Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 25/03/11 8:03 AM, Jonathan Smith wrote: Might this help? QC 2.66 mac pro (as example) BTU info.. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2836 G5 Power Mac BTU info... http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486 Thanks for this. It will be interesting to see if someone has comparatively cra

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 2011/03/25 07:08, Nestamicky so eloquently wrote: On 24/03/11 11:31 AM, Tina K. wrote: Look, I'm no Intel fan. Point of fact I hate Intel and always buy AMD when building a computer. But the bottom line is that I can do more in less time, and use half the electricity in the process, with my

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

> Which SMC do you use? I build my own DSDTs, by hand. The device within the DSDT is a usual one. Device (BUS0) { Name (_CID, "smbus") Name (_ADR, Zero) Device (DVL0) {

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 24, 3:39 pm, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > forget it. ah clem has a set belief system and mere facts will not dislodge > it. I'm done feeding the troll. > bruce, i respect your knowledge and i respect that you volunteer help and advice to all who post to this list and others. i am not blowing

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Peter Which SMC do you use? -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowen

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Might this help? QC 2.66 mac pro (as example) BTU info.. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2836 G5 Power Mac BTU info... http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486 On Mar 25, 1:08 pm, Nestamicky wrote: > On 24/03/11 11:31 AM, Tina K. wrote: > Tina, what proof have you for power consu

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

> The OS is what you use; the nuts and bolts don't > matter... > My $.02 ... And, the kernel of that OS is copyright by The Regents of The University of California, before there ever was a 68K Mac, much less a PPC Mac or an Intel Mac. One of the reasons Hackintoshing is so easy, now, is the kern

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Yes, yes, I know what you're saying, and I feel your pain. I loved the Gs (all of them), and from experience, know that my G4 Sawtooth easily outperformed my Celeron of the same speed. But Motorola/IBM couldn't keep up. They were unable to deliver processors that could be kept cool in the increa

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 24/03/11 11:31 AM, Tina K. wrote: Look, I'm no Intel fan. Point of fact I hate Intel and always buy AMD when building a computer. But the bottom line is that I can do more in less time, and use half the electricity in the process, with my QC Mac Pro than I could with my DP G5 Power Mac. Tina

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 21/03/11 1:37 PM, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote: Do I own true Macintoshes? Yes. Do I use said Macintoses? No, their performance is too low to meet my needed and expected performance requirements. Do I own and use Hackintoshes? Yes, their performance meets, or exceeds, my needed and expected pe

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

At 11:31 AM -0600 3/24/2011, Tina K. wrote: Did you follow the IBM POWER links posted on this subject? The POWER CPU is HUGE and I'm guessing that it would need a huge enclosure, huge amounts of cooling, huge amounts of electricity, and cost a fortune.

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Tina K. wrote: > > Did you follow the IBM POWER links posted on this subject? The POWER CPU is > HUGE and I'm guessing that it would need a huge enclosure, huge amounts of > cooling, huge amounts of electricity, and cost a fortune. forget it. ah clem has a set be

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 2011/03/24 09:38, ah...clem so eloquently wrote: intel is junk, and the switch to intel was a HUGE step backwards for apple. and "puhleeze," spare us all the stories about how fast your MacPro is compared to an MDD. that proves NOTHING. the relevant question is, how fast would a MacPro be if

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Ah...clem, I couldn't agree with you more on that!!! I am not too happy with my Macbook either, that I'm still using my Tibook!!! > >On Mar 22, 3:09 pm, Daniel Stewart >wrote: >> >> Not surprising that you have had hardware issues with the Intel Macs. >>  I have been doing service work o

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 3:09 pm, Daniel Stewart wrote: > > Not surprising that you have had hardware issues with the Intel Macs. >  I have been doing service work on PCs for years and that is pretty > standard with intel based systems.    I have to ask though with the > X86 Mac what on earth was Apple thinking

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 2011/03/23 11:30, Dan so eloquently wrote: I'll betcha a few million quatloos Brother can you spare a quatloo? ;-) Tina -- iMac 20" USB 2 1.25GHz G4 2GB RAM GeForceFX5200 Ultra 64MB VRAM 10.4.11 PB G4 15" HR-DLSD 1.67GHz G4 2GB RAM Radeon 9700 128MB VRAM 10.4.11 Mac Pro Mid-2010 2.8 GHz

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Once again this is going off topic but this seems to be the thread for it. One thing that was impressive with the G4 in it's day compared to the P4s of the same time was that you could get similar or better performance from a CPU that used only passive cooling (heatsink). P4s at the time ran craz

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

> I have the latest DVD > rip I'm sending to a TiVo, will run on both machines to confirm exact > ratio I see. So, the DVD I transcoded from rips, the MDD Dual 1.25 G4 = 115 min, the Quad 2.8 Intel = 19 min. 1/6 the time. It was an 1:35 long DVD, encoded to .mpg for TiVo. Some other format changes

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 23, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Dan wrote: > *shrug* > > This is all moot now tho as you just ain't gonna be running OS X on a POWER > based system! Also, it is moot now that Apple has the infrastructure in place to use the GPU as a vector processor which is probably faster than Altivec and S

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

At 9:44 AM -0700 3/23/2011, imrazor wrote: On Mar 23, 9:34 am, Dan wrote: At 7:15 AM -0700 3/23/2011, imrazor wrote: This is good too: > Thanks Dan, that's a very good summary for a non-coder like myself. Apple claims that Altive

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 23, 9:34 am, Dan wrote: > At 7:15 AM -0700 3/23/2011, imrazor wrote: > This is good too: > > > - Dan. Thanks Dan, that's a very good summary for a non-coder like myself. Apple claims that Altivec is twice as fast as SSE1/2/3 at 8

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

At 7:15 AM -0700 3/23/2011, imrazor wrote: > Ok, I'll ask - I am well aware of how AltiVec functioned. And no argument that an Intel-written SW may not properly run on a PPC to take advantage. Honest question though - Doesn't Intel have a similar functioning SIMD unit? Also 128bit wide? If t

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

> Ok, I'll ask - I am well aware of how AltiVec functioned. And no > argument that an Intel-written SW may not properly run on a PPC to > take advantage. Honest question though - Doesn't Intel have a similar > functioning SIMD unit? Also 128bit wide? If that's the case, I'd > expect that a 4x2.8GHz

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 23, 12:29 am, "ah...clem" wrote: > On Mar 22, 11:57 am, Bruce Johnson > wrote: > > > Oh puleeeze. You're claiming a dual 1.25 Ghz G4 on a 333 mHz bus can > > compare to a Mac Pro (which at a MINIMUM has 2 2.66Ghz dual core Xeons with > > 667 Mhz memory bus) with a few COMPILER TWEAKS??

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 11:57 am, Bruce Johnson wrote: > Oh puleeeze. You're claiming a dual 1.25 Ghz G4 on a 333 mHz bus can compare > to a Mac Pro (which at a MINIMUM has 2 2.66Ghz dual core Xeons with 667 Mhz > memory bus) with a few COMPILER TWEAKS??? (which tweaks, BTW, Apple's dev > tools pretty much

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Yes I may have used the wrong term, what i meant by "ripping" a DVD, is making it so I can play it as an MP4 file in iTunes/QuickTime/VLC etc. I always do a little research, to find an already built PC that is compatible with Leopard. However, the computer I have now, I ended up with it for free,

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

My experience has been the inverse of yours. My iBook G3's graphics chip went out (yes, it's a know flaw, but regardless, the system failed) and the L3 cache on my 1.42GHz MDD G4 failed, causing instability and requiring a replacement CPU card. The iMac G4 I gave to my sister died too, it gets

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 3/22/2011 1:52 PM, Jonas Ulrich wrote: I remember it taking about four days to rip a DVD (REALLY high quality rip) using HandBrake on a Dual 1GHZ MDD. I then ripped the same DVD on a 2.8GHZ P4 Hackintosh in one day. I will say that I have seen A LOT more hardware problems with the newer Macs

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 7:42 pm, Dan wrote: > At 12:24 PM -0700 3/22/2011, JoeTaxpayer wrote: > > >On Mar 22, 2:52 pm, Jonas Ulrich wrote: > >>  I remember it taking about four days to rip a DVD (REALLY high quality > >> rip) > >>  using HandBrake on a Dual 1GHZ MDD. I then ripped the same DVD on a 2.8GHZ

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

At 12:24 PM -0700 3/22/2011, JoeTaxpayer wrote: On Mar 22, 2:52 pm, Jonas Ulrich wrote: I remember it taking about four days to rip a DVD (REALLY high quality rip) using HandBrake on a Dual 1GHZ MDD. I then ripped the same DVD on a 2.8GHZ P4 Hackintosh in one day. Jonas, when you say "rip"

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

I've never used integrated graphics on any of my hackintoshes, mainly because I play some games and run a multiple monitor setup, but when I did use a Mac Mini with GMA 950 it wasn't that bad. As far as system brands go, most of my hacks are custom built boxes, it's just easier in my opinion to

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

I use GMA900 graphics on four different Hackintosh machines and it works great with full ability to change resolutions, as well QE & CI. >From my experience, HP is terrible. There have been a couple machines that are descent, but I go with Dell. -Jonas -- You received this message because you a

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

>> Only one Mac uses Intel graphics > > A few more than one. > > I'm counting at least 12 models with three different families of Intel > graphics. > > Without these many [ a ] hackintosh would be SOL. And, the "Macks" would be SOL, too. Although all standard distributions have GMA950 and GMAX31

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: Only one Mac uses Intel graphics A few more than one. I'm counting at least 12 models with three different families of Intel graphics. Without these many hackintosh would be SOL. Intel GMA 800: developer Mac Pro Intel GMA 950: MacBook

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

>> I have to ask though with the >> X86 Mac what on earth was Apple thinking with Intel integrated >> graphics. Intel integrated GPUs were considered a joke on the Wintel >> side long before Apple made the switch so why got with a graphics >> platform that many consider to be an oxymoron especi

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Daniel Stewart wrote: > I have to ask though with the > X86 Mac what on earth was Apple thinking with Intel integrated > graphics. Intel integrated GPUs were considered a joke on the Wintel > side long before Apple made the switch so why got with a graphics > plat

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 2:52 pm, Jonas Ulrich wrote: > I remember it taking about four days to rip a DVD (REALLY high quality rip) > using HandBrake on a Dual 1GHZ MDD. I then ripped the same DVD on a 2.8GHZ > P4 Hackintosh in one day. Jonas, when you say "rip" do you mean encode? My G4s rip (copy the DVD) in

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 10:42 am, "ah...clem" wrote: > there you go AGAIN, confusing software performance with CPU > performance.  the apps you refer to were written for the Win/Tel > architecture, and ported to the PPC by lazy and/or incompetent boobs > who wouldn't or couldn't rewrite the program from the gr

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Very true. That comment was intended to only be half serious with a little humour. That certainly works too. On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Daniel Stewart wrote: > >> Actually you can roll your own apps for PPC.  That's what Linux for >> P

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Daniel Stewart wrote: > Actually you can roll your own apps for PPC. That's what Linux for > PPC or if you want serious geek cred NetBSD PPC is for. lol Or Apple's developer tools -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technolo

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Not surprising that you have had hardware issues with the Intel Macs. I have been doing service work on PCs for years and that is pretty standard with intel based systems.I have to ask though with the X86 Mac what on earth was Apple thinking with Intel integrated graphics. Intel integrated G

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

I remember it taking about four days to rip a DVD (REALLY high quality rip) using HandBrake on a Dual 1GHZ MDD. I then ripped the same DVD on a 2.8GHZ P4 Hackintosh in one day. I will say that I have seen A LOT more hardware problems with the newer Macs, as oposed to the rock solid G4 towers. -Jo

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Actually you can roll your own apps for PPC. That's what Linux for PPC or if you want serious geek cred NetBSD PPC is for. lol On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Tina K. wrote: > On 2011/03/22 08:42, ah...clem so eloquently wrote: >> >> On Mar 22, 7:10 am, JoeTaxpayer  wrote: >>> >>> >  Tina - you

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 2011/03/22 08:42, ah...clem so eloquently wrote: On Mar 22, 7:10 am, JoeTaxpayer wrote: > Tina - you hit the nail on the head here. I was running Dual 1.25GHz > MDD G4 which I still love, 3 of them helping to keep my house warm. > The only thing they are slow at is the video encode. You

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

t; Sender: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:00:39 To: Reply-To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: OT OT OT need a reason ? On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Daniel Stewart wrote: > >> But truth be tol

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 2011, at 10:25 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Daniel Stewart wrote: > >> But truth be told they have >> found they are much more impressed with the old G4s because unlike the >> new faster Intel macs the G4s are actually consistently reliable. >> Their Int

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:42 AM, ah...clem wrote: > there you go AGAIN, confusing software performance with CPU > performance. the apps you refer to were written for the Win/Tel > architecture, and ported to the PPC by lazy and/or incompetent boobs > who wouldn't or couldn't rewrite the program from

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Richard Gerome wrote: > >> >>   I would like to see "AMD" because I'm not crazy about my 2008 Macbook with >> 2G processor and 2G memory running Snow Leopard... My old Titanium Powerbook >> A1025 runs better

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 22, 7:10 am, JoeTaxpayer wrote: > Tina - you hit the nail on the head here. I was running Dual 1.25GHz > MDD G4 which I still love, 3 of them helping to keep my house warm. > The only thing they are slow at is the video encode. You Tube, no > issue. But the encode? 2-4 hours per hour of v

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 21, 2011, at 10:32 PM, Daniel Stewart wrote: > But truth be told they have > found they are much more impressed with the old G4s because unlike the > new faster Intel macs the G4s are actually consistently reliable. > Their Intel Macs are consistently crashing or malfunctioning in some > o

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Tina - you hit the nail on the head here. I was running Dual 1.25GHz MDD G4 which I still love, 3 of them helping to keep my house warm. The only thing they are slow at is the video encode. You Tube, no issue. But the encode? 2-4 hours per hour of video depending on the format change. I bought the

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

I think with the comparison of the laptop G4s to current intel offerings is a like comparing apples and oranges but that is a different story. The point I am looking to make here is the Intel Mac may be faster then the older PPC offerings but I would like to point out that a friend of mine works i

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 21, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Richard Gerome wrote: > > I would like to see "AMD" because I'm not crazy about my 2008 Macbook with > 2G processor and 2G memory running Snow Leopard... My old Titanium Powerbook > A1025 runs better running Tiger!!! Then something is seriously wrong with your

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

I would like to see "AMD" because I'm not crazy about my 2008 Macbook with 2G processor and 2G memory running Snow Leopard... My old Titanium Powerbook A1025 runs better running Tiger!!! I guess we will see if Apple jumps ship with them??? >I have a sentimental attachment to my PPC Macs, a

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On 2011/03/21 14:02, Bruce Johnson so eloquently wrote: I have the latest and greatest ever PPC laptop, an AlBook 1.67 ghz system. compared to even the worst performing Macbook, it scks. It's perfectly usable (it's in daily use) but I don't make any pretense about it being a modern, 'capa

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 21, 2011, at 1:59 PM, Dan wrote: > At 1:44 PM -0700 3/21/2011, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote: >> > IBM had no interest in making low-power, high-performance PPC processors >>> for Apple, Motorola, errr, 'Freescale' couldn't and the primary driver of >>> computer sales (laptops) was rapidly le

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

At 1:44 PM -0700 3/21/2011, peterh...@cruzio.com wrote: > IBM had no interest in making low-power, high-performance PPC processors for Apple, Motorola, errr, 'Freescale' couldn't and the primary driver of computer sales (laptops) was rapidly leaving Apple behind. IBM did, indeed, make such

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

> IBM had no interest in making low-power, high-performance PPC processors > for Apple, Motorola, errr, 'Freescale' couldn't and the primary driver of > computer sales (laptops) was rapidly leaving Apple behind. IBM did, indeed, make such processors. They are now at G7-level, which is at least T

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 21, 2011, at 10:54 AM, ah...clem wrote: > none of which would have been so easy or even possible had they not > pretended that they were "forced" to switch to the grossly inferior > intel CPUs. There was no pretense involved here at all. IBM had no interest in making low-power, high-p

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

> gosh, and you haven't been thrown into a window-less (pun intended) > dungeon below SJ's house for EULA violations, yet? Apple's Draconian EULA is essentially unenforceable against individual end-users. Sure, there is, indeed, case law against blatantly commercial violations of its EULA (Psyst

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 16, 4:17 pm, Jonas Ulrich wrote: > Apple has no reason to support all the different hardware out there. > However, if you buy the right hardware, it's pretty simple to install > Leopard or Snow Leopard on a PC. I currently run two Hackintosh's, one a > desktop and one a laptop. They run gr

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Anne Keller-Smith wrote: > John, > > You are absolutely right that the clones were wonderful for the users. > > My husband had a Power Computing machine that was great. > > Did not work for Apple, though, marketing-wise. > > Either that or the whole effort was mis

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

John, You are absolutely right that the clones were wonderful for the users. My husband had a Power Computing machine that was great. Did not work for Apple, though, marketing-wise. Either that or the whole effort was missing a Steve Jobs something or other. On Mar 19, 2011, at 10:39 PM, J

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 19, 2011, at 4:33 PM, Anne Keller-Smith wrote: > They did do this already, didn't they, sort of, with the Mac clones? Totally > did not work ... > > On Mar 16, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: > >> Need a reason to think an Apple OS for PC would be a good thing? >> >>

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

They did do this already, didn't they, sort of, with the Mac clones? Totally did not work ... On Mar 16, 2011, at 12:40 PM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: Need a reason to think an Apple OS for PC would be a good thing? Extrapolate from this report. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/apple-th

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Apple has no reason to support all the different hardware out there. However, if you buy the right hardware, it's pretty simple to install Leopard or Snow Leopard on a PC. I currently run two Hackintosh's, one a desktop and one a laptop. They run great and are totally worth the time it takes to set

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

Well said. Apple doing QUITE well these days. On Mar 16, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: > >> Need a reason to think an Apple OS for PC would be a good thing? >> >> Extrapolate from this report. > > Which report has *not

Re: OT OT OT need a reason ?

On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio wrote: > Need a reason to think an Apple OS for PC would be a good thing? > > Extrapolate from this report. Which report has *nothing* to do with OS X; its merely a statement of the overwhelming market dominance of iTunes/iTunes Store/IOS in

OT OT OT need a reason ?

Need a reason to think an Apple OS for PC would be a good thing? Extrapolate from this report. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/apple-the-worlds-most-important-windows-software-developer/9786?tag=nl.e539 -- Adrian D'Alessio aka; Fluxstringer fluxstrin...@gmail.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/fl