This discussion is locked
rafaelfromsan fernando

Q: IOS 7 and power macs incompatibility

Hi there

 

Today I heard ios7 is not compatible with the top version of iTunes you can install in leopard 10.5.8

Does somebody know if Apple will support US somehow, or if the company is going to keep pushing us, the ppc users, further as they have been doing the last years

 

I can't believe that they can give a better treat to Windows users for free, than old Mac users with thousands dollars machines that went to Apple someday

PowerMac, Mac OS X (10.5.8), G5 2,5 Quad

Posted on Aug 11, 2013 9:41 AM

Close

Q: IOS 7 and power macs incompatibility

  • All replies
  • Helpful answers

first Previous Page 3 of 3
  • by DieselFuelForLife,

    DieselFuelForLife DieselFuelForLife Jan 2, 2014 7:36 AM in response to a brody
    Level 2 (370 points)
    Jan 2, 2014 7:36 AM in response to a brody

    a brody wrote:

    Not quite an accurate rendition of what happened.

    It happened exactly that way. Once Apple released Intel Macs, direct 1:1 comparisons were possible without any Mac:Windows differences. You can see it in the Quad G5 Vs base Mac Pro being 67% faster despite having only 5% higher clock speed.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/947365/518855

     

    Even the reduced-spec BTO 2.0 Mac Pro is 50% faster despite having 20% less clock speed.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/compare/654124/518855

     

    a brody wrote:

    Ironically, the XBox used G5s long after Apple switched to Intel.

    That is false information.

    The Xbox used a 733MHz Intel Celeron

    The 360 used a modified Cell processor. The only thing Cell shares with a G5 is the PowerPC architecture.

     

    Calling Cell a "G5" is like saying Ford is the same as Chevy.

    G5s were faster until the Xeons got to be fully 64 bit

     

    That is false information.

    G5's were only faster in very specific tasks that leaned heavily on the AltiVec unit of the CPU, thats why Apple pushed IBM so hard to include it when IBM didn't want anything to do with it. In every other task Intel's CPUs were significantly more powerful and far more energy efficient.

    The only advantages Apple had during the PowerPC era were a better OS, better machine  quality and dedicated followers.

  • by Lexiepex,

    Lexiepex Lexiepex Jan 2, 2014 8:02 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife
    Level 6 (10,477 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 2, 2014 8:02 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife

    Now I know why I have Diesel in my car....

    Have a full and healthy 2014.

    Lex

  • by Lexiepex,

    Lexiepex Lexiepex Jan 2, 2014 8:04 AM in response to a brody
    Level 6 (10,477 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 2, 2014 8:04 AM in response to a brody

    Hi a brody, do you know the difference between Ford and Chevy, I do not really know what is the difference.

     

    Have a full and healthy 2014,

    Lex

  • by DieselFuelForLife,

    DieselFuelForLife DieselFuelForLife Jan 2, 2014 8:09 AM in response to Lexiepex
    Level 2 (370 points)
    Jan 2, 2014 8:09 AM in response to Lexiepex

    LexSchellings wrote:

     

    Hi a brody, do you know the difference between Ford and Chevy, I do not really know what is the difference.

    Just as a person who knows nothing about computers would say an Xbox uses a G5.

  • by Lexiepex,

    Lexiepex Lexiepex Jan 2, 2014 8:20 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife
    Level 6 (10,477 points)
    Mac OS X
    Jan 2, 2014 8:20 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife

    This is way over my head...

  • by a brody,

    a brody a brody Jan 2, 2014 8:21 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife
    Level 9 (66,781 points)
    Classic Mac OS
    Jan 2, 2014 8:21 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife

    Benchmarks are all nice and good.   The thing that really mattered was software being optimized for the components on the architecture.  

     

    As I remembered, there was more parallel processing done within the G5 CPU than the Intel CPU processors of the time.

     

    Of course if none of the software available took advantage of that parallel processing, no benchmark would show you reality.

     

    And by the time the Core2Duo and Xeon got to be 64 bit, all of it didn't matter anyway.  64 bit on board processing was supported, and that was easier to support than Altivec or other magic that the G4 and G5 did.  Furthermore, some software which was held back in Rosetta compatibility couldn't even take advantage of any Altivec.  Once software became Intel native, that problem went away.

  • by DieselFuelForLife,

    DieselFuelForLife DieselFuelForLife Jan 3, 2014 1:56 AM in response to a brody
    Level 2 (370 points)
    Jan 3, 2014 1:56 AM in response to a brody
    a brody wrote:

     

    Of course if none of the software available took advantage of that parallel processing, no benchmark would show you reality.

    Wrong again.

  • by a brody,

    a brody a brody Jan 3, 2014 6:18 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife
    Level 9 (66,781 points)
    Classic Mac OS
    Jan 3, 2014 6:18 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife

    Wrong again?  What do you mean by that?  Did you even read what I wrote? 


    Fine, I'll say wrong again....stop making it a p* match, and explain what is wrong.   Otherwise don't post.  If you don't have something nice to say, don't post.

     

    Get off your high horse, and read what I said.   I said "IF."  How can a hypothetical condition be wrong.   Such a situation can occur.   If a software can't approach the Altivec vector processing, it can never truly gage how fast Altivec will be for software that does.     That's what I mean to say when I said what I said.   Can you prove that your benchmark software took advantage of Altivec?  Can you prove your software took advantage of the 64 bit capabilities in the G5?  If not, get off your high horse, and don't believe everything your benchmark software said, unless you wrote it yourself.

  • by DieselFuelForLife,

    DieselFuelForLife DieselFuelForLife Jan 4, 2014 2:24 AM in response to a brody
    Level 2 (370 points)
    Jan 4, 2014 2:24 AM in response to a brody

    a brody wrote:


    and explain what is wrong.

    Please read my prior posts, I have already explained why you don't understand the discussion.

     

    Can you prove that my benchmark software doesn't take advantage of Altivec?  Can you prove my software doesn't take advantage of the 64 bit capabilities in the G5?

  • by a brody,

    a brody a brody Jan 4, 2014 8:50 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife
    Level 9 (66,781 points)
    Classic Mac OS
    Jan 4, 2014 8:50 AM in response to DieselFuelForLife

    I don't have time to do that now.  If you wish to pay me I would.  But my point is, you have in other threads ignored how some people may not have Intel native application compatible documents.  That's essential before anyone can upgrade.   Do what you will.  But please I don't have time to waste anymore arguing with you.

first Previous Page 3 of 3