[Yin-Yang]

Originally posted by ATIRAGEPRO
Don't ever forget the history. Intel was one of Apple Computer's BIGEST compeditors. The Motarolla and PowerPC were Apple's closest allies at the time, while Intel RULED the PC market. But when Apple came to IBM to make the PowerPC (IBM was Apple Computer's first ever compeditor back in 1985 ) that was when AMD Totally just took over the PC world. (Ironic, isn't it?)

But get this: After Intel was abandoned on it's own turf, (LOL) Then and only then would they have partnered with Apple. So in my opinion, Intel just isn't any more trustworthy that IBM or AMD. Believe me: Intel is going to abandon Apple (Like they did with Socket 7) the first chance they get. :rolleyes:

Is this a good thing or bad?

[ATIRAGEPRO]

Originally posted by Yin-Yang
Is this a good thing or bad?

Read the last sentance and tell me what you think.
Now, is Abandoning normally oncidered a good thing?

[horndude]

nah, just more proof that apple isnt all that great

OS X when it comes right down to it isnt fast, then again all out performance has never really been apple's niche in the market

[ATIRAGEPRO]

Yes it has. OS X is faster than windows XP, and PowerPC chips are better than Intels!

Even if the G5 never hit the 3ghz mark yet, It's still better than a x86 CPU that even with 3ghz, still runs slow after only a few short days of using it. :rolleyes:

Every windows OS ever made (accept windows 2000 professional) were allways ugly cheap pieces of trash, and Linux is too okward to build software for.

If you think OS X is soo slow, I'd like to see you try a PPC version of any Linux distro the same age, and then tell me which one is faster! If you don't like Mac, that's your business, but that dosn't mean anythings wrong with it.

... Although, there probably is something wrong with them now. :mad: Instead of them trying to recieve the mark of the beast, (x8666 ) they should have just got another company to make the PowerPC. Maybe Via Technologies or Sony. Anything but IBM or Intel.

[horndude]

I have, I ran linux on a G5 for quite awhile, and in alot of tasks it is faster

OS X uses gcc -Os instead of gcc -O3 or O2

mach3 microkernel has bottleneck issues with system calls and threads

sorry, im not in love with any platform, not a fanboy, call em like I see em

[Qiranworms]

Originally posted by ATIRAGEPRO
OS X is faster than windows XP

Blanket statement, not provable.

PowerPC chips are better than Intels!

Define 'better'

Even if the G5 never hit the 3ghz mark yet, It's still better than a x86 CPU that even with 3ghz, still runs slow after only a few short days of using it.

If a CPU starts running slower after a few days, it's almost always software-related, not CPU architecture-related.

If you think OS X is soo slow, I'd like to see you try a PPC version of any Linux distro the same age, and then tell me which one is faster!

You can almost always make Linux run faster than a proprietary operating system. Where does that factcome from?

If you don't like Mac, that's your business, but that dosn't mean anythings wrong with it.

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'll answer anyway. I happen to like Mac OS X a lot, but it's not without its flaws. I can think of plenty of things that are "wrong" with pretty much any operating system I've used.

Although, there probably is something wrong with them now. :mad: Instead of them trying to recieve the mark of the beast, (x8666 ) they should have just got another company to make the PowerPC. Maybe Via Technologies or Sony. Anything but IBM or Intel.

Why are you so set against the x86 architecture? The problem with getting another company to make the PowerPC is that you're making a CPU for a niche market. Motorola/Freescale already sells their G4s to most of the PowerPC customers that don't use them for desktops (Car CPUs are a much bigger market than Apple was for them for example), and IBM has the game console market. Apple's tiny Mac market just isn't enough to support the development of an entire CPU platform.

Originally posted by horndude
OS X uses gcc -Os instead of gcc -O3 or O2

Do you know if they're still doing that for the x86 version?

[horndude]

not sure if apple has changed the optimizations flags or not, they did use basically the same kernel though from what ive read

[mac_mogul]

I think that the switch to Intel is a good thing.

Apple needed good processors that were efficient and powerful. The G4 was NOT efficient, and NOT powerful. The G5 was NOT efficient at all.

The CoreDuo is Powerful and Efficient -- exactly what Apple needs.
Motorola totally screwed Apple over with their pathetic G3 and G4 processors. IBM didn't do much better with the G5 -- sure the G5 is super powerful, but IBM had promised a clock speed of over 3ghz by the beginning of last summer. I guess that to make amends for this they added a couple more cores and called it good. :sigh:

Intel is a company that can deliver, and Apple is a company that needs delivery.

Hopefully, by the end of this summer I'll have saved up enough to buy either the new iMac, or the new MacBook (The 'ol iBook is starting to show her age )