imgod2u, you're exactly right, but do you know why Apple won't do what you suggest? Apple doesn't like direct competition. If they started making x86 processor-based computers, they'd have to compete directly with companies like Dell and Gateway, not to mention all of those motherboard manufacturers like Asus. Remember this is the same company that killed off the Macintosh clone licensing program because many of the Mac clone companies like Power Computing were building better and less expensive Macs than Apple.
cmdrdredd, do you have any facts to back up that claim, or are you just spewing an uninformed opinion?
"Xp is good, but the Unix core of MacOSX is soo much better."
Technically speaking, it's based on FreeBSD.
"Especially with dual CPU usage"
? What does that mean? Linux doesn't run anymore efficiently on an SMP system than Win2k does. Where are you getting that info from?
"And what PC comes with Firewire built in?"
Sony has had firewire on all their systems for practically as long as Apple. All laptop manufacturers have had firewire on at least some of their models for quite a while. All major PC OEM's now have firewire on at least some of their desktop models too. Saying you can't buy PC MB's with built in firewire (some do exist) is pretty much a joke because you can't buy any Apple MB's at all. If you want to put together your own system, Apple is not an option.
Why doesn't Apple move to x86? Because it would be retarded for them to do so. PPC is one of the distinguishing features of Apple computers. Something that differentiates themselves from everyone else. You'd have to be suicidal to want to compete head to head with MS, Dell, HP and everyone else. Having a completely different platform allows Apple to control every aspect of their systems and creates an apples to oranges comparison which is highly beneficial to them. Apple can throw out any random performance graphs and statisics they want, and due to the different architectures no one can really argue for or against their claims with any sort of meaningful or factual data. You also could not make the current Imac/LCD format using PC parts.
Technically speaking, it's based on FreeBSD.
"Especially with dual CPU usage"
? What does that mean? Linux doesn't run anymore efficiently on an SMP system than Win2k does. Where are you getting that info from?
"And what PC comes with Firewire built in?"
Sony has had firewire on all their systems for practically as long as Apple. All laptop manufacturers have had firewire on at least some of their models for quite a while. All major PC OEM's now have firewire on at least some of their desktop models too. Saying you can't buy PC MB's with built in firewire (some do exist) is pretty much a joke because you can't buy any Apple MB's at all. If you want to put together your own system, Apple is not an option.
Why doesn't Apple move to x86? Because it would be retarded for them to do so. PPC is one of the distinguishing features of Apple computers. Something that differentiates themselves from everyone else. You'd have to be suicidal to want to compete head to head with MS, Dell, HP and everyone else. Having a completely different platform allows Apple to control every aspect of their systems and creates an apples to oranges comparison which is highly beneficial to them. Apple can throw out any random performance graphs and statisics they want, and due to the different architectures no one can really argue for or against their claims with any sort of meaningful or factual data. You also could not make the current Imac/LCD format using PC parts.
What people don't seem to realize is that just switching the processor DOESN'T mean they'd have to give up their "niche" market. Mac OSX could STILL be exclusive to Mac computers (i.e. there will not be a retail version and it will not support other motherboard models). Their designs would still be patented and wouldn't allow cloning (i.e. no one can build an iMac like computer without paying a liscense) and they'd have a world to gain from taking a whole wad of marketing away from companies like Dell. What little they loose in allowing Windows to be run on a Mac, they'd more than make up for with increased sales of their machines as a whole. Without needing to pour more money into R&D and driving technologies on their own, their computers wouldn't need to be as expensive. Apple, when they allowed Mac clones, just went half-way with the concept. They didn't adjust their own market strategies to compete directly. If they did so (and Apple PR has proved they can do this), they can reach the vast majority of the consumer market with their flashy computers.
And contrary to popular belief, the G4 processors are not all that good for sales. The average idiot looks at the 1 GHz label and passes it by like it was nothing at all. Basing their machines on a 2.53 GHz P4 would draw a lot more sales. They've already shifted their marketing to the broad audience from "we're twice as fast" to "hey look, it's like a desklamp!" and "it's easier to use". Both the later marketing methods could still apply even if they switched to an x86 processor. They've already realized that no matter how hard they try, they're not gonna get the vast majority of consumers to think that a 1 GHz machine is faster than a 2.53 GHz machine. When's the last Mac commercial or advertisement you've seen that boasted significant speed advantages over their x86 counterparts? Asside from Steve Jobs and his stubbornly idiotic statements of "we're twice as fast", no Mac commercial to date has boasted speed.
And contrary to popular belief, the G4 processors are not all that good for sales. The average idiot looks at the 1 GHz label and passes it by like it was nothing at all. Basing their machines on a 2.53 GHz P4 would draw a lot more sales. They've already shifted their marketing to the broad audience from "we're twice as fast" to "hey look, it's like a desklamp!" and "it's easier to use". Both the later marketing methods could still apply even if they switched to an x86 processor. They've already realized that no matter how hard they try, they're not gonna get the vast majority of consumers to think that a 1 GHz machine is faster than a 2.53 GHz machine. When's the last Mac commercial or advertisement you've seen that boasted significant speed advantages over their x86 counterparts? Asside from Steve Jobs and his stubbornly idiotic statements of "we're twice as fast", no Mac commercial to date has boasted speed.
do you understand the difference between risc processors and cisc processors?
technologically speaking risc's are superior.
This is a pretty naive blanket statement, and i think it demonstrates mostly that YOUR knowledge of risc vs. cisc processors is what's limited.
An ever-dwindling legion of mac-fanatics has been crowing about the impending death of x86 and the domination of Mac's architecture ever since they dropped the 68xxx series of processors. Yet x86 is even more dominant than ever!
Don't worry, apple will switch to x86 (or IA64, or whatever the standard at the time is) as soon as they replace enough militant-mac purist supporters with naive technophobes who are mostly interested in a transluscent computer case.
technologically speaking risc's are superior.
This is a pretty naive blanket statement, and i think it demonstrates mostly that YOUR knowledge of risc vs. cisc processors is what's limited.
An ever-dwindling legion of mac-fanatics has been crowing about the impending death of x86 and the domination of Mac's architecture ever since they dropped the 68xxx series of processors. Yet x86 is even more dominant than ever!
Don't worry, apple will switch to x86 (or IA64, or whatever the standard at the time is) as soon as they replace enough militant-mac purist supporters with naive technophobes who are mostly interested in a transluscent computer case.
Yes, Intel processors and Amd processors havemore mhz than current Apple processors (both moto and ibm). Yes, the Athlon can compete on a clock for clock basis. Yes, machines based on an x86 processor are sold for significantly cheaper than PPC machine (talking equal in stature ie top of the line).
Do any current x86 chips have anything that compares to AltiVec? Anything beyond SSE2? Because so far, that doesnt seem to be all that great.
Low end desktop/mobile chips: g3's draw less power than most Intel chips and pretty much all AMD chips. The p3M is a good competitor though.
High end DESKTOP chips: Still no comparable SIMD instruction set to AltiVec. Current x86 chips have faster buses and longer pipe lines.
Server arena: POWER4 is considered one of the best server chips out there. Im not sure how Xeons are considered now, but last time I checked most admins laughed at them.
How would Apple keep the software designers happy about switching architectures *AGAIN*?
Do any current x86 chips have anything that compares to AltiVec? Anything beyond SSE2? Because so far, that doesnt seem to be all that great.
Low end desktop/mobile chips: g3's draw less power than most Intel chips and pretty much all AMD chips. The p3M is a good competitor though.
High end DESKTOP chips: Still no comparable SIMD instruction set to AltiVec. Current x86 chips have faster buses and longer pipe lines.
Server arena: POWER4 is considered one of the best server chips out there. Im not sure how Xeons are considered now, but last time I checked most admins laughed at them.
How would Apple keep the software designers happy about switching architectures *AGAIN*?
I don't know what you define as being impressive but a 20%+ boost seems pretty impressive to me
Linkage it'd be interesting to compare the power consumption of Ultra-Low Voltage P3-Ms with the G3s and maybe regular P3-Ms and/or P4-Ms vs. G4s, but digging through whitepapers doesn't seem like too much fun right now
Again, see the Lightwave results above. There is an appreciable improvement from SSE2 when applications are specifically coded for it. I am by no means an expert on the subject but from what I understand Altivec is slightly more flexible than SSE/SSE2, nevertheless they are comparable AFAIK.
Undoubtedly the the Power4 is a very high-performance chip, but it isn't being used by Apple is it? Furthermore, the Power4 is not directly comparable to the Xeon as it is meant for much higher-end servers. Comparing the Power4 with ItaniumII is more of a fair comparison since they are shooting for the same target.
Easy, use words like AltiVec, NetBurst, Quantispeed, etc. to promise huge boosts in performance
-Ice
Originally posted by: icecool83
I don't know what you define as being impressive but a 20%+ boost seems pretty impressive to me
20% better than SSE right?
it'd be interesting to compare the power consumption of Ultra-Low Voltage P3-Ms with the G3s and maybe regular P3-Ms and/or P4-Ms vs. G4s, but digging through whitepapers doesn't seem like too much fun right now
The G4 is supposed to be a power hog.
Flexibility is something I consider important. The fact that AltiVec can be used for many more applications seems like a great feature to me.
Is Itanium 2 out yet?
Easy, use words like AltiVec, NetBurst, Quantispeed, etc. to promise huge boosts in performance
-Ice
Blah blah blah.
ItaniumII Launch Press Release
Straight from the horse's mouth
HP's ItaniumII lineup
search the forums and you can probably find the spec2k results for Itanium II
-Ice
*edit* Here are the spec2k fp and int base results for an ItaniumII workstation Nice work pm
some one said that it's the same price or even cheaper to build a dual proc pc (Athlon mp or Xeon) as it is to buy a Power Mac. while this can be true for the Athlon, there's no way you can build a dual Xeon system for the price of a dual Power Mac. quote from mooojojojo
To tell you the truth it is, go to www.newegg.com and check the prices on these and add them to your shopping cart (random order)
Cooler Master ATC-710-SX2. Silver Aluminum Case. (Not as pretty as the Mac but comparable size wise)
ASUS CD-S520 52X CD-ROM DRIVE - RETAIL BOX
FIREWIRE IEEE 1394 CONTROLLER CARD - RETAIL BOX 3+1(2
Koutech 4+1 Port USB 2.0 PCI Host Controller Model KW-2580N
RETAIL BOX
PIONEER INTERNAL ATAPI DVD-RECORDABLE MODEL DVR-A04SPK3 (This is the new model the last model was the DVR-A03 which is the same a drive that Apple use in their computers the so called Super Drive)
RETAIL
Logitech Cordless Freedom Optical Keyboard and Mouse
Memory - PC (DDR)
MUSHKIN DDR 512MB PC-2100 (They don't have ecc ram listed but pricewatch has ecc ram 512 mb sticks listed around this price)
SuperMicro P4DP6 Dual processor Motherboard for Intel Xeon
Retail (there are cheaper boards but this one had all 64 bit pci slots)
Antec 480W Power Supply TRUE480 (not sure how powerful the dual G4 power supply is but I'm sure it's not much higher than this)
2 Intel Pentium 4 Xeon 2.2GHz 400MHz BUS, 512KB L2 Cache Mftr (When the dual G4 came out it was compared to this chip but it was a single processor setup)
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy Xgamer Stunning 24-bit
GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 MX460, 3.6ns high speed 64MB DDR BGA (Ball Grid Array), Golden Sample
WESTERN DIGITAL "SPECIAL EDITION" 80GB 7200RPM EIDE HARD DRIVE
After I put in 2nd day shipping to the most expensive destination I could find It came out to be $ 2,675.20, a dual Athlon set up comes out to be $300 cheaper. Last time I checked Apples web site the configuration that is very much like this one (dual G4 512megs of ram) cost $2,999. The point of my statement was that no comparisons were made as far as dual processor PC's go. Where are the benchmarks that are supposed to show that the dual Mac clobbers a dual PC? Where is the proof that's supposed to convince me to save up the money for the Power Mac G4 and a new version of Photoshop.
I have yet to see any thing that will make me switch like Apple wants us all to do according to their commercials.
To tell you the truth it is, go to www.newegg.com and check the prices on these and add them to your shopping cart (random order)
Cooler Master ATC-710-SX2. Silver Aluminum Case. (Not as pretty as the Mac but comparable size wise)
ASUS CD-S520 52X CD-ROM DRIVE - RETAIL BOX
FIREWIRE IEEE 1394 CONTROLLER CARD - RETAIL BOX 3+1(2
Koutech 4+1 Port USB 2.0 PCI Host Controller Model KW-2580N
RETAIL BOX
PIONEER INTERNAL ATAPI DVD-RECORDABLE MODEL DVR-A04SPK3 (This is the new model the last model was the DVR-A03 which is the same a drive that Apple use in their computers the so called Super Drive)
RETAIL
Logitech Cordless Freedom Optical Keyboard and Mouse
Memory - PC (DDR)
MUSHKIN DDR 512MB PC-2100 (They don't have ecc ram listed but pricewatch has ecc ram 512 mb sticks listed around this price)
SuperMicro P4DP6 Dual processor Motherboard for Intel Xeon
Retail (there are cheaper boards but this one had all 64 bit pci slots)
Antec 480W Power Supply TRUE480 (not sure how powerful the dual G4 power supply is but I'm sure it's not much higher than this)
2 Intel Pentium 4 Xeon 2.2GHz 400MHz BUS, 512KB L2 Cache Mftr (When the dual G4 came out it was compared to this chip but it was a single processor setup)
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy Xgamer Stunning 24-bit
GAINWARD/CARDEXPERT GeForce 4 MX460, 3.6ns high speed 64MB DDR BGA (Ball Grid Array), Golden Sample
WESTERN DIGITAL "SPECIAL EDITION" 80GB 7200RPM EIDE HARD DRIVE
After I put in 2nd day shipping to the most expensive destination I could find It came out to be $ 2,675.20, a dual Athlon set up comes out to be $300 cheaper. Last time I checked Apples web site the configuration that is very much like this one (dual G4 512megs of ram) cost $2,999. The point of my statement was that no comparisons were made as far as dual processor PC's go. Where are the benchmarks that are supposed to show that the dual Mac clobbers a dual PC? Where is the proof that's supposed to convince me to save up the money for the Power Mac G4 and a new version of Photoshop.
I have yet to see any thing that will make me switch like Apple wants us all to do according to their commercials.
to ZaneNBK, ok that's very nice. looks like you can build a dual xeon. but can you buy one prebuilt from dell for example or some other company with support and all?
and good thinking imagod2u.. I wanted to post something similar today.. only my thinking is apple perhaps would to go with amd and not intel (if they are to make such a move)..
and good thinking imagod2u.. I wanted to post something similar today.. only my thinking is apple perhaps would to go with amd and not intel (if they are to make such a move)..
Well, like I said, they do wanna capture the mass consumer market, and currently, that is not with AMD. "A Mac with a 2.53 GHz chip?". Now that'd be a real attention catcher.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
It can do *EVERYTHING* better? Like run Mac OS X? I dont think so.
A touch of irony here. I remember when Executor 2.0 came out, and it could emulate the 68K-based Mac machines/MacOS, on a current Pentium-based machine, nearly as fast as the original 68K-based Macs could run it.
Assuming that someone wrote a PPC emulator for the PIV, I have no doubt that a similar feat could be achieved. A dual PIV Xeon box, could blow away the fastest Apple PPC rig, even running an emulated PPC/MacOS X.
VirtualLarry
No Lifer
- Aug 25, 2001
- 56,587
- 10,225
- 126
That much is probably true.. but then why not runing Linux with KDE 3.0? Fast, efficient OS, fast hardware.. now the only thing missing, is apps.
Apple does not want to go with x86 because all they have to market is the fact that there platforms are stable and easy to use. Even if they only expand to include x86 platforms, they will lose the mistic Apple perception.
BUT DAMN THOSE CASES ARE COOL! I wish I could buy one for PC. I saw one a long time ago, made in canada, but they were made completely out of plastic.
BUT DAMN THOSE CASES ARE COOL! I wish I could buy one for PC. I saw one a long time ago, made in canada, but they were made completely out of plastic.
yeah.. well they don't have to put too much emphasis on the TYPE of the proc but on it's speed. they could go into some new marketing name easily just stating that they're changing the processor supplier..
and about stability - when they design only for their motherboards and their peripherials they could acheive as much stabilty as they have now I suppose
the whole RISC vs CISC argument here is stupid. x86 is no longer really CISC, and PPC is no longer really RISC. the majority of the operations on both type of processor are very similar. by the way, Apple definitely quit using real RISC procs when the g3 processor came out and it was more complex than the pentium II. the whole point of RISC was to be less complex than CISC. anyone with half a brain would realize that this is no longer true. stop the stupid arguments. Apple will go to x86 when there aren't enough people willing to buy their products. i work with a Mac all day at work, and i wouldn't mind having a Mac laptop (powerbook or iBook), but for what i do the Mac platform is inferior to the PC platform. for some people it is the opposite.
well, it ain't much stability. i can kill my macs at work at will just by opening enough programs. and they still haven't fixed a lot of bugs in OS X. i still get constant unexpected errors with IE (i guess they've become expected, now
).Stability is a feature of the OS and the chipset, not the processor. I doubt anyone has the gall or the ignorance to claim any of Apple's PPC/proprietary motherboard is more stable than an Intel chipset/motherboard setup with a P4.
Hmm I just thought of something that is missing from the argument. It would be the G5.... Why don't they switch, well maby the G5 is what the G4 was supposed to be. Maby its the P4 killer that they need. I only know what is speculated on the G5 so who really knows.
This whole debate has been a bit off since we really don't know what apples next moves are. From what I have read they already have G5 boxes out and about. Maby there R&D team or IBM/Moto's R&D teams have something that the x86 cpu's cannot compare to, or maby they don't. We really don't know.
The main reason I can see that they would not switch is becuase of all the reprogramming they would have to do. They are busy as it is with OS X and trying to get everything from OS 8-9 to it. I don't think they really want to take on another pile of work.
And on a side note who knows that the G5 is not a P4 hehehe.
This whole debate has been a bit off since we really don't know what apples next moves are. From what I have read they already have G5 boxes out and about. Maby there R&D team or IBM/Moto's R&D teams have something that the x86 cpu's cannot compare to, or maby they don't. We really don't know.
The main reason I can see that they would not switch is becuase of all the reprogramming they would have to do. They are busy as it is with OS X and trying to get everything from OS 8-9 to it. I don't think they really want to take on another pile of work.
And on a side note who knows that the G5 is not a P4 hehehe.
ViRGE
Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
- Oct 9, 1999
- 31,516
- 167
- 106
As a person who works on Macs, but is a PC user at heart, there's no comparison between KDE 3 and OS X. X is far better designed graphically, and more importantly, more functional. Get back to me when KDE 3 has a control panel to change resolutions.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter