PowerPC vs Intel Macs Discussion

What is your thought on PowerPC and Intel Macs. Do you think Intel Macs are still Macs or are just PCs running OS X? Some people think that way but I think Intel Macs are still Macs are no PCs. Ever since the Intel switch, people had been saying that Intel Macs are PCs. It's not true, they are still Macs. For the PowerPC Macs, I heard one person say (in real world not on this forum) that PowerPC Macs are the only true Macs.

The PowerPC architecture is more secure. Here's a quote from a Wikipedia article:

In some quarters there have been fears that the use of Intel processors would render the Macintosh vulnerable to Windows viruses. Virus code is specific to the operating system or environment it affects, not merely the processor type. PowerPC processors enforce some restrictions on the alignment of executable code, which could make exploiting certain vulnerabilities less difficult on an Intel CPU; however, most modern Intel chips offer similar security features. One possible loss of security that is fundamental to the architecture is that the return address is passed on the stack in x86, unlike PowerPC, which has a special Link Register to store the return address, which is only pushed on the stack if the procedure calls another procedure, making buffer-overflow attacks easier on x86. However, Mac OS X supports the XD bit, making it harder to actually cause a buffer-overflow attack to execute code. Regardless of CPU architecture, a user on Mac OS X is by default granted a lower level of privilege than on Windows XP. In the absence of a privilege escalation exploit, malicious software running under Mac OS X is only able to damage files writable by the current user, not core system files. The same level of security is only available on Windows under a non-administrative account. Viruses that interact with the system at a very low level must also contend with a different system architecture, kernel, APIs and filesystem. Exposure vectors such as ActiveX and Outlook are also not a problem, since neither runs natively under Mac OS X. Vulnerabilities such as the WMF problems in Windows are also not directly applicable.

Article link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Intel_transition

Since the Intel Transition why did Apple transition a lot of their models to glossy display (I a have a glossy display Mac) but I am wondering why. With recent PowerPC Macs, they were all matte.

Discuss anything about PowerPC vs Intel.

#471482

The above quoted text is pure BS.

The person that wrote it was an idiot and has no understanding about how an OS interacts with a CPU.

PC is a generic term for a Personal Computer that some how got hijacked as a term for a Windows computer.

A Mac is a PC.

The switch was from PowerPC to Intel was both a technical and a financial decision.

It had little effect on how OS X functions as an OS and no effect on its vulnerability to any Virus attacks. That vulnerability is defendant on the OS, not the CPU architecture.

As a side note, the PowerPC chip didn't make a Mac a "Mac". Macs existed before the PowerPC chip.

"Mac" is just another brand name for a PC.

#471483

The above quoted text is pure BS.

The person that wrote it was an idiot and has no understanding about how an OS interacts with a CPU.

PC is a generic term for a Personal Computer that some how got hijacked as a term for a Windows computer.

A Mac is a PC.

The switch was from PowerPC to Intel was both a technical and a financial decision.

It had little effect on how OS X functions as an OS and no effect on its vulnerability to any Virus attacks. That vulnerability is defendant on the OS, not the CPU architecture.

As a side note, the PowerPC chip didn't make a Mac a "Mac". Macs existed before the PowerPC chip.

"Mac" is just another brand name for a PC.

You are just saying that Macs are PCs because Macs use the x86 architecture now which is standard in the PC world. You wouldn't said that when the Macs used the PowerPC and 68k architecture. Those were different from PCs. I want Macs to be different again like: Windows PCs moving to PowerPC architecture and there would be a PowerPC version of Windows and Windows would be only developed for the PowerPC architecture. I want the Mac to be the only one at the x86 architecture. I know Apple won't go back to PowerPC.

#471487

I agree with rjohnstone. He's not saying Macs are PCs because of the x86 architecture, he's saying that because PC stands for "Personal Computer". A Mac is a personal computer, just in case you didn't know. The CPU doesn't determine what computer it is at all, older macs used different CPUs too, not just the PowerPC technology.

Personally, I say that the Intel Macs are way better. This way they can achieve way faster speeds then they did before.

#471490

I agree with evilmnky204. The Intel transition was a big deal for Apple. The speeds of the Macintosh line went up very high after the switch. Not only that, but loads more possibilities were opened when they switched. You can now run Windows, Linux, or whatever that was designed for x86, and wasn't available for other architectures.

#471492

I agree with evilmnky204. The Intel transition was a big deal for Apple. The speeds of the Macintosh line went up very high after the switch. Not only that, but loads more possibilities were opened when they switched. You can now run Windows, Linux, or whatever that was designed for x86, and wasn't available for other architectures.

But I want Apple to stay at x86 architecture and PCs move to PowerPC. I want Macs to be unique. Apple won't switch back to the PowerPC architecture.

#471493

I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having...it'll be up to the other mods to close this or leave it open if they want to ;).

-NC

#471498

Why are some people so fussed about he individuality of their Mac's innards? You're running (and I'm running) a computer that occupies maybe 10% of the total computer market, at best. Isn't that enough? It is for me.

#471499

I'm not sure if this is a discussion worth having...it'll be up to the other mods to close this or leave it open if they want to ;).

-NC

Why? I just wanted to have an interesting discussion.

#471501

Why do you want Apple to be unique? They're already running an OS that can't be run on anything other then their hardware, that's pretty unique IMO.

#471502

Why do you want Apple to be unique?

I don't want people to call Macs (Intel Macs more specifically) "PCs running Mac OS X".

#471505

I said it before and I'll say it again, ANY computer is a PC, as PC stands for Personal Computer. A Mac is a brand name. What you're saying is like "I don't want people to call Nikes, shoes." There are PC's running Windows, PC's running OS X, and PC's running however many distros of Linux there are. That's just how it is, the sooner you realize it, the sooner you realize that there is no point in this.

#471514

No offense, but anyone who thinks PC means strictly Windows based computers is a retard.

.. having said that I would dare say that Apple is causing more confusions into teenage minds by their Mac vs. PC ads (no matter how much I like those). The whole Mac is not a PC thing is brainchild of kids.

#471516

Couldn't have said it better, iGo :)

#471517

evilmnky204 and rjohnstone are right, PC stands for Personal Computer, not just Windows computers... and as evilmnky already said it, Macs are already unique... the Mac OS X can't be runned in non-Apple hardware :) However, Intel Macs are better and faster

#471521

Amen, rjohnstone...I've nothing to add.

#471524

@ Winged Dragon of Ra - Use the Edit to edit your post or to add something when no-one has posted after you. Do not double post.

Post removed.

#471541

evilmnky204 and rjohnstone are right, PC stands for Personal Computer, not just Windows computers... and as evilmnky already said it, Macs are already unique... the Mac OS X can't be runned in non-Apple hardware :) However, Intel Macs are better and faster

...You've just repeated what weve already read, thanks for the unessisary summaries..

also; osx can run on/in non Apple hardware

#471542

Face it, when Apple had their G5 line they were basically selling us BS... the comps were slow but faster than their G4 predecessors...

The switch from a G5 to an Intel mac was such a leap in performance it was a joke.

#471545

I believe this to be a pointless topic, and am closing it unless another moderator passionately wants to have a flamewar.

#471551