Make an AMV. Buy a Powerbook.

[dwchang]

now that being said. . .arent the g4s still similar to PCs in overall implementations?

x86 != PowerPC

Very different architectures. Maybe if you stretch you could say that...we both have FPUs...we both have ALUs...we both have..err...regiesters?....etc.

[spav]

now that being said. . .arent the g4s still similar to PCs in overall implementations?

Like i heard their core bus speed is still a single data rate 133mhz for the newest, and been 66 for a long time before that. . .and g4 dont have much cache at all.

Keep in mind that the bus speeds of both PC and Mac are there to maintain compatibility with everything else except the processor. The processor has to communicate with the PCI bus and all the other peripherals like your hard drive and other goodies. Thats why clock speeds of processors are multiples of the bus speed. In essence they have to talk slower to the PCI and other peripherals. CPUs can talk directly to memory at full speed and AGP using the nortbridge controller. After that they use the Southbridge at bus speed to do everything else.

DDR is basically full duplex bus communication. And DDR is used in all new Apple hardware. At least everything 1Ghz or above. Also if you're looking at the Powerbook...the 15" models are due a for an update soon, I'd wait a bit if I were you.

This is all set to change. Intel's implementation of PCI-X and Apple/AMD's hypertransport is gonna make all this a moot point.

At this point Apple appears to be dumping motoroloa for IBM's Power PC 970. Speeds start at 1.8Ghz and the real kicker is it's a 64bit chip. Compared to all the 32-bit flavors out there.

It's all a matter of what you want to do. I just got here (hence the low post count) but damn...I didn't buy my mac for AMVs, but I will squeeze every drop of what I can get from it to make a few.

[dwchang]

This is all set to change. Intel's implementation of PCI-X and Apple/AMD's hypertransport is gonna make all this a moot point.

Ooh he says the magical "H" word . You obviously know what you're talking about or at least keep us since you know about HyperTransport..although any technical site could tell you all that.

At this point Apple appears to be dumping motoroloa for IBM's Power PC 970. Speeds start at 1.8Ghz and the real kicker is it's a 64bit chip. Compared to all the 32-bit flavors out there.

Yup. That appears to be true as well. Would've been nice if they picked us instead .

[spav]

Ooh he says the magical "H" word . You obviously know what you're talking about or at least keep us since you know about HyperTransport..although any technical site could tell you all that.

I'd like to know more about Hypertransport...I haven't seen much in a while...My awareness is that it's just a new way of talking to peripherals effectively replacing PCI. But...Intel goes it's own way with PCI-X...so how is AMD going to go about this? I would expect you would know I don't claim to be the all-knowing hardware guru...although my friends treat me that way, I'm always open to being told that I'm wrong.

Yup. That appears to be true as well. Would've been nice if they picked us instead .

I think Apple would go intel compatible sometime in the future. But I don't think they can make that switch that quickly due to the codebase being written for PowerPC. The thing to remember is that kernels can be recompiled along with the rest of the OS in a minimum of time. Being on a more standardized platform helps. Which is why it's easy enough for them to move to 64-bit. It should be almost as easy...granted more tweaking would be necessary to go to Intel compatible.

What Apple will do though is probably make is possible to use those processors but still lock the hardware to their machines, making cloning more difficult, but not impossible. I'd like to see that happen...and truthfully...settle on AMD. I think that would be the most cost effective, and better choice. And if they have hypertransport running already, then it's really a no-brainer...so give it some time.

[dwchang]

Ooh he says the magical "H" word . You obviously know what you're talking about or at least keep us since you know about HyperTransport..although any technical site could tell you all that.

I'd like to know more about Hypertransport...I haven't seen much in a while...My awareness is that it's just a new way of talking to peripherals effectively replacing PCI. But...Intel goes it's own way with PCI-X...so how is AMD going to go about this? I would expect you would know I don't claim to be the all-knowing hardware guru...although my friends treat me that way, I'm always open to being told that I'm wrong.

NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) sorry man. Although, basically Hypertransport does exactly what it says. As for Intel, since I don't give a shit about leaking things for them (since they obviously are stupid and we've heard), I've heard they're doing the exact same thing as Hyper-Transport (with a few LITTLE differences) and calling it something else. I think they just don't want to admit and use the exact same thing as us...although it is based on the same technique and research.

I think Apple would go intel compatible sometime in the future. But I don't think they can make that switch that quickly due to the codebase being written for PowerPC. The thing to remember is that kernels can be recompiled along with the rest of the OS in a minimum of time. Being on a more standardized platform helps. Which is why it's easy enough for them to move to 64-bit. It should be almost as easy...granted more tweaking would be necessary to go to Intel compatible.

What Apple will do though is probably make is possible to use those processors but still lock the hardware to their machines, making cloning more difficult, but not impossible. I'd like to see that happen...and truthfully...settle on AMD. I think that would be the most cost effective, and better choice. And if they have hypertransport running already, then it's really a no-brainer...so give it some time.

Well...I've heard things (no confirmations), but I can't even mention that. Suffice to say, I know they are interested in making the x86 jump that we've all been waiting some 15+ years for. I don't want anyone to misinterpret me as saying "FACT" or not. Some things, I hear rumors just like you guys.

[Mroni]

Ok here are some observations I have made.

1.Apples are ridicuoulsy priced. For the power they have it's really terrible.

2. Windows Xp's interface sucks compared to 98.

3.Apples Os is like from another planet and I am sorry It is nowhere as easy to use as windows.

4. There is nothing a powerbook can do that my compaq 3015 us can't.


5.Buy what you like it's your money. Nothing you can say will make me plunk out money on a mac.


Mr Oni

[dwchang]

Ok here are some observations I have made.

1.Apples are ridicuoulsy priced. For the power they have it's really terrible.

2. Windows Xp's interface sucks compared to 98.

3.Apples Os is like from another planet and I am sorry It is nowhere as easy to use as windows.

4. There is nothing a powerbook can do that my compaq 3015 us can't.


5.Buy what you like it's your money. Nothing you can say will make me plunk out money on a mac.


Mr Oni

Not to be an ass Mr. Oni (in fact a compliment), but this is the first time I've seen you post something fairly non-flamatory and not ridiculous or off-topic. I applaud that, although I can see your next post saying something dumb or making fun of me..oh well..just wanted to say .

[Bahamut God]

As a mac user, I say make sure you really want a mac. They cost a lot more, but they really do some things better. However, they also can't do a few thing pc's can do.

They are better editors. FCP, if you can find a copy of it is a great program. No getting around that. However, unless you are going to make a dvd out of your file, it's hard to get out a high quialty internet verson of your video. The mac just does not exspect people to put out the kind of files amvers want to see. (they do good super compresion, where you get large files down to very small sizes, but you defently see a quailty problem. Not bad for stremed internet comericals, but a problem for amvers.

Also, the p2p scene sucks.

Getting over that, OSX is the most stable platfrom I have ever scene. I have only had a full system (had to restart the computer) once in the whole year and a half or so of running OSx. Indavgual programs will shut down more often, but never the whole system. Also it is kind of hard to get used to if you are used to a diffrent program, but one you get the hang of running OSX it's pretty damn easy. (I waited forever to go from os9 to osX because of the learning curve, but I'm glad I did now.)

All in all, I think it's better to have one of each. ^_^ (I'm more than likely going to get a pc some day.)

[LSM53]

as soon as u mention Mac's and PC's in the same sentence, you are gonna start a quazi-religious debate among people, some people are pc fanatics (like myself) and will tell you that the only thing Mac's are good for is making fun of, and making fun of the people that use them

Mac users will say likewise, but you have to decide what you want, what your most comfortable with, many people can point out the good and bad of each platform. You need to decide what you want and what you are willing to sacrafice. Stabilty for less programs? More support and diversity for less money but at the cost of stabilty?

Its up to you

[the Black Monarch]

I've heard that Windows 2000 is a really, really good OS. It's like Windows done the way Apple would make it... very stable, very efficient use of system resources, etc. Windows XP is almost as good as 2000 in those respects.

Mr. Oni, if you know what you're doing, you can make Windows XP look exactly like Windows 95/98/2000/ME/whatever in about 30 seconds. It's not that hard.