Leopard to be released on 26th!!! Just PreOrdered :D - Page 2

gary---> <---abf

still didn't answer my question. apple swears that osx is the best thing since sliced bread... so if its so great, why do they think that their users will want to possibly use inferior xp?

almost a similar situation to when the first intel switch happened and they said "with new intel processors its 4x faster than with the old ppc" ... while just 1/2 year prior they were "ppc is the best thing since sliced bread. intel/amd has nothing on it in!" ... seems like jobs is confused

that said...if you stay off the pr0n XP shouldn't give you any issues.

that said #2.... i use my "pc" hardware just fine to have a windows-less computer. paid about $1500 when @ the time a nearly identical spec powerbook (save ppc vs amd) cost almost $600 more. so no random reinstalls and reboots for me either.

if you book store doesn't have it, check with your IT department, also you can probably get vista for free that way if you ever need it... most schools have MSDN-AA subscriptions , giving you access to a crap load of MS software for free... check it out.

if you honestly either don't know the simple answers to your points or if you actually think that you've made some witty commentary, man, you really are out there. go back under your bridge please.

When Jobs made any comments about PPC being faster than Intel/AMD, bear in mind that the Core Duo hadn't been introduced yet, neither had the Core 2 (the true Core architecture chip). P4s were a freaking joke, and everyone knew it... they were overhot and underpowered. AMD mopped the floor with them until the Core 2 came out and Intel retook the performance crown.

Also, he was using some interesting benchmarks to make this point... everyone lies to bolster their product. Would you rather he got on stage "Well guys, PPC sucks... really sucks actually. So we are switching to Intel... not to say that they don't suck, tehy just suck slightly less, and are much cheaper to us, so we can charge the same to you, but make more money... WHEEE, MONEY SHOWER!!!!"

To be fair the G5s were pretty damn good processors.

If IBM didn't decide to sit on their fat asses after introducing them Apple would still be using PPC. But IBM found better money in building one off processors for game consoles and basically forced Apple to switch to Intel.

I still believe PPC is superior, but Apple was the only major company using it for general purpose computing and there just wasn't enough incentive to keep updating it for higher and higher performance.

Well to be honest Kakaze I don't believe that is true.

For instance VERY shortly after Apple announced the switch, an impressively low pwoer dual core G5 processor for mobile use was announced. I can't believe that Apple would hav ebeen unaware of that. I don't think it was just a matter of them not putting out chips that Apple decided to switch, in fact I would bet that was a very small part of it.

Seablade

well, then consider that apple was having to OC the G5s they were given to try and give any kind of impression that the PPC chips were on some kind of product ramp comparable to the x86 consumer chips.

I remember a low power G5 being announced but I don't remember it being dual core.

It still didn't have the performance that the Intel chips were offering, however, and it ran hotter, IIRC.

And don't forget the fact that IBM said they would hit 3GHz, what, a year after the G5 was announced and they still hadn't hit it several years later. They kept coming up with excuse after excuse. There was no competition so IBM really just didn't even bother trying.

The low power G5 was just too little too late.

I am trying to find the reference at the moment, but don't have much time so don't expect it soon. However I am fairly sure it was both dual-core and low power even, as its power was touted at 15 watts per core.

So no, I don't really buy for a moment that that was a significant factor in Apple switching, they just needed a scapegoat.

Bah nevermind, found a few links...

http://www.news.com/Start-up-plans-n...3-5907281.html

And while I don't consider the Register a good source half the time, they have the basic idea down, though I haven't read the article to see how accurate it actually is.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/05/19/pasemi_apple/

That chip as cited still beats out the Core2Duo in terms of Performance/Watt if memory serves, Apple was in talks with the company.

As I said before, PPC was used as the scapegoat for that. I am not saying it is a bad move, just that people always blame the PPC architecture, but I don't think that was anywhere close to a good reason.

Seablade

Wikipedia, just cause I feel like it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_M..._G5_derivative

I think I might go to the store on friday. Because, if I preorder it I'm sure I won't get it until Monday, and I can't wait that long, lol.

Not sure how Apple does it but Amazon.com usually ships stuff out a little early to try and get it to your door on the release date. I remember when Matrix first hit DVD I actually got my copy a day early because they shipped it out a little early and I lived close to a hub.

Now also they can't ship it out too early because they don't want to send copies out before the launch date but so far what I have been seeing and hearing about preorders are that apple is eluding to getting the copies sent to the address the day of the launch.

So cross your fingers for me because I don't have a store I can run and buy it from for 3 hours in any direction. The local stores will eventually get it but they will mark the price way up and half the time they wont even know what just got released. Not sure about Staples where everyone else lives but sometimes they have great sales on hardware items (Flash/hard drives) but on software they always mark it up.

Our school is stupid on how it does student services via technology. The recent launch from Microsoft advertising the "Ultimate Steal" doesn't apply to our college because students do not have a .edu e-mail address to apply for the deal. IT department replied it was too much work for them to set those up. So students loose out.

Same with student Wifi, they keep saying it would make the network vulnerable. Easy fix is to just not hook it up to the network, just to the Internet. Again they say too much work and they have too much to do as it is.

As for MSDN packages, I got the same old "Too much work, not enough students interested" spiel. Since most of the technology classes are done online they are not motivated enough to offer many student packages to actually help us out.

What's also funny is that the school just got a new shipment of Gateway desktops and they got deployed a few weeks ago. However the (Administrator/Administrator) login combination still works. They are worried about Wifi making the network vulnerable but their laziness to ghost-image the computers left almost 800 computers wide open to people who know what to look for. And all it takes is one student to find it and it's all over campus.

Long story short I just gave up and pre-ordered from Amazon.com.

Wow man, what school do you go to? I went to a really small college in Indiana, and we had the MSDN, student wifi... the works.

Oh I have been to similar sized schools that had loads more than we do but due to low budgets and incompetent people most of our programs got hosed. People not doing the proper documentation and the likes cost the school a lot of things a few years ago. I am petitioning for Student Wifi, have done so every year, and I think we will finally get it. Sad thing is when it finally does I will be ready to transfer out to a better school. Its only a Community college, but it is pisspoor from what I have seen from other community Colleges around. But at least the tuition is cheap. --EDIT-- And according to the Network Admin, Windows is the only operating system businesses use so thats all the school supports. Only the MediaArts department uses Non-Windows computers. ugh I hate my school. But at least I am getting Leopard soon! Now to figure out why a miniDV tape that works fine in iMovie doesn't want to import in FinalCut Express...

I don't remember hearing about that one; just the one from IBM.

Regardless, it was going to take them over a year to start producing the chips in volume. And not only that but, since Apple would basically be the only buyer for these chips Apple would still have the same supply problems they had with Motorola and IBM by ordering too many or too few. At least with Intel supply is rarely ever a problem and there is significant impetus for upgrades. If Motorola and IBM are any example, this company would bring out great chips for the first couple years and then they'd lag behind when they realise they could make more money elsewhere.

I would disagree with the supply problems, most people would pay already existing fabs to produce the chips, not build their own.

But at any rate in general that is exactly my point. People keep saying PPC was technologically inferior, at the end of its rope, etc, and that is most of the reason why Apple switched. To be honest that had little to nothing to do with it IMO. There were lots of reasons that weighted into it, getting on the same architecture as what people were already developing for, thus making it easier for people to develop for their OS which was in short supply for third party programsw(Just see how many OSS programs got ported over new in the first few months for example), staying as far away from the same trap SGI etc, fell into... That all I believe had much more to do with it than the capabilities of the chips.

Seablade

PS IBM is still popular on the Power Architecture, see the Cell processor for example.

I never said it was inferior, just that the companies that made it weren't keeping it up to date. And I know there were other reasons for switching to Intel. But I do think the chips were the main one.

And as far as the cell goes...since it was supposed to be so awesome, everyone I knew at the time wondered why Apple didn't switch to that, or switch to the Power6 though that would've almost guaranteed no laptop processors.

well that, and from i've gathered the low power PPC chips used in the laptops were probably designed generally for low power (server) applications and were perhaps shoe-horned into laptops. this is not unlike the liquid cooled G5 power macs that were overclocked. intel on the other hand, as you know, specifically has processors developed specifically for mobile applications.