Did I waste my time with ppc?[solved]

gnufreax · n00b Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 42

Since Apple said they will prefer x86 CPU´s I am a little disapointed... I am using Macs for nearly 6 years now and ran all kinds of BSD and Linux on them because i believed in the Power PC archicture... Now i am asking me if i wasted all my time with Linux on PPC.... I will never buy an x86 based Mac... but what should i buy in future?... An PS3 based Cluster for example? Or should I switch to x86... Right now i am sitting in front of my IBook G4 next to th Xserver of our Company being very frustrated... Will the Power PC die like the Alpha did? What do you think because Apple is no longer thinking different? :cry:

_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates

nixnut · Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:08 pm Post subject:

There will be ppc machines around for years, so why worry about something that is still years off?
Look at the alpha. That processor has been declared dead years ago, but it is still being sold, there's a Gentoo arch for it, there's even talk of resurrecting it. New ppc processors are still being developed so the platform is far from extinct or dying out.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered

talk is cheap. supply exceeds demand

gnufreax · n00b Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 42

Okay the Alpha is still there but not in the it was when it first came out and i think the PPC will have the future...
The Cell Processor is the only light these days but you can not write programs for it like on the PPC or x86 assembly language and even if Frescale and IBM Processor are put on Pegasosboards it will never be the same i think...
And if Apple switches to x86 look how "well" this worked for NeXT....
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates

Patchoulol · n00b Joined: 12 Mar 2004 Posts: 17

gnufreax · n00b Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 42

I only use Mac OSX for Multimedia,Excel etc but Linux for work and i like Linux on PPC its the best operating system on the best platform. I worked with Alpha , Sun Sparc , x86 from 286 to Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 and i still think x86 is not great...
The CPU´s have more Megahertz but they have longer Pipelines consume much more power and their SIMD´s are rarely used... and even if you use them you get only a little more speed... They are not really RISC CPU´s and there is no real true 64 Bit CPU in the x86 world expect the Itanium wich 64 Bit Architecture is meanly based on the Alpha... in other worlds i think the x86 are cheap but that´s all....
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates

pilla · Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:04 pm Post subject:

AFAIK, Intel IA-64 architecture (EPIC) is not derived nor like the Alpha architecture. EPIC is an example of a VLIW (Very Large Instruction Word) architecture, while Alphas are RISC.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin

AlphaBetaGamma · n00b Joined: 12 Jun 2005 Posts: 6

Isn't the Pegasos sold as a motherboard with a PowerPC processor? What's wrong with using that?

gnufreax · n00b Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 42

The Itanium is a processor with Explicitly Parallel Instruction Computing (EPIC) in it´s ISA...okay
the Itanium was designed by HP and Intel at the beginning....
but today the Itanium 2 was also designed with Alpha engineers, future Intel Chips based upon the Intel P6 Architecture like Itanium will use very much Alpha technology from the EV8. I like the idea behind Pegasosboards but for the features they offer they are still not as cheap as macs... I think the next computers/consoles which i buy will be amd64 and cell based...
Apple only choose Intel because IBM couldn´t offer what they wanted...like a 3 Ghz G5 in Summer 2004...and Apple wants to make more in multimedia i think which is a great market if you think about the next gameconsoles which are all more or less Power PC based. So Apple can only compete against them with cheaper Processors, Steve also said it´s a business not an technology problem with IBM. And if Apple would use Cell or Power PC it couldn´t compete with Microsoft and Sony i think because both have more money than Apple. So what do you think tell me your ideas and thoughts please...
_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates

pilla · Posted: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:55 pm Post subject:

Architecture and technology are two different things.
_________________
"I'm just very selective about the reality I choose to accept." -- Calvin

gnufreax · n00b Joined: 25 Jul 2004 Posts: 42

Architecture and technology are two different things...but what does a architecture do when new technologys are put in it...? So i think this discussion has to come to an end if there is anything else post it perhaps i had to write clearer what i mean, i am very sorry if anyone misunderstood me...the alpha is not the point in this discussion, it´s a dream cpu but i am a little bit afraid with Power PC´s on Desktop use...i think time will tell us what will come and go and i hope to see more than just on architecture in the future...and by the way SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY SORRY for my really bad english.. :oops:

_________________
"No PC will ever need more then 64 KB of ram.." Bill Gates

KB7OEB · Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 3:38 am Post subject:

Other than being a pain to install what benefit is there to running linux on a ppc mac? I do it at work because I have a g4 that would otherwise go to waste since my employer is switching to dell.

Its great that gentoo runs on ppc and I have a couple old macs that are still usefull because of it but I would never go out and buy a new mac, x86 is just cheaper and thats why apple is switching.

_savage · Guru Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 308 Location: Redmond, WA

Gnufreax: why do you have a problem with the architecture that your OS is running on? Do you work on that level and are exposed to it? I mean, if it's more of a religious thing -- get over it. The x86 is an architecture just like any other, with advantages and disadvantages. Unless you're "down there" why bother with the hardware, if it gets the job done?

As for Apple: I think it is a clever and strategic move. Personally, I love my TiBook and the PowerPC architecture (yes, because I work down at that level). I think it's sad that Apple made that move, but I do understand the necessity of it. The Intel CPU is probably cheaper, it is faster (and now they can exploit the "GHz" buzz). It's a more wide spread architecture, thus they'd sell their OS to a wider range of customers. If they settle the deal with Dell then they have great cards, especially if they manage to release the new OS-X before Windows Vista. And then look at all those people who (for whatever weird reason) wish to run Windows software on their Macs: it will be much more performant to get that running (a la Wine) instead of emulating an entire x86 architecture using VPC.

Apple may leave the PowerPC world, but I don't think that matters much to IBM. Many of the next generation game consoles will run on variations of the Power architecture, and Sony even announced to support Linux on Cell. There's still IBM selling Power servers, there are the Pegasos boards. So if you're after an architecture to host Linux and which is not an Intel based architecture, I think you'll be safe for the next few years ;-)

_________________
Jens Troeger
http://savage.light-speed.de/

nokilli · Apprentice Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Posts: 196

I don't know enough about the architectures to comment on that aspect of it, only that x86 just has better support for Linux, so that would be my preferred platform for running it.

Just look at everything here at Gentoo that still has ~ppc defined, even things like tintin! Or games like Unreal Tournament or DOOM III or Neverwinter Nights that won't ever be available on Linux PPC.

Then there's x86 as a superior development platform to PPC. For instance, you can't do hardware watch points in gdb on PPC.

Less LiveCD's on PPC. Way more endianness issues with PPC (why ALSA has been such a bear for so long). Much more difficult to build your own PPC box from the ground up (is it even practical?)

Don't get me wrong, I love my Pismo, but a big reason for that is that is can also run MacOS 9 and OS X. Take that consideration away and I'd be much happier on a Pentium Centrino laptop.

_savage · Guru Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 308 Location: Redmond, WA

Hehe...

nokilli · Apprentice Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Posts: 196

_savage · Guru Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 308 Location: Redmond, WA

Elenyon · n00b Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 44 Location: Philadelphia

Brian.Cohen · n00b Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 6

What's the ... deal ?

1. PowerPC is superior to x86 and will still be in 30 years or whatever timeframe you consider !
2. Intel does a very dirty job in stealing technology like MS did with their DOS. (realise that MS hacked their own OS from one release to the next)
3. If every game console on the market in 2 years is based on PowerPC programmers are about to start thinking Power instead of thinking x86 !?
3.1 remember that MS won the race against a superior Product (Warp) 10 years ago the moment the Game Developers Conference announced
Win95 as the Game development Platform for the next decade.
4. Apple did at no time really support the PPC.
4.1 Mac OS classic was an OS based on common Code for 68k and PPC they only dropped the 68 initialization code by V8.5.
4.2 MacOSX is based and developed on x86 and Apple made sure it is not too PPC/Altuvec optimized to keep it compatible with P4!
4.3 Apple's compilers did not really support or optimize for Altivec at any time. (yes there are really Altivectorizing compilers : GHS, VAST)
4.4 Apple did hold inovation back to promote their P4 based machines (their init system does the magick trick of booting so fast not the P4's)
5. Intel's CEO Paul Ottelini is known to have said that the CPU-Market of the future is dominated by the right politics not the better technology and so
does he.

Result: I own a P4-2.0Ghz-512MB. I have never owned a mac nor anything based on CHRP, CHRP2, SURGE or PREP.
The truth has to stay the truth ! ! !

Stay tuned,

B.

_savage · Guru Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 308 Location: Redmond, WA

Brian.Cohen · n00b Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 6

You are from Gremany _savage, right ?
Did you cover the news ? Did you notice that Intel is fined millions every month for stealing technology ?
You are asking for evidence ! Did you ever work with PowerPC or even have seen one in reality ?
you germanians are asking for evidence when faced with the truth but need no evidence for claiming things
and take them for true.
Did you ever notice that the FPU of a PPC970@2.5Ghz has the power of a 3.5Ghz Pentium system ?
Did you ever compare EEMBC results of PowerPC to Intel systems ?
Lets stay in Germany and your neighbourhood and face the fact that the PPC based Dreambox (Dreammultimedia, Lünen/Germany)
is a top selling product and the x86 based Reelbox (Austria based Company) never saw the light of day (not mentioning the Beta phase of 3 month production)
In an Era of computing where PhysX and AI-Accelerator chips clebrate their debut there has to be a good reason for MS and co to buy PPC chips without the need of such expensive s**t as these chips.
Apple did not at any point support PPC ! To have a fancy GUI is based on OpenGL programming and thats GPU not CPU ! To compile a kernel on PPC is not the trick to make it use the characteristics of a particular Arch' is the big deal !
It is true and a blessing that the Era of Intel and Co. is dying ! But you germanians are following the philosophy of what you call "Realitätsverdrängung" !

B.

_savage · Guru Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 308 Location: Redmond, WA

This is starting to amuse me. Although I would appreciate you staying on topic rather than getting personal.

Brian.Cohen · n00b Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 6

Hi Jens,

you are right. it is very funny I could throw myself out of the window so funny it is !

Imagine following story: Someone asks a question. Someone gives him an answer, some other people participate in the discussion.
Then someone gives some points to think about, some little facts everyone could see if they do the needed research on some topics
on the internet. Then someone comes and claims that theese are all lies and turns this discussion personal. Someone who worked for
intel in the past and works for Microsoft at the present.

Back in the reality what do you think ? Is this person paid by Microsoft and/or Intel to claim such things, or is he an idiot ? :oops:

Some words of wisdom : www.intergraph.com/ip/documents/journal/11203.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/07/intel_64bit/
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/33255.html
http://www.eembc.com/Benchmark/digital_entertainment.asp <--- let us not forget, theese are real world benchmarks and not Intel optimized benchmarks like Spec95 or whatever it is.

B.

_savage · Guru Joined: 06 Jun 2004 Posts: 308 Location: Redmond, WA