3 ms·

Goodness sakes. I used to be 'anti-Apple' because I thought it was a bunch of people following a trend. Then I entered high school and realized that I was actin

by jplahn 11y ago

Goodness sakes. I used to be 'anti-Apple' because I thought it was a bunch of people following a trend. Then I entered high school and realized that I was acting like a child and people have different preferences. I shudder to think what my middle school self would think of me as I type this from my MBP. I use a Mac as my laptop. So what? I run Linux on my desktop and have an Android phone. This all seems unnecessarily petty.

baldfat 11y ago
A dad know no end of petty. I have an Anti-Apple bias due to their business practices. Your to young but... The fastest computers are computers with PowerPC CPUs. than.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg The rest of the tech people were like how can a PowerPC CPU be faster? It is plain 1 and 0 and the more 1 and 0 you get through the faster the processor. It ended up being 4 to 6 times faster. The Apple fanboys were famous for this time of Apple history. Also Apple knew the truth since they were always running an x86 OS X for 5 years and knew the numbers and just were fine spreading "Apple Truths." Sorry I digressed...
- rsynnott 11y ago
  At various times, PPC was indeed faster than Intel's finest, either outright or in certain niches (particularly SIMD). > Also Apple knew the truth since they were always running an x86 OS X for 5 years and knew the numbers and just were fine spreading "Apple Truths." Consider what would have happened if the Intel switch had happened two years earlier. Take the iBook (then, AFAIK, Apple's best-selling product). They could have gone to Pentium M (the P3-based one), which was at best in the same speed range as the G4s used in Apple laptops, and used somewhat more power, resulting in diminished battery life. Or they could have gone to Pentium 4-M (the P4-based one), which would have been somewhat faster, and used vastly more power, resulting in massively diminished battery life. Apple also at the time had the not unreasonable expectation that IBM would produce faster PPC970s, and mobile-suitable PPC970s, as was in their roadmap. The Intel switch happened because it made sense at the time; the Core Duo laptops resulted in better performance vs the G4 and only a modest battery life it, while the high-end desktop waited for the Core 2 Duo Xeons, which resulted in better performance vs the G5. It would not, however, have made sense much earlier. Obviously, they had MacOS 10 running on x86; NeXTStep did, after all, and it'd never be wise to close off options. I mean, _Windows_ supported PPC, Alpha and MIPS for a long time.

by jplahn 11y ago

baldfat 11y ago

A dad know no end of petty. I have an Anti-Apple bias due to their business practices. Your to young but... The fastest computers are computers with PowerPC CPUs. than.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg The rest of the tech people were like how can a PowerPC CPU be faster? It is plain 1 and 0 and the more 1 and 0 you get through the faster the processor. It ended up being 4 to 6 times faster. The Apple fanboys were famous for this time of Apple history. Also Apple knew the truth since they were always running an x86 OS X for 5 years and knew the numbers and just were fine spreading "Apple Truths." Sorry I digressed...

rsynnott 11y ago
At various times, PPC was indeed faster than Intel's finest, either outright or in certain niches (particularly SIMD). > Also Apple knew the truth since they were always running an x86 OS X for 5 years and knew the numbers and just were fine spreading "Apple Truths." Consider what would have happened if the Intel switch had happened two years earlier. Take the iBook (then, AFAIK, Apple's best-selling product). They could have gone to Pentium M (the P3-based one), which was at best in the same speed range as the G4s used in Apple laptops, and used somewhat more power, resulting in diminished battery life. Or they could have gone to Pentium 4-M (the P4-based one), which would have been somewhat faster, and used vastly more power, resulting in massively diminished battery life. Apple also at the time had the not unreasonable expectation that IBM would produce faster PPC970s, and mobile-suitable PPC970s, as was in their roadmap. The Intel switch happened because it made sense at the time; the Core Duo laptops resulted in better performance vs the G4 and only a modest battery life it, while the high-end desktop waited for the Core 2 Duo Xeons, which resulted in better performance vs the G5. It would not, however, have made sense much earlier. Obviously, they had MacOS 10 running on x86; NeXTStep did, after all, and it'd never be wise to close off options. I mean, _Windows_ supported PPC, Alpha and MIPS for a long time.