask easily enough so I just let that old scanner run while I do the bulk of the work on newer hardware.

We have a writer friend who still uses older Macs for his writing. He has no internet, doesn't want it and his OS 6 based Portable booted faster than the G3 PowerBook we finally talked him into upgrading to a few years ago. He still isn't on the internet unless he's sneeking into the library....

K


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

rgray said:


> My main computer is a 1st gen MBA. I have had it since the first day of release. I use it for everything including SPSS, resource pig that it is. The problem you describe DOES NOT occur unless the vents are blocked.
> 
> Amazing number of Intel-phobic people here.


I think the problem I have with the Poll besides not really relevant to our situation at work is that I don't really give a hoot what is under the hood either. I sit here surrounded by Old PPC's G3's G4's G5's and Xeon's and I don't care one iota about what it is.

My main concern would be the SW I need to use and I guess as we march into the future the sw needed to access the internet to watch the dreck on YouTube and the likes as they build more bloatware into everything thus making what you use obsolete.

K


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2009)

My the signal to noise ratio on this forum is getting pretty bad. _My MacZ RuuL Ur MacZ cuz th3y R PpC_. Get with the times folks -- I can hardly accept that any of those type of statements as being from a pro user. As for Evan, I've voiced my opinions about your opinions enough on this forum 

For the pro folks that are stuck with PPC I'm sure that the apps will be updated sooner (hopefully) or later. 

I still own 3 PPC macs, one is for OS9 (I still have to support a couple of OS9 clients) another is my dual G4 Xserve ... I really don't need to update/upgrade it at this point as it does everything I need it to do and last is my 17" powerbook G4 (which is mostly collecting dust as the 10" *INTEL* Atom based netbook that I put OSX on outperforms it -- even though the netbook is less Ghz and a lower cost/class of processor)


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

^^^

Hi no I haven't looked into the USB to GPIB interface actually didn't know about it, thanks for the hint. I had tried Silverfast on the Mac side but it was spotty in terms of function.

Re architecture.... I dunno the architecture is intertwined with the software IMHO so by default.... I was quite surprised that I could run the scanner attached to my G4 through a SCSI card given the fact that these things came out when the Quadra 900 was new....

I have the last version of Leafscan software for the Mac and it runs without incident on my G4 500MHz DP under OS 9.1 and Photoshop 6.0. The scanner itself does three passes so it isn't fast to say the least. But the final quality is better than anything I have used since except perhaps a drum scanner and I suspect that is due to the light source used vs the LED's used in today's scanners.

When we first purchased the Leafs for an insane amount of dollars ($15,000 each) we had them attached to Quadra 900's which were the newest Macs of the time. When we retired the scanners we also retired the Macs so I wound up with a couple of complete scanning stations. The first Leafscan we purchased was GPIB only and thankfully I got that with the Mac and nubus GPIB card and cable. But GPIB was always flakier than the scanners running SCSI come to think of it so wonder if that is a good way to go. Will have to do some googling.

K


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

For the mobile definitely a no brainer. The new intel portables slay any ppc portable. Badly.

For what I do, having the ability to run many OSs for testing, and development, is absolutely brilliant. I couldn't live without it. I know many developers previously attached to peecee laptops at the hip all loving the new MBPs.

I got my mac pro in my shop about 2 1/2 years ago, likely the best box I ever bought hands down. quad 2.66 I just keep stuffing more ram in as I go. That system is probably the most solid as a rock system ever, powerful, and I can barely hear it. No plans to upgrade that box for a while. Great investment. The macbook pro is silent, and powerful.

Having said that, as someone else said, to me, it's the ability to do certain things, and stability/speed. I could care less if it were fisher price processors if it rocked.

Why does a simple question posed have to excite the twits.... I had a mirror double door G4 that would drown out 10 "wineBook pros" (mine barely makes a sound but whatever) , trust me. I won;t bring up the self destructing G5 iMacs nor the suicidal iBooks or powerbooks that required logic board replacements after logicboard replacements.


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> Once my PPC hardware dies off in a number of years - it's all about migrating to another platform, probably a Linux distribution. I am not interested in Intel garbage at all, and would rather see something cool on say, a *Cell processor or a G6 or something*.
> 
> If in the future there is no practical alternative, and Intel is a monopoly, I'll just end up with some Windoze piece of garbage to do a few small things, and give up on most of the things I use computers for. But that can be a long way away, Apple's PPC stuff was awesome, and still is awesome - entirely reliable. The main problem is the ever shrinking pool of software offerings for OSX - which will really make a push to go Windoze in the end just in order to run some applications, and give up on most other tasks, like photographs and music and stuff...


You do realize that a Cell processor is an incredibly specialized processor and would be laughably slow at general computing tasks compared to an Intel CPU? There is no "G6" The whole G-series thing was just Apple's branding. Power PC will remain useful for high end servers but it no longer makes sense in a desktop or a portable.


----------



## Trevor... (Feb 21, 2003)

If anyone is interested in all the gory details about the recent history of the PowerPC read this: Amazon.com: The Race for a New Game Machine: Creating the Chips Inside the XBox 360 and the Playstation 3 (9780806531014): David Shippy, Mickie Phipps: Books

It includes a fair bit about Apple and their switch to Intel, one of the authors was the driving force behind the PowerPC G3.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> *Once my PPC hardware dies off in a number of years - it's all about migrating to another platform, probably a Linux distribution.* I am not interested in Intel garbage at all, and would rather see something cool on say, a Cell processor or a G6 or something.
> 
> If in the future there is no practical alternative, and Intel is a monopoly, I'll just end up with some Windoze piece of garbage to do a few small things, and give up on most of the things I use computers for. But that can be a long way away, Apple's PPC stuff was awesome, and still is awesome - entirely reliable. The main problem is the ever shrinking pool of software offerings for OSX - which will really make a push to go Windoze in the end just in order to run some applications, and give up on most other tasks, like photographs and music and stuff...


I'm already heading that direction.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

Regarding the poll question:



> *Por Users > Intel versus PPC .... future plans...current setup*


"Por Users" must be geek talk for "Poor Users" because the reality is that anyone who's strapped to any electronic device for a significant amount of time deserves to be called "poor".

But onto the poll....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

This thread is nothing more than a bunch of fanboys praising the ridiculous garbage that Intel shoves out of their factories. I can't imagine any other company that would waste their time marketing defective devices like Intel. I had hoped that the Core series would be a big changing point for Intel, to rid themselves of obviously bad designs like the bug prone Pentium that has never been reliable or good at math, or such fakery like the Celery Stick or the Celeron. But not only was Intel unable to shake off the old nastiness, they continue to flog it in a myriad of different forms, like dual-core Pentiums, where double the math errors can be racked up in the same time.

It's too bad Apple got sideswiped by the same thing. Now Apple users are treated by an endless parade of trivial updates, and odd clock speeds, as well as other garbage, like deficient integrated video. Now one does understand that the AIM alliance disappeared, because Motorola was spin to pieces by the same spank artist that went from there to go on and ruin Compaq, and IBM got out of the business and sold out to the Chinese.

All kinds of comments talk about the cost of a G6 processor - absolute bunk, since the most modern Intel Core i7 costs over $1000, so no wonder why Apple gets to cling to ancient, slow designs like the Core2Duo. If they can make a Cell processor that entirely dominates the gaming segment of the market - then there is no reason why a general purpose processor can not be derived from the same topology. Especially now that Apple owns PA Semi, and could, if they wanted, produce advanced and highly reliable multi-core Power PC processors, if they wish.

But beyond that, there is the very real problem of migrating everything to the Intel platform when it comes to enterprise uses, since Apple's deal with Intel is set to end in a little over 2 years - and at that time, Apple will have to migrate to another platform, perhaps AMD, or perhaps something of their own.

Of course, none of this needs to actually happen, since Apple has the required ability to make their system portable to any platform, and they currently support Intel, PPC and ARM. That said, I think there are those people, like myself, that will have to seriously look at a new platform down the road. OSX jumped the shark the moment they forced people to use garbage like Spotlight, or crappy features like the 3D Dock - rather than remaining to be a flexible system that is easy on the resources and can be scaled to fit all users.

In the real world, I think many enterprises are simply buying Mac Pros in order to run Windoze, since there has been a great cull in the PC world that has left them short of heavy duty machines that are up to the task. IBM no longer makes intermediate machines, so it is an expensive but reliable Blade server, or nothing. Same with other makers, like Compaq, which is now some cheap, made in China nastiness that would last three days before a meltdown. Of course, many users have come over to the Mac side out of the pure frustration with crud like Windoze Fi$ta. Not that Fi$ta is entirely nasty - but I think the Evil Empire made a huge mistake by releasing so many different variants, with Home versions that don't make the grade, to Ultimate Premium which really can not be run on any practical PC (so users end up actually needing a Mac Pro or some such crazy fast machine in the end).

Of course, the main problem with the Intel platform is the constant "upgrades" that creates a huge market - while older Apple equipment was made to last, with capabilities that allow machines to remain in service for years on end. Only in the past few years has Apple decided to "obsolete" machines by arbitrarily introducing restrictions into the installation process, like Tiger needing FireWire, or Leopard needing an 800MHz G4 - when really, these restrictions do not need to exist if useless, resource hogging features were eliminated. Intel will feed this, by bringing an even larger variety of endless upgrades that will serve to obsolete even newer machines.

Of course, Apple has attacked consumers in other ways, like peddling fake LCD's to force people into the 24" iMac, or bad peripherals like their cheezy new keyboard, their clumsy and poor performing Mighty Mouse, etc., not to mention their utter resistance to introducing a Minitower case, or bringing out a netbook, or at least a decently small laptop like the old iBook...


----------



## Mrsam (Jan 14, 2006)

EvanPitts said:


> All kinds of comments talk about the cost of a G6 processor - absolute bunk, since the most modern Intel Core i7 costs over $1000, so no wonder why Apple gets to cling to ancient, slow designs like the Core2Duo. If they can make a Cell processor that entirely dominates the gaming segment of the market - then there is no reason why a general purpose processor can not be derived from the same topology. Especially now that Apple owns PA Semi, and could, if they wanted, produce advanced and highly reliable multi-core Power PC processors, if they wish.


You are aware that an Intel based gaming PC would handily spank any of the current power PC based consoles right? If you're so dissatisfied with Apple's platform for no good reason but your personal bias against Intel why don't you just move on to another platform and quit whining?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> All kinds of comments talk about the cost of a G6 processor - absolute bunk, since the most modern Intel Core i7 costs over $1000, so no wonder why Apple gets to cling to ancient, slow designs like the Core2Duo.


We've been over this time and time again. The POWER6 isn't a viable desktop processor if for no other reason than it's incredibly expensive. A single-core workstation for over $5000? That's insane. I can get a top-of-the-line Mac Pro for the less that'll run circles around it.

Stop spewing the same misinformation time and time again. You hate Intel. WE GET IT.


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

*EvanPitts:*

The sheer level of technical inaccuracies and unthinking devotion in that one post is staggering. "Windoze Fi$ta?" What are you, 12? They're _processors and software_, not choices of religion. Treat your opponent with respect, understanding that it does some things well, and it reflects well on your own position.

Apple still uses Core 2 Duo processors because the heat and power requirements for all but the Mac Pro require notebook-class processors. Intel won't have Core i7/i5 notebook processors Apple could realistically use until early 2010. The $1,000 Core i7 chip you illustrated is a desktop processor Intel consciously de-restricts to make overclocking easy. You simply won't find a PowerPC chip that consumes as little power as a Core 2 Duo but still offers the performance.

And, in fact, no modern Mac uses Intel's integrated graphics; they use NVIDIA's GeForce 9400M as the base level, which itself is several times faster. We'll see if NVIDIA still gets a license for Core i7-era platforms (Intel is trying to say NVIDIA doesn't have the right), but for now it's an advantage.

How do you know when Apple's deal with Intel ends? Provide a source if you can. But remember, just because a deal ends doesn't mean Apple must switch. It just means that Apple has to decide whether to renew the contract or not. One thing's for sure, though: PA Semi is there for handheld devices, not computers. With Snow Leopard going Intel-only, it's doubtful Apple is going to switch back to PowerPC and face the software incompatibilities, sporadic hardware update schedules and elevated prices we knew back before 2006.

That Intel often upgrades its processors least twice a year is a _good thing_. You may find some OS X features useless, but I find many of them useful and don't want to be held back in terms of absolute features just because someone misses the era of waiting 18 months for a G4 speed increase. Yes, Apple changes requirements to obsolete certain systems, but that's because it wants to know all computers are capable of a certain minimum level of performance before it decides on the feature set. You know what you get when you try to support the lowest common denominator of features across as much hardware as possible? Linux and Windows.

It's okay to use an Intel chip in a Mac. Apple's design chops and special features haven't gone away. In general, they've gotten better. Intel Macs boot faster and have much longer battery life than the PowerPC Macs I've known. They can also run virtual machines for operating systems they couldn't before and have made up for many of the deficiencies that gave PPC the edge in the past. Why anchor yourself to a vision of computing as you remember it to be ten years ago?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I think the actual poll results posted above speak louder than even the anti-Intel trolls. The verdict is already in on this matter.

Some people just can never, ever admit to being wrong. In the states, we call these people "Republicans."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it seems the anti intel trolls missed the fact it was the pro users being asked. Not them.


----------



## AquaAngel (Feb 16, 2007)

Kind of hard to tell really as my G5 PPC is doing great performance wise anyway and i love that machine as it plays all my games, but i did bought my new Laptop which is an Intel, but i use my G5 PPC at 98% of the time. My laptop is great, but i simply don't see the difference other that i can't use my PS 7 under Leopard which is a downer. 
But i can say that Intel is faster and better performance wise and i will keep this new machine for the future until my G5 PPC will no longer cut it.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

This thread is an example of why most people do not bother with Forums in the first place. It's all about someone posting an opinion, then a bunch of others saying that the opinion is entirely inaccurate because it does not comply with their religiously held beliefs.

Intel is utter garbage, and has been since the beginning, with crazy unsolved bugs, bad math, clumsy instruction sets, half baked features that are unusable, and so on. Just because one smacks an Apple logo on doesn't fix the problem, and never will. Of course, fanbots will just love it because it is Apple.

Whether or not Apple uses the deficient Intel GMA garbage or the NVidia version of garbage makes no difference, both systems use shared memory and are garbage. Add to that unusable hyper-glossy screens with crummy 6-bit LCDs that can't do the Millions of Colours mode, and one has one stinking big pile of poo. It's sad when they can give someone two parallel processors running at multiple GHz, but can't find the time to use a real LCD and to add some real video memory to a real video system.

Of course, the numbers game is returned to all the time, with the justification that Apple's market share has grown. If this was true, and the only real platform to go to is based on market share - everyone would be using Windoze XP, hands down.

But again, since we are talking religion, and not technical benefits or technical superiority, the Intel fanbots will prevail because they are the Taliban of the computing world, and in many ways, are worse than Windoze fanbots, since at least Windoze fanbots admit to the myriad of defects of their platform, while the Apple Intel fanbots can not see that the flagship OS has grown so corpulent, it is becoming useless.

Of course, that is my opinion - so say what you want, it remains my opinion. Down the road, I will migrate to Linux simply because the pool of Mac software is disappearing fast, and I can run Linux on a platform of my choice, while giving up on those aspects of my computer use that have no home left.


----------



## AquaAngel (Feb 16, 2007)

EvanPitts said:


> This thread is an example of why most people do not bother with Forums in the first place. It's all about someone posting an opinion, then a bunch of others saying that the opinion is entirely inaccurate because it does not comply with their religiously held beliefs.
> 
> Intel is utter garbage, and has been since the beginning, with crazy unsolved bugs, bad math, clumsy instruction sets, half baked features that are unusable, and so on. Just because one smacks an Apple logo on doesn't fix the problem, and never will. Of course, fanbots will just love it because it is Apple.
> 
> ...


Go with the force Luke, go with the Force, don't let the dark side take over you. believe what you think is right, and your hope will come true.

I wasn't being sarcastic or anything, but sort of agree with him.

I always believed in mac ever since i touched one in 1984 when i was in elementary school. Ya, i know it has nothing to do with this debate, but is whatever the "TECH guys from mac" can improve those machines, they will make me happy. i had that argument with the intel side of it and now i personally don't care for as long as their machine are reliable and steady. I own both Intel and PPC processor and i am happy with both of them

I know nothing about Linux and i have never played with it. i sure will not go Windows and i will remain with OS X and or OS 9 as i am still using some of them here. But WHO CARES.

Seriously! i will end this debate just to say. use the type of machine that you feel comfortable with. you want to go intel? sure go with it and i will pass no judgment, you want to go PPC? be my guess i have used all of them and i still enjoy using them. you want to Linux? go for it. 

Go with what you really enjoy using and feel comfortable with.
End of the story.

Enjoy yourselves and happy computing


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Evan,

If you want people to take your position seriously, you have to be serious yourself. Give us something tangible that is the reason you prefer PPC.

I wasn't happy about the switch to Intel either. Ideally, Moto/Freescale and IBM would have continued to properly develop the architecture to stay ahead of Intel. The reality is, they didn't. They were very slow to get that architecture anywhere near it's potential, and Apple was falling behind as a result. At the time, Apple had no choice but to drop PPC. If they wanted to stay in business, they had to move on.

I honestly can't think of anything that a PPC based machine offers that a new(er) Intel Mac doesn't blow out of the water.

Now, if your argument was about operating systems or software, then you might be able to win some points by pointing out features used in an older system/app that aren't available anymore. But that's a different topic, really.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Dennis:

I can't disagree with most of your comments, I don't think EP's rant is cause for banning. Just put him on your ignore list (along with perhaps 1 or 2 others at most) and you'll be AMAZED how much better this forum "magically" becomes.


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Just because one smacks an Apple logo on doesn't fix the problem, and never will. Of course, fanbots will just love it because it is Apple.


Maybe I have a selective memory, but what I think most of us are saying is that we don't care what's under the hood, we just want speed and reliability.

I don't think there's anyone on here that I would characterize as an Intel fanbot, although there are many (including myself) that I *would* characterize as Apple fanboys (or bots, or whatever).

The point is, many of us are dispassionate about what CPU is driving our computer, but passionate about the end experience.


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

mac_geek said:


> Maybe I have a selective memory, but what I think most of us are saying is that we don't care what's under the hood, we just want speed and reliability.
> 
> I don't think there's anyone on here that I would characterize as an Intel fanbot, although there are many (including myself) that I *would* characterize as Apple fanboys (or bots, or whatever).
> 
> The point is, many of us are dispassionate about what CPU is driving our computer, but passionate about the end experience.


Which means the poll is flawed since those of us who don't care may not have voted or may have had to vote in an inaccurate manner.

I chose not to vote because there was no option that suited me.

K


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

Niteshooter said:


> Which means the poll is flawed since those of us who don't care may not have voted or may have had to vote in an inaccurate manner.
> 
> I chose not to vote because there was no option that suited me.
> 
> K


A fair enough call out... selection bias is always important to understand.

Having said that, it would seem that the one main bucket potentially missing in the poll options is "In between both; am using PPCs as well as Intels" or something of that ilk.

Despite this miss, it certainly seems as if the majority of Mac users are now converted over to the Intel platform (with noted exceptions, of course ).


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2009)

Evan:

I bet you were really bummed when the abacas went out of fashion too  Lastly re: PPC Linux ... you are talking out yer arse there buddy. If you think you are limited with software in OSX on PPC wait till you switch over to Linux buddy. Speaking as a former lead developer for a PPC port of a very popular linux distro I can tell you this first hand. There is a LOT of software out there that just won't run on PPC.

I, as well as a lot of other users on this forum, will likely breath a sigh of relief when you switch over and stop crying over spilled milk. PPC is a thing of the past for Apple. Get over it and get on with it or get out of the game, or at the very least go find yourself a support group for users that can't get over technological *advances* (yes the switch to intel was an advance if for nothing more than the fact that the architecture is no longer a boundary between OSX and Windows) and stop spreading your mis-information here.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> Now that some major apps and Snow Leopard are moving to Intel only ( would someone provide a list perhaps ).
> 
> What is your strategy with legacy PPC - ie G5s
> 
> ...


Hmm and I guess we really diverted from the original question.... plus the poll questions don't really reflect the questions asked in the OP.

The poll really required the selection, 'Will use whatever is needed to do the job' 

In our case we will run them into the ground, money is tight so if the hardware is doing the job then it stays. If we need hardware for a specific application then it's upgraded.

I guess as a Mac reseller this would be kind of handy to figure out. Personally I think the days of replacing hardware every X number of years are over. Same as most folks who where on the treadmill of replacing their car every 3-4 years because that's just the way it was....moneys to tight these days.

K


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

Dennis Nedry said:


> It just disappoints me that a good portion of the thread *has* to revolve around the likes of Evan, and G3 Man- primarily attempting to rebuke the line noise they're throwing out. Because it's just line noise. There is no coherent point to this noise other then to cause forum turmoil and derail potentially interesting topics.


Well, based on the following quote from another thread, I think G3 Man will be falling out of the PPC camp:



> *Apple, Now I am IMPRESSED!*
> 
> hmm...
> 
> ...


...okay, Evan - looks like you're the last man minding the PPC gate... the pressure! Give in to the Intel camp! Come to the dark side! (I'll give you the first core for free... but the second one is going to cost you!)


----------



## Commodus (May 10, 2005)

The real problem with *EvanPitts*' argument is that he never really backs it up.

Evan: just because you heard about things in the press about math errors (all of what, 2, over the past 15-20 years?) and have seen hardware issues show up doesn't mean Intel is garbage.

Do you remember the days of overheating PowerBooks? Of virtually every PowerPC Mac being noisy (except perhaps G4 Cubes) at a certain stage? The logic board problem which affected virtually _every_ white iBook G3 for multiple years until they were replaced with G4s?

Time colours our memories, and it seems rose-tinted here. In practice, the reliability of Intel Macs isn't that far off (if at all) from PowerPC units. Oh, and on the "NVIDIA garbage..." if you've forgotten, Macs from the iMac G4 onwards have used NVIDIA graphics to varying degrees, starting from around the GeForce 2 MX in the iMac G4 up until the very end of the PowerPC run.

Have you even used an Intel Mac for a significant amount of time, Evan? Certainly you haven't owned one, so you don't have that level of experience to comment on it. You may complain that everyone is fixed in their mindsets, but to me making vague generalizations and refusing to even try something before you criticize it is the definition of being closed-minded.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

Even though the conversation's drifted all over the place, it's interesting to see that the general consensus among the professionals is that machine's aren't being replaced unless the absolutely have to be - meaning that there's still a decent number of PowerPC systems that are continuing to run in service until further notice. It's also interesting to see that of those systems, it seems they're almost all G5 Power Macs. I thought there'd be more high end, dual processor G4 towers in there than there were.

My question to Mac Doc is, what are your thoughts on the survey results (as the apply to the professional users that answered)?


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

Amiga2000HD said:


> Even though the conversation's drifted all over the place, it's interesting to see that the general consensus among the professionals is that machine's aren't being replaced unless the absolutely have to be - meaning that there's still a decent number of PowerPC systems that are continuing to run in service until further notice. It's also interesting to see that of those systems, it seems they're almost all G5 Power Macs. I thought there'd be more high end, dual processor G4 towers in there than there were.


I would expect that the release of Snow Leopard, and the potential eventuality that apps may require 10.6, will accelerate the remaining minority over to Intel platforms.

Whether or not budget is a constraint, pro's will need to keep up to date with the latest apps for maximum interoperability.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I'm sorry, why does this thread even exist? It doesn't matter whether you prefer PPC or not, Apple chose Intel and when your long serving PPC machine does finally either give out or reach the point where it's not viable to do the job you need it to anymore, you're going to replace it with an x86 based machine whether you choose Apple or not unless you're willing to spend as much on a PPC workstation --that is almost assuredly not going to be as fast as available consumer level x86 processors-- as you would on a new car.

And really, what does it matter whether you're using an x86 based machine or a PPC based machine as long as it does the job? _The end user experience is no different_


----------



## Niteshooter (Aug 8, 2008)

PosterBoy said:


> I'm sorry, why does this thread even exist? It doesn't matter whether you prefer PPC or not, Apple chose Intel and when your long serving PPC machine does finally either give out or reach the point where it's not viable to do the job you need it to anymore, you're going to replace it with an x86 based machine whether you choose Apple or not unless you're willing to spend as much on a PPC workstation --that is almost assuredly not going to be as fast as available consumer level x86 processors-- as you would on a new car.
> 
> And really, what does it matter whether you're using an x86 based machine or a PPC based machine as long as it does the job? _The end user experience is no different_


Yeah I think the real problem is that there are folks out there who don't get it.

It isn't as if Apple has never changed cpu architecture over the years and there are 
lots of actual choices out there. 

-68000-68040
-601-604
-G3
-G4
-G5
-Xeon
-Core 2 Duo

K


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> I'm sorry, why does this thread even exist? It doesn't matter whether you prefer PPC or not, Apple chose Intel and when your long serving PPC machine does finally either give out or reach the point where it's not viable to do the job you need it to anymore, you're going to replace it with an x86 based machine whether you choose Apple or not unless you're willing to spend as much on a PPC workstation --that is almost assuredly not going to be as fast as available consumer level x86 processors-- as you would on a new car.
> 
> And really, what does it matter whether you're using an x86 based machine or a PPC based machine as long as it does the job? _The end user experience is no different_


Every party has a pooper; that's why we invited you... party pooper.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

mac_geek said:


> Every party has a pooper; that's why we invited you... party pooper.


Right, I'm sorry for spoiling your "let's all cling to the past" party.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

PosterBoy said:


> Right, I'm sorry for spoiling your "let's all cling to the past" party.


Ha ha! Party.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2009)

jfpoole said:


> Ha ha! Party.


*dances around with his IIcx and 2 page display* Man ... top end stuff!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Well, let's check the results again, nine pages into it ...

Nope, nothing's changed, the poll tells the story pretty well really.


----------



## Jarooda (Jul 18, 2006)

Not to mention the fact that G3 Man had an epiphany during this poll and his answer would have to be changed! lol


----------



## The G3 Man (Oct 7, 2008)

Im in between. I use both day-to-day. DONT INSULT THE 68K (hugs Mac Plus) jk jk.

Morgan


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Hahahaha..... this reminds me of when Apple came out with the first OS X, and millions of Mac users were like, "I'm not switching to OS X, are you crazy? It doesn't have the software that I use etc..." That went on for a few years and now it starts all over except we are now arguing about PPC to Intel etc.... It is the same every time. Companies will hold on to what they got until it actually explodes, catches on fire or is thrown out the 20th story office window . Remember most companies don't make any money to upgrade right? They're all running in the red? right? That's what I get from most posts here. Why not sell the PPC machines or the G5's and upgrade if you want? You have to be making some profit if that's all you do either film, Illustrator work, publishing etc....? I'm not saying you should upgrade every year, but at least try to from a PPC or even an early G5 to an Intel of something. 

Another possibility is, if it is possible to upgrade a Mac Pro with future Intel chips or motherboards, then really, you're going to save money down the road later on. You won't have to buy into a whole new system. I mean Intel is still not breaking the 3.2 GHz or 3.3 Ghz barrier, I don't see them doing it anytime soon, so the latest machines should last for quite some time. We've been stuck at those speeds for a few years now. Thoughts or comments?


----------



## mac_geek (May 14, 2005)

To help cement the fate of PPC-based machines, Adobe confirmed yesterday that its future software will only support the Intel platform...

Adobe bids farewell to PowerPC users | Create | Macworld


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacGYVER said:


> Why not sell the PPC machines or the G5's and upgrade if you want? You have to be making some profit if that's all you do either film, Illustrator work, publishing etc....? I'm not saying you should upgrade every year, but at least try to from a PPC or even an early G5 to an Intel of something.


When you're actively making money with a computer system, some different factors come into play.

Sometimes, hanging onto old hardware just because it still works amounts to a false economy, because newer hardware can make the workers using it so much more productive that the upgrade soon pays for itself. 

Other times, a special-purpose hardware/software system may work just fine, and raw horsepower may not be a critical element. In this case, upgrading just because the hardware isn't the latest and greatest is not a sound move. And what I'm seeing here is that a lot of the PPC systems still in business use are hanging on because they're needed to run software that isn't available for other architectures. In such cases, it makes little sense to upgrade before it's absolutely necessary.

I can't help thinking of all the otherwise perfectly good legacy systems that were trashed or massively overhauled because of Y2K. If it hadn't been for that, there'd be way more 30-year-old systems still in use, and no amount of bells and whistles or technical advancement would justify scrapping them. 

Making major hardware or software changes when you have an entrenched system can be enormously expensive, complicated and disruptive. It's not something you do solely because something faster and shinier is available.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

I remember having to spend a few years in Win-PC land because my G4 Powerbook was too slow for my work, while Intel had Core Duos in a whole lot of laptops out there. If the G4 was too slow then, it would be virtually unusable now.

never owned a G5 Mac, those are probably not as bad, and I still like the silent design of the Water PowerMac G5.

I still use a eMac to stream media to my Apple TV and to play music when I'm in the basement workshop, but that's about all it does.

Luc


----------



## wonderings (Jun 10, 2003)

At work, I am using a new MBP. My Co worker is on a Dual 2ghz G5. I will probably upgrade her computer next year, or when the next release of Adobe CS comes out that no longer supports the PPC. What I will do is bring my 24 inch iMac in and get a new mac for home.


----------

