My imac g4 2001 had a 400mhz processor, my intel pentium 3 dell had a 768 mhz pentium 3 i also have a 1999 compaq POS with a amd k6 533 mhz whis faster YOU decide...
@NYz3R0dAY Because there hypocrites and will say anything to lie about the competition, but as soon as they are using it, then its the best in the world. Shows how truthful and honest Apple is willing to be to both the public and its paying customers that pay out of the back side for a ridiculously priced computer.
@DemonAMVs then again, this commercial wasn't really a Mac commercial, since there was select PC's (like certain models of IBM Thinkpads) that used PowerPC processors as well.
@Molo9000 Its still pretty funny. Its like me going on a huge racist tirade for years and years against a certain minority then suddenly saying there the best and I couldn't live without them.
@aa2833 Given that all of the PPCs after the 970 have nothing to do with it in terms of energy usage and heat output, I think you should shut the fuck up.
@richardmaudsley77 Really.... guess apple was lucky enough that x86 just "happened" to work much better than PPC. Must have been the magic apple logo. Grow up.
ppc are cheaper than core 2 duo/core i7 in production cost/smaller die size. but the performance of 3.4ghz powerpc is only equivalent to pentium 4 1.5ghz/1.6ghz atom which is far less than what conroe/wolfdale offer in floating piont/ipc/integer/simd performance. in other world u can never play mess physys game like crysis 1 on x360/ps3 unless physical effect turn off and have to reduce model/object count(crysis 2 is stripped down). while on pc you can extract as much as you can from the engine
x86 concept was always been inferior to any risc and sucked a lot, but with "brute force (GHz)" and with time, intel gained in performance, furthermore the most advanced features you'll find on modern intel cpu-s are direct descendants of proven risc architectures.
I still feel that Power PC chips are superior to Intel Chips. I base that on personal experience and no technical data, however. If the numbers show different then so be it.
@thegman1234 Ok, let me quote a bit of Sepultura here... "Why don't you get a life and grow up? Why don't you realize that you fucked up?" Come on, mate. I see you can read letters, do you need an introduction in numbers?
@PinkMirrorKirby I don't know about the rest, but Avatar was edited with AVID. Youtube won't take the link but google for "avatar" and "cev" and it's the first link. And a huge Linux cluster for rendering.
@PinkMirrorKirby You said they removed movie maker from windows 7. They did not, downloadable or not, it still is a part of Windows 7. Don't change what you said to suit your argument.
.
Also Avatar was rendered in Linux arrays. Nothing in Avatar was done on a Mac other then peripheral stuff that it didn't matter what system you used. Also the editing in Avatar was not done in final cut pro, I don't know about the simpsons, but Avatar was easy to fact check.
@nicholsml every TV show is made with final cut pro, the Simpsons I know for a fact are made on macs, I've seen them work on the episodes, They also made the Simpsons movie on macs, Pixar and dreamworks also uses macs only, Thats all I know.
@aflockofmusic2 Avatar was done on linux arrays was what I was getting at. Also pixar and dreamworks use a bunch of different systems now-a-days. Also they used macs in the past because Steve Jobs was involved with Pixar for a very long time. It's actually cheaper and more economical to not use a Mac in 3D effects and production in movies because Mac's cost more and never come with the latest most powerful hardware. "Mac's are for movies" is a myth perpetuated by Mac groupies.
@nicholsml What are trying to say? I said macs are for TV shows, and they are, there is no getting around that. Also you should know that computers are not for movies, they have special editing machines for most movies movies. Macs are cheaper when it comes to high end status, mac pro's are cheaper than high end PC's. Apple does not price their macs high at all, they just make high end PC's, Apple makes a profit of 100 to 200 dollars per mac, their money comes from other products that they make.
@aflockofmusic2 Mac's are not cheaper then other high end computers with similar hardware. Also Mac's are an option for TV shows, not mandatory in any way. Apple makes more then 200 dollars per system.
Apple does price their computers very high. In every range a custom built or well researched manufactured computer is cheaper.
I would show you a comparison but I'm sure you could spend 5 minutes looking around online yourself.
Mac's are not cheaper. You're delusional if you think so.
@aflockofmusic2 Why because Mac's are more expensive? Because I don't agree with you or believe every piece of hype that Apple spews out in a commercial? Grow up.
@aflockofmusic2 on apples website a Mac pro with these specs... One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” 8GB (4x2GB) 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB One 18x SuperDrive Apple Magic Mouse Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) $3,074 Same exact hardware with HQ parts from newegg... $1,616.91 You're wrong bub. That's a hell of a lot more then 100-200 dollars profit. Go to Newegg and build it and see for yourself. $1,616 man enough to admit you're wrong?
@aflockofmusic2 Also Final Cut Pro is not used for every TV show. There are a lot of different video editing apps out there. Avid is an example of one. Your statement that FCP is the only program used in television is an ignorant and false statement.
.
Sorry to post again but your mis-truths and lies are almost epic.
Back then, intel processors were crap, they were crap until the Core Duo's came out. Even AMD chips at the time were faster, intel even got a such a good hiding, that they were forced to bring something new onto the table, which was the Core Duo. At the same time, Motorola had given up on Power and IBM was busy with the xbox, so had no resources to intel ...as the Germans say: Nur wer sich aendert, bleibt sich treu!
It's ironic that apple uses intel chips and processors today. While back then, they diss and make fun of all intel processors. WHO's LAUGHING NOW APPLE?! hahahaha
@Athos523 no they weren't. At the time Intel CPU's where still better then the powerPC. The only serious competition Intel has ever had has been from AMD, though Intel has been beating AMD for the performance crown for many years now.
@nicholsml not around the g3 era. intel's pentium II / 266 was terribly slow compared to the g3 apple had used. there's a Powerbook G3 Intro video on here that shows the g3 was much faster than the pentium II in the Compaq Armada 7800. which i've heard was a top of the line laptop. maybe that changed when the g4's came out, and when intel came out with their next thing.
@Athos523 Actually you're wrong. Not that any of this matters but you obviously suffer from selective history.
.
The powerbook G3's cover an era from 1997 to 1999. In every instance of release the Powerbook g3's where slower then top end laptops with intel CPU's.
.
Apple/Mac has a history notorious for making false performance claims, to the point that they aren't taken seriously by anyone other then the die-hard I-tards.
@Athos523 Also the video here isn't talking about laptop CPU's, they are showing desktop PC's. Either way Intel based systems have always had more "horsepower" then that powerPC bullshit. Even Steve Jobs realized this and after being stomped by Intel for years Apple switched to intel CPU's.
F U C K Intel, it's a piece of shit it's the worst shit ever created damn I swear the guy inventing Intel must having nightmares about Satan for creating Intel!
Funny how all of Apple's commercials back then and now try to hate on the other brand. Well looks like Apple is using Intel processors now how do you like that for ironic. Lets see what happens when microsoft does something ironic with apple....Apple sucks always gotta put down the competition to make themselves look good when really they are just losers.
@94XJ Well, I believe me, now show me an example, make sure you get the CPU, graphics and Hard drive right, it has to have N wireless networking etc etc what, you can't? Oh, Windows boxes are actually more expensive when hardware is identical, wow, who knew? Why did you believe what somebody else said, without checking the facts?
@94XJ I usually stay out of these debates, but I couldn't resist this time...
Sure you can get a Hyundai for $14 000, and it'll take you to work and back, but it's those of us who can appreciate (and afford) a BMW for $35 000 who choose to get one.
The difference in price is $500 which is pretty much negligible, so go ahead and get yourself the Sony, you're doing so because you can't appreciate an Apple.
@rootbeerinacan Thing is...you're talking to someone who owns an Audi A6 so I can appreciate finer vehicles...and I also appreciate the Mac OS...I just see it as a ripoff as I have installed the mac os on two different computers I built and my laptop. All I can't appreciate is a jacked up price because of a different case on the computer and a different OS.
@thecarpy Oh, and I had to custom build the MB Pro since SSD wasn't the standard option...but you understand. $500 exactly and that's ZERO bs or figure fudging.
@94XJ Well, I believe you, now show me an example, make sure you get the CPU, graphics and Hard drive right, it has to have N wireless networking etc etc what, you can't? Oh, Windows boxes are actually more expensive when hardware is identical, wow, who knew? Why did you believe what somebody else said, without checking the facts?
Partially correct. It was initially faster for general purpose stuff. However, was insanely slow for other things. And really ironic was that at the time Apple switched over to the PowerPC, the Commodore Amiga was still faster than either despite still using the Motorola 68k line like the classic Macs did.
@luccaskunk The amiga was faster because it's operating system did literally nothing at all. I think 3.0 had a patch that added support for... what was it... cdrom. Damn, that shit is basic.
You're only half right. The reason WB3.0 didn't support CDROM out of the box was because it predated CDROM. You an hardly fault it for that. As for why it was so fast, it wasn't because the OS did nothing, it's because the CPU did nothing. The OS ran on the coprocessors, not the CPU. So the CPU idled... a lot... The result was that it had a lot more power to spare. As for why NASA used Amiga, it's because the kernel was designed for realtime processing. Other systems weren't.
3.0 wasn't before cdrom, it was 1992. Before C= got of their lazy asses and added cdrom, maybe.
And the os not running on the CPU? What kind of magic os is this? amigaos can run with the chipset removed, so logically you're saying that it runs on imagination?
The OS did nothing at all. It provided multitasking, then went for a walk while third party devs had to nail UI toolsets together out of bits of old wood they found on the streets.
CDROM was not wide spread in 1992. You have to remember that. When I say that WB3.0 predates it, I mean it predates the widespread adoption. Windows couldn't handle CDROM drives on its own at that time either. It needed mscdex in autoexec.bat and some other file I forget what in config.sys. Also, it was typically up to the CDROM drive manufacturers back then to provide their own driver support, and they did, even on Amiga. Native CDROM support does not constitute a performance decrease.
Plus, Commodore never added native support. They went defunct before even Microsoft had native support in Windows. Still, you're missing the point. The Amiga did *more* than other machines of it's time and was *still* faster. Those 9 coprocesors (in the case of an AGA machine, fewer but still a lot of coprocessors for ECS and OCS Amigas) really added up quickly.
Sure, the chipset was great. But the OS never used it, you can install an rtg card and soundcard and pop the chipset out the sockets on the logic board, it'll boot up just fine. In fact a couple of 68060 clones never had the chipset.
The OS was lacking a lot of features. For example, you had to manually save icon positions and also manually update file browser windows, as well as the fact you couldn't even click a titlebar to bring the window to the front ( a real pain in the ass).
On the contrary, the OS only had a few non-resident functions that operated on the CPU, the rest of everything else was on the chipset, such as Intuition. In addition, it was the only OS at the time that allowed you to save icon positions, so you can hardly fault it for that. Go back to the other OSs of the time, MacOS6 (which did not multitask) and Windows 3.x (which only cooperatively multitasked). Neither had icon based file browsing. Windows had progman, but that wasn't a file browser.
Uh actually Mac OS has ALWAYS used icons for file browsing, since about 1983, before they even finished development. And, it's always saved icon position too. and it's actually co-op multitasked just fine since about system 3.
Workbench is an incredibly primitive gui. that's the true reason it's so fast, because when you want features like "1024x768" and "icons with more than 4 colours" you have to start piling on weird shit from the internet. thats all OS 3.5 and 3.9 ever were.
Here, you have exhibited the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I happen to have a room full of working Amigas from across the decades. At least one of each model except CDTV. This includes a CD-32 which uses WB3 and handles CDROM natively. So, before you go telling me how well Intuition performs, keep in mind that I'm intimately familiar with it. By the way, that's the name of Amiga's GUI is "Intuition" not Workbench. Workbench is just the file manager. It's like Explorer to Windows or Finder to Mac.
I was refering to "workbench" as the entire os, as is a common name for it. None of my amiga disks before the ESCOM era called it "amiga os".
Speaking of intuition specifically, I can safely say that that does nothing either, if you want software developed after about 1995 you have to install Classact or reaction, as well as MUI. Basic toolkits that should have been there from the start. That gaping lack of features is a huge speed boost.
I won't deny that Classact and MUI (which I happen to have a full license key to MUI for) have a major speed hit. Even on my highly modified a1200, there's a marked drop in performance for programs that use either vs straight Intuition. The problem is, however, that Intuition does infact use the coprocessors. MUI and ClassAct do not hit the hardware so directly as Intuition. If they did, they'd probably run much faster.
However, your original statement that the lack of native CDROM support is inherent to the superior speed is bogus. There are a number of Amigas that included native CDROM support, the two more notable ones being CD32 and CDTV. Frankly I couldn't care less about the CDTV. Anyway, the CD32 is easily one of the fastest out of the box (if least modifiable) in the product line. The nearly stock A1200 I have (33mhz 030 card with 16megs of ram added) easily performs as well as a Pentium 150mhz
Infact, that 33mhz one runs Doom at full resolution and 15fps despite having to do chunky to planar conversion. This is attributable to the kernel's design for real time processing. Of course you don't have to take my word for THAT... Ask the people who chose the Amiga for the Space Shuttle back in the day. THEY are the REAL experts about why the shuttles' Amigas only got decomissioned in the last decade, not you or I.
My reference to the lack of CDROM support was not an example of something directly effecting speed. It was however, an example of the amigas operating system doing nothing.
The CD32 doesn't really count as a computer, as it needs weird expansions it was never designed for to function as one. The akiko chip should have been standard AGA functionality anyway.
Also, 15fps is about half the speed of a playable game, unless you want to be sick.
And the space shuttle has used 8086s since the 80s.
On the contrary, 15fps might not be the fastest thing around, but consider that's roughly the same framerate a 486 of the same speed. My threshhold is 12.5fps for a game. This is because older movies used roughly that framerate as a lower threshhold. Also, the Amiga was used to monitor systems during the launch of the Space Shuttle. Seriously, look it up. Don't take my word for it, look it up, heck email NASA and ask if I'm right and if so, ask why they used them.
You must have low standards if 15fps is playable to you. I remember a solid 25fps on a 486 we pulled out of a skip.
And I know all about the NASA amigas. they never went anywhere near the space shuttles, they were simply used for recording of data from whatever was floating in space at the time, be it the space shuttle (which wasn't what the amigas spent most of their time on) or the many different rockets. Anything more than an 8086 would be too buggy in space to be safely relied on.
When I asked an engineer back in the 90s, the Amigas were used because their kernel allowed for faster real time processing of data... He also said that they "didn't trust anything else with human lives". I can kind of see an 8086 being used on the shuttles... Intel *does* have a reputation for making chips that can withstand more interference. But, I've also noticed my Amigas tend to have a very high resistance to interference as well.
At any rate, my point is this: the kernel was made for realtime processing, the kernels of other OSes weren't. This allowed for more number crunching in real time for the speed of the chip. But beyond NASA's reasoning, the moment you dismiss the performance increases given by the chipset is the moment you've failed to comprehend what made the Amiga the best machine of its time. Yes, the OS was cut down, I admit that, but the specialized chips played a very significant role in the performance too
Not realtime, more like nothing slowed it down. Tripos in all its forms, not just amiga os, can shift data a but better than the contermpories.
I know the maiga chips were pretty special too. Thing is, the os never used them to the potentional it should have. 4096 colours? no, 4 for you! AGA is worse with this, as they didn't even ship them with monitor drivers for all of its screenmodes. 1024x768 is possible (I use it), but they pretended it wasn't.
the 4096 color thing was about HAM mode. HAM is slow, even on AGA it's slow. There were a few video games that used HAM however. Also, once you got up to OS3, I believe it handled 256 unless you go over to RTS mode. Actually, I have my my A4000 and one of the two A1200s using a G-Rex PCI bus board and Voodoo5 video card on the 4000 and a Voodoo4 on the 1200. The desktop and most apps run 24bit color. The only thing it doesn't do is play AGA games on those video cards.
MegaMaster456: Actually, it's not that PowerPC is too old, it's that it's too expensive. IBM charges way too much for the PPC line these days, and with game consoles using them, Apple would have to compete. It's cheaper for them to just use (mostly) off the shelf hardware. Of course by "mostly" I mean that there are some minor differences introduced to the motherboards exclusively to attempt to make it difficult to use their OS on anything else.
When Apple adopted Intel chips, they said Intel was faster, so had Intel in the meantime been developed to be faster than the PowerPC chip, or should I never trust any companies' claims to faster chips?
It is a historical answer! Apple tells lies in every commercial they make, because they have to. Microsoft and the PC has the upperhand, since everybody use this platform and therefore Apple has to lie if they want people to buy their overpriced crippled underpowered Mac OSX-driven beautiful-designed PC's.
Apple don't need to lie to promote their products; they aren't underpowered and they are not overpriced.
At the time of this commercial, the PPC chip WAS faster than the Intel chip being compared in the commercial; now, Intel is faster. It's called technology, and you'd be surprised at how fast it advances.
@Eggyrocks1 They are more costly than PC's , that is a simple fact. You just don't get as much for your money! When you look on the parts within a 1000$ Mac compared to a 1000$ PC you get less. And who cares about the PPC chip anyways? It was a lousy chip back then as it is today as well. Furtermore the architecture is not really comparable to the Intel chip. Both hardware and software is incompatible with eachother.
Haha, That's quite funny.. I find many YouTube comments educating and informative, but there is a lot of crap as well.. Nevertheless I'm pretty certain that my argument is true;) Most ppl are aware of the pricetag on apple devices. Apple makes nearly 200 dollars on each Iphone they ship, based on their income and sold devices. Compared to Nokia, which makes 9 dollars on each device. Apple seems fucking greedy, but ofc they are still capable of selling their stuff. Stupid ppl I say..
this is funny! and now macs have intel chips...
stephthestar90 2 months ago
I really wish a faster computer would make my day go faster like the guy on the right. Can a faster computer reply to my emails for me?
slugnbozo 2 months ago
Now nothing works on power pc, lol.
JustinSkaterLee 2 months ago
Intel sucked in those days.
rifall 2 months ago
Comment removed
StevensiTX 3 months ago
Intel MONOPOLY SUCKS hard full stop.
StevensiTX 3 months ago
Sandy Bridge is GPU acclearated benchmark jokes this CPU is just a normal C4Q or i7 950...
StevensiTX 3 months ago
yeah I mean only an inferior brand would use those Intel processors. . . wait.
InternetLad 5 months ago
If I had a dollar for every pixel in this video, I'd have one dollar.
TheiTouchGuy1994 5 months ago 11
I miss PPC. Ah well, at least Macs can dual boot now.
cursedswordsman 6 months ago
Intel Sucks... PowerPC is slow for copying files... AMD (AMD64) goes fast!
SonyFan1260 7 months ago
@SonyFan1260 If the file copying limitation came from the CPU speed and not from the storage media, that says a lot about PPC.
kint909 5 months ago
@SonyFan1260 Lolwhut? Intel sucks? Have you seen Sandy Bridge?
Titanz91 3 months ago
Who's using Intel now......
jajosh66 7 months ago 3
yea and now i use a nvidia tegra 2 in my motorola atrix. life has changed for the better
geekconnection 8 months ago
Intel, Motorola...
AMD FTW! :D
Bluedino549 8 months ago 3
@Bluedino549 It's good to see people with AMD, like me.
wozzupgamer 7 months ago
Lol only a decade later apple switched to intel because it was faster and much more efficient than PowerPC.
SimHarrison 8 months ago
LOL, how fake.
Andre35822 9 months ago
@Andre35822 Well, the reason why Apple switched to intel (in about 2006 I think) is because PowerPC went to hell, so they really had no choice.
moron6123 8 months ago
@moron6123
or i think it was to do with programs a PPC CPU means rewriting the whole code for that one CPU rather than just porting the program for the Mac
IIGrayfoxII 8 months ago
Look carefully at the bottom at 0:03
AntiAlias7141 9 months ago
@AntiAlias7141 It said In development
honam1021 7 months ago
My imac g4 2001 had a 400mhz processor, my intel pentium 3 dell had a 768 mhz pentium 3 i also have a 1999 compaq POS with a amd k6 533 mhz whis faster YOU decide...
TheCatMilton 9 months ago
I viewed this on my Mac with an Intel processor (MacBook Pro, Intel Core 2 Duo) :P
Quite funny how they said PowerPC was better than intel, now they say intel is better than PowerPC.
NYz3R0dAY 9 months ago
@NYz3R0dAY Because there hypocrites and will say anything to lie about the competition, but as soon as they are using it, then its the best in the world. Shows how truthful and honest Apple is willing to be to both the public and its paying customers that pay out of the back side for a ridiculously priced computer.
DemonAMVs 8 months ago
@DemonAMVs then again, this commercial wasn't really a Mac commercial, since there was select PC's (like certain models of IBM Thinkpads) that used PowerPC processors as well.
NYz3R0dAY 8 months ago
@DemonAMVs
This was made a decade before they switched to intel. At that time it was true.
Apple switched processors because PowerPC was at the end of the road.
They might switch away from Intel x86 in a few years and embrace ARM. Who knows.
Molo9000 8 months ago
@Molo9000 Its still pretty funny. Its like me going on a huge racist tirade for years and years against a certain minority then suddenly saying there the best and I couldn't live without them.
DemonAMVs 8 months ago
I see people are arguing ;D and over pointless shit no doubt. Anyway, PowerPC can suck my PowerBALLs!
Pruffeel 9 months ago
Always throw shit Apple. Always.
Ablequerq 10 months ago
lol he says get a life
mrabudi1 10 months ago
power pc is expensive??? hah, i got a PowerPC 1,8 GHz board from freescale for only 21$ ,, so how much is a Intel Atom EvBoard?
XareSoft 10 months ago
@XareSoft you paid more than it was worth...
kint909 5 months ago
no apple around^^
DerZufall 11 months ago
AMD and IBM Power 7 PPC CPUs are the best
StevensiTX 11 months ago
one reason is ppc is expensive!
9rockky 1 year ago
Ironic we are all using intel chips isnt it? €
acekiller121 1 year ago
@acekiller121 AMD for me me :]
ichbinstark 11 months ago
Biggest lie ever
TheToploaderwasher 1 year ago
@TheToploaderwasher It wasn't a lie. PPCs always benchmarked higher than x86, because x86 is shit.
x86 won because it was cheaper.
richardmaudsley77 11 months ago
Comment removed
aa2833 10 months ago
@aa2833 That's not true for the majority of PPCs. The only one it is true for is the 970.
The other models are low power enough that they don't even require fans.
richardmaudsley77 10 months ago
Comment removed
aa2833 10 months ago
@aa2833 Given that all of the PPCs after the 970 have nothing to do with it in terms of energy usage and heat output, I think you should shut the fuck up.
richardmaudsley77 10 months ago
Comment removed
aa2833 10 months ago
@aa2833 Shame for the fact that you are an idiot, and an idiot who can't do basic research like what powerpc is like after the 970. Deal with it.
richardmaudsley77 10 months ago
@richardmaudsley77 Really.... guess apple was lucky enough that x86 just "happened" to work much better than PPC. Must have been the magic apple logo. Grow up.
kint909 5 months ago
you might get a life... LOL!
Phliblib 1 year ago
It's so funny how horrible these CPU's run.
Daniel55556 1 year ago
and now apple uses intel!!
video45000 1 year ago 137
@video45000 at the time ppc was better now intel is better things change
kf932009 10 months ago
@video45000 and now intel is faster in an mac then i an pc!
MustangGT500KRFever 7 months ago
@MustangGT500KRFever so true...
video45000 7 months ago
@video45000 Yeah because their processor from motorola is just bull shit
pe1eterek 6 months ago
What's funny is now PPC's are SO ancient.
AllHailSteveJobs 1 year ago
@AllHailSteveJobs They are still used in the Wii, the PS3 the xBox 360...
Nabeelco 1 year ago 64
ppc are cheaper than core 2 duo/core i7 in production cost/smaller die size. but the performance of 3.4ghz powerpc is only equivalent to pentium 4 1.5ghz/1.6ghz atom which is far less than what conroe/wolfdale offer in floating piont/ipc/integer/simd performance. in other world u can never play mess physys game like crysis 1 on x360/ps3 unless physical effect turn off and have to reduce model/object count(crysis 2 is stripped down). while on pc you can extract as much as you can from the engine
hanrinch 6 months ago
This is not an Apple commercial. Its a Motorola commercial.
iSquishy89 1 year ago
x86 concept was always been inferior to any risc and sucked a lot, but with "brute force (GHz)" and with time, intel gained in performance, furthermore the most advanced features you'll find on modern intel cpu-s are direct descendants of proven risc architectures.
cybercow222 1 year ago 3
@cybercow222, indeed, like how they quite literally ‘adopted’ a lot of AXP (DEC Alpha) features over the years.
eMGeeGFX 1 year ago
I still feel that Power PC chips are superior to Intel Chips. I base that on personal experience and no technical data, however. If the numbers show different then so be it.
thegman1234 1 year ago
@thegman1234 Ok, let me quote a bit of Sepultura here... "Why don't you get a life and grow up? Why don't you realize that you fucked up?" Come on, mate. I see you can read letters, do you need an introduction in numbers?
kint909 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lol now they even gave up on ppc. #FAIL
jmans25 1 year ago
Is it just me or did they just switch to Intel. Can they not make a commercial that does not offend anyone?
WatchmenDrManhattan 1 year ago
lol. A couple of years later.
PilotJ555 1 year ago
man now a days a new mac mini (depending on the configuration used) would wup my g4's ass(dual 1.42 ghz 2mb l3 cache per processor, 1.5 g ram)
shawnygz 1 year ago
@nicholsml Also, both Mac and Linux runs on Unix-like Operating System... And where did you get that info?
PinkMirrorKirby 1 year ago
@PinkMirrorKirby I don't know about the rest, but Avatar was edited with AVID. Youtube won't take the link but google for "avatar" and "cev" and it's the first link. And a huge Linux cluster for rendering.
desiv1 1 year ago
@nicholsml If they removed Movie Maker, then it is NOT part of Windows 7
PinkMirrorKirby 1 year ago
ironic, no?
TheZipix 1 year ago
apple equal hypocrite. simple.
monstercameron 1 year ago
I was in a hotel and used an iMac G5.All i have to say is that...IT IS HELL A LOT SLOWER THAN MY INTEL-RUN MACBOOK PRO!!
MegaMaster456 1 year ago
0:18
well that's f*cked up
PoopChanne1 1 year ago
Woooow now motorola have great cpus .Motorola is world leader.I think i'll buy one...ohh wait wrong dimencion :D
AnimusPipboy 1 year ago
@AnimusPipboy yes, in that dimension, "dimencion" is also correct =D
wikiih 1 year ago
@thewhoissuperb24
Like what? Theres not really anything excessively useful thats on OSX thats not on windows.
anakinseviltwin 1 year ago
@anakinseviltwin I think they meant running Windows on a Mac (Boot Camp.)
RyGuy5320 1 year ago
@anakinseviltwin iMovie, Garageband.
PinkMirrorKirby 1 year ago
@PinkMirrorKirby iMovie is a poor excuse for a video editor, can be replaced by vegas pro, garage band replaced by sony acid pro/soundforge.
anakinseviltwin 1 year ago
@anakinseviltwin At least I don't have to pay for Vegas Pro nor Acid pro/Soundforge, I get those right out from the box.
But you are right about some software replacing some functionality that a Mac had.
Only Windows 7 comes on par with Mac OS X, iMovie is great but Windows Movie Maker sucks, I think that's why Microsoft removed it from Windows 7.
PinkMirrorKirby 1 year ago
@PinkMirrorKirby Actually windows 7 still comes with movie maker. Get your facts straightened out please.
.
Also both I-movie and movie maker suck.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@nicholsml Uh.... Windows 7 DOES not come with Movie Maker preinstalled! You should get your facts straightened instead!
Apple's Final Cut Pro owns iMovie and Movie Maker, even some famous movies like The Simpsons or Avatar are made with Apple's Final Cut Pro.
PinkMirrorKirby 1 year ago
@PinkMirrorKirby You said they removed movie maker from windows 7. They did not, downloadable or not, it still is a part of Windows 7. Don't change what you said to suit your argument.
.
Also Avatar was rendered in Linux arrays. Nothing in Avatar was done on a Mac other then peripheral stuff that it didn't matter what system you used. Also the editing in Avatar was not done in final cut pro, I don't know about the simpsons, but Avatar was easy to fact check.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@nicholsml every TV show is made with final cut pro, the Simpsons I know for a fact are made on macs, I've seen them work on the episodes, They also made the Simpsons movie on macs, Pixar and dreamworks also uses macs only, Thats all I know.
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 Avatar was done on linux arrays was what I was getting at. Also pixar and dreamworks use a bunch of different systems now-a-days. Also they used macs in the past because Steve Jobs was involved with Pixar for a very long time. It's actually cheaper and more economical to not use a Mac in 3D effects and production in movies because Mac's cost more and never come with the latest most powerful hardware. "Mac's are for movies" is a myth perpetuated by Mac groupies.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@nicholsml What are trying to say? I said macs are for TV shows, and they are, there is no getting around that. Also you should know that computers are not for movies, they have special editing machines for most movies movies. Macs are cheaper when it comes to high end status, mac pro's are cheaper than high end PC's. Apple does not price their macs high at all, they just make high end PC's, Apple makes a profit of 100 to 200 dollars per mac, their money comes from other products that they make.
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 Mac's are not cheaper then other high end computers with similar hardware. Also Mac's are an option for TV shows, not mandatory in any way. Apple makes more then 200 dollars per system.
Apple does price their computers very high. In every range a custom built or well researched manufactured computer is cheaper.
I would show you a comparison but I'm sure you could spend 5 minutes looking around online yourself.
Mac's are not cheaper. You're delusional if you think so.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@nicholsml I think you need a slap in the face.
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 Why because Mac's are more expensive? Because I don't agree with you or believe every piece of hype that Apple spews out in a commercial? Grow up.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 WARNING!!! TOUGH GUY ON THE INTERNET!!! OMG!!
nicholsml 1 year ago
nicholsml 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 Also Final Cut Pro is not used for every TV show. There are a lot of different video editing apps out there. Avid is an example of one. Your statement that FCP is the only program used in television is an ignorant and false statement.
.
Sorry to post again but your mis-truths and lies are almost epic.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@nicholsml Avid fucking sucks
aflockofmusic2 1 year ago
@aflockofmusic2 why? Because you said so? STFU
nicholsml 1 year ago
lol cool video thanks :)
iksproduction 1 year ago
Fatal1ty! 94XJ wins!
turbomouse 1 year ago
Back then, intel processors were crap, they were crap until the Core Duo's came out. Even AMD chips at the time were faster, intel even got a such a good hiding, that they were forced to bring something new onto the table, which was the Core Duo. At the same time, Motorola had given up on Power and IBM was busy with the xbox, so had no resources to intel ...as the Germans say: Nur wer sich aendert, bleibt sich treu!
thecarpy 1 year ago
It's ironic that apple uses intel chips and processors today. While back then, they diss and make fun of all intel processors. WHO's LAUGHING NOW APPLE?! hahahaha
Yayo015 1 year ago
@Yayo015 intel processors were crap at the time.
Athos523 1 year ago
@Athos523 Yep, though now it's a different story. Lets see apple try dissing Core 2 Duo running their macs :P
Yayo015 1 year ago
@Yayo015 lol that'll be suicide on their part
Athos523 1 year ago
@Athos523 no they weren't. At the time Intel CPU's where still better then the powerPC. The only serious competition Intel has ever had has been from AMD, though Intel has been beating AMD for the performance crown for many years now.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@nicholsml not around the g3 era. intel's pentium II / 266 was terribly slow compared to the g3 apple had used. there's a Powerbook G3 Intro video on here that shows the g3 was much faster than the pentium II in the Compaq Armada 7800. which i've heard was a top of the line laptop. maybe that changed when the g4's came out, and when intel came out with their next thing.
Athos523 1 year ago
@Athos523 Actually you're wrong. Not that any of this matters but you obviously suffer from selective history.
.
The powerbook G3's cover an era from 1997 to 1999. In every instance of release the Powerbook g3's where slower then top end laptops with intel CPU's.
.
Apple/Mac has a history notorious for making false performance claims, to the point that they aren't taken seriously by anyone other then the die-hard I-tards.
nicholsml 1 year ago
@Athos523 Also the video here isn't talking about laptop CPU's, they are showing desktop PC's. Either way Intel based systems have always had more "horsepower" then that powerPC bullshit. Even Steve Jobs realized this and after being stomped by Intel for years Apple switched to intel CPU's.
nicholsml 1 year ago
Made by Apple, IBM and Motorola!
jason24568 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
F U C K Intel, it's a piece of shit it's the worst shit ever created damn I swear the guy inventing Intel must having nightmares about Satan for creating Intel!
SMGJohn 1 year ago
Funny how all of Apple's commercials back then and now try to hate on the other brand. Well looks like Apple is using Intel processors now how do you like that for ironic. Lets see what happens when microsoft does something ironic with apple....Apple sucks always gotta put down the competition to make themselves look good when really they are just losers.
uniquemodscom 1 year ago
@uniquemodscom $500 more for the same hardware...only difference is the OS nowadays...YAY Macintels!
94XJ 1 year ago
@94XJ Well, I believe me, now show me an example, make sure you get the CPU, graphics and Hard drive right, it has to have N wireless networking etc etc what, you can't? Oh, Windows boxes are actually more expensive when hardware is identical, wow, who knew? Why did you believe what somebody else said, without checking the facts?
thecarpy 1 year ago
@thecarpy Wireless N? Really?
Anyway
MacBook Pro with i5 @ 2.4, Nvidia GT 330m, 4gb ddr3 1066 and 256gb SSD: $2,799
Sony Vaio with i5 @ 2.4ghz, GT 330m (and intel integrated to save power eww), 4gb 1066ddr3 and 256gb SSD: $2,299 on newegg.
94XJ 1 year ago
@94XJ I usually stay out of these debates, but I couldn't resist this time...
Sure you can get a Hyundai for $14 000, and it'll take you to work and back, but it's those of us who can appreciate (and afford) a BMW for $35 000 who choose to get one.
The difference in price is $500 which is pretty much negligible, so go ahead and get yourself the Sony, you're doing so because you can't appreciate an Apple.
rootbeerinacan 1 year ago
@rootbeerinacan Thing is...you're talking to someone who owns an Audi A6 so I can appreciate finer vehicles...and I also appreciate the Mac OS...I just see it as a ripoff as I have installed the mac os on two different computers I built and my laptop. All I can't appreciate is a jacked up price because of a different case on the computer and a different OS.
94XJ 1 year ago
@rootbeerinacan Bingo
Slang4Art 1 year ago
@thecarpy Oh, and I had to custom build the MB Pro since SSD wasn't the standard option...but you understand. $500 exactly and that's ZERO bs or figure fudging.
94XJ 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@94XJ Well, I believe you, now show me an example, make sure you get the CPU, graphics and Hard drive right, it has to have N wireless networking etc etc what, you can't? Oh, Windows boxes are actually more expensive when hardware is identical, wow, who knew? Why did you believe what somebody else said, without checking the facts?
thecarpy 1 year ago
apple will never be as good as a pc and he forgot 2 mention "the one on the right is spead up 10x"
crazydog99007 1 year ago
@crazydog99007 true that bro
uniquemodscom 1 year ago
I wonder why they never compared themselves to AMD
SandstonRedneck2 1 year ago
and yet apple uses intel now....lol
JustinTW995 1 year ago
@JustinTW995 no apple uses RISC
crazydog99007 1 year ago
@crazydog99007 ummm no they dont...im on my mac right now that i bought in december and it has an intel core 2 duo processor.
JustinTW995 1 year ago
How hypocritical.
therealmetroidmaniac 1 year ago 2
@therealmetroidmaniac well, things change. Apples sales nearly quadrupled after the switch to intel processors. I'm happy they switched.
vdub350 1 year ago 2
@vdub350 I'm not. Apple sucks.
therealmetroidmaniac 1 year ago
@therealmetroidmaniac -.-
god!, another net fanboyfag
vdub350 1 year ago 2
Before it was faster... But yeah you guys say the irony... true true, but times have changed!
MacTutorialFilms 1 year ago
Yes! Guess what Apple uses now... Intel. This commercial must haunt the day lights out of the person who got the idea for this commercial!
AGeekForever 1 year ago
Oh the irony
WoWKoest 1 year ago
Oh dear. And what does Mac run on now?
Intel
MLeyden91 2 years ago 17
@MLeyden91
Yeah, intel stepped up there game. PowerPC used to always be a step ahead though
GarebearShields 1 year ago 3
Heh, bet nobody has realized the irony of this commercial yet, better make a YouTube comment about it to let everyone know.
Saavykaas 2 years ago
hahahahahahahahahahaha. what does mac runs on now???
kuothebest 2 years ago 31
@kuothebest Both
lognode 1 year ago
@kuothebest At this time the Intel pentium technology was very slowly
Intelpowerder11 1 year ago
@kuothebest Intel
N00B283 1 year ago
@kuothebest Intel. :D
DaviUnic 1 year ago
@kuothebest not intel.
TreehouseMovieStudio 1 year ago
The PowerPC was initially faster, but in recent years, IBM slacked on it, causing it to fall behind, and forcing Apple to ditch it for Intel.
mohaas05 2 years ago
Partially correct. It was initially faster for general purpose stuff. However, was insanely slow for other things. And really ironic was that at the time Apple switched over to the PowerPC, the Commodore Amiga was still faster than either despite still using the Motorola 68k line like the classic Macs did.
luccaskunk 2 years ago
@luccaskunk The amiga was faster because it's operating system did literally nothing at all. I think 3.0 had a patch that added support for... what was it... cdrom. Damn, that shit is basic.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
You're only half right. The reason WB3.0 didn't support CDROM out of the box was because it predated CDROM. You an hardly fault it for that. As for why it was so fast, it wasn't because the OS did nothing, it's because the CPU did nothing. The OS ran on the coprocessors, not the CPU. So the CPU idled... a lot... The result was that it had a lot more power to spare. As for why NASA used Amiga, it's because the kernel was designed for realtime processing. Other systems weren't.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
3.0 wasn't before cdrom, it was 1992. Before C= got of their lazy asses and added cdrom, maybe.
And the os not running on the CPU? What kind of magic os is this? amigaos can run with the chipset removed, so logically you're saying that it runs on imagination?
The OS did nothing at all. It provided multitasking, then went for a walk while third party devs had to nail UI toolsets together out of bits of old wood they found on the streets.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
CDROM was not wide spread in 1992. You have to remember that. When I say that WB3.0 predates it, I mean it predates the widespread adoption. Windows couldn't handle CDROM drives on its own at that time either. It needed mscdex in autoexec.bat and some other file I forget what in config.sys. Also, it was typically up to the CDROM drive manufacturers back then to provide their own driver support, and they did, even on Amiga. Native CDROM support does not constitute a performance decrease.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
Plus, Commodore never added native support. They went defunct before even Microsoft had native support in Windows. Still, you're missing the point. The Amiga did *more* than other machines of it's time and was *still* faster. Those 9 coprocesors (in the case of an AGA machine, fewer but still a lot of coprocessors for ECS and OCS Amigas) really added up quickly.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
Sure, the chipset was great. But the OS never used it, you can install an rtg card and soundcard and pop the chipset out the sockets on the logic board, it'll boot up just fine. In fact a couple of 68060 clones never had the chipset.
The OS was lacking a lot of features. For example, you had to manually save icon positions and also manually update file browser windows, as well as the fact you couldn't even click a titlebar to bring the window to the front ( a real pain in the ass).
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
On the contrary, the OS only had a few non-resident functions that operated on the CPU, the rest of everything else was on the chipset, such as Intuition. In addition, it was the only OS at the time that allowed you to save icon positions, so you can hardly fault it for that. Go back to the other OSs of the time, MacOS6 (which did not multitask) and Windows 3.x (which only cooperatively multitasked). Neither had icon based file browsing. Windows had progman, but that wasn't a file browser.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
Uh actually Mac OS has ALWAYS used icons for file browsing, since about 1983, before they even finished development. And, it's always saved icon position too. and it's actually co-op multitasked just fine since about system 3.
Workbench is an incredibly primitive gui. that's the true reason it's so fast, because when you want features like "1024x768" and "icons with more than 4 colours" you have to start piling on weird shit from the internet. thats all OS 3.5 and 3.9 ever were.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
Here, you have exhibited the Dunning-Kruger Effect. I happen to have a room full of working Amigas from across the decades. At least one of each model except CDTV. This includes a CD-32 which uses WB3 and handles CDROM natively. So, before you go telling me how well Intuition performs, keep in mind that I'm intimately familiar with it. By the way, that's the name of Amiga's GUI is "Intuition" not Workbench. Workbench is just the file manager. It's like Explorer to Windows or Finder to Mac.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
I was refering to "workbench" as the entire os, as is a common name for it. None of my amiga disks before the ESCOM era called it "amiga os".
Speaking of intuition specifically, I can safely say that that does nothing either, if you want software developed after about 1995 you have to install Classact or reaction, as well as MUI. Basic toolkits that should have been there from the start. That gaping lack of features is a huge speed boost.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
I won't deny that Classact and MUI (which I happen to have a full license key to MUI for) have a major speed hit. Even on my highly modified a1200, there's a marked drop in performance for programs that use either vs straight Intuition. The problem is, however, that Intuition does infact use the coprocessors. MUI and ClassAct do not hit the hardware so directly as Intuition. If they did, they'd probably run much faster.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
However, your original statement that the lack of native CDROM support is inherent to the superior speed is bogus. There are a number of Amigas that included native CDROM support, the two more notable ones being CD32 and CDTV. Frankly I couldn't care less about the CDTV. Anyway, the CD32 is easily one of the fastest out of the box (if least modifiable) in the product line. The nearly stock A1200 I have (33mhz 030 card with 16megs of ram added) easily performs as well as a Pentium 150mhz
luccaskunk 1 year ago
Infact, that 33mhz one runs Doom at full resolution and 15fps despite having to do chunky to planar conversion. This is attributable to the kernel's design for real time processing. Of course you don't have to take my word for THAT... Ask the people who chose the Amiga for the Space Shuttle back in the day. THEY are the REAL experts about why the shuttles' Amigas only got decomissioned in the last decade, not you or I.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
My reference to the lack of CDROM support was not an example of something directly effecting speed. It was however, an example of the amigas operating system doing nothing.
The CD32 doesn't really count as a computer, as it needs weird expansions it was never designed for to function as one. The akiko chip should have been standard AGA functionality anyway.
Also, 15fps is about half the speed of a playable game, unless you want to be sick.
And the space shuttle has used 8086s since the 80s.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
On the contrary, 15fps might not be the fastest thing around, but consider that's roughly the same framerate a 486 of the same speed. My threshhold is 12.5fps for a game. This is because older movies used roughly that framerate as a lower threshhold. Also, the Amiga was used to monitor systems during the launch of the Space Shuttle. Seriously, look it up. Don't take my word for it, look it up, heck email NASA and ask if I'm right and if so, ask why they used them.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
You must have low standards if 15fps is playable to you. I remember a solid 25fps on a 486 we pulled out of a skip.
And I know all about the NASA amigas. they never went anywhere near the space shuttles, they were simply used for recording of data from whatever was floating in space at the time, be it the space shuttle (which wasn't what the amigas spent most of their time on) or the many different rockets. Anything more than an 8086 would be too buggy in space to be safely relied on.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
When I asked an engineer back in the 90s, the Amigas were used because their kernel allowed for faster real time processing of data... He also said that they "didn't trust anything else with human lives". I can kind of see an 8086 being used on the shuttles... Intel *does* have a reputation for making chips that can withstand more interference. But, I've also noticed my Amigas tend to have a very high resistance to interference as well.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
At any rate, my point is this: the kernel was made for realtime processing, the kernels of other OSes weren't. This allowed for more number crunching in real time for the speed of the chip. But beyond NASA's reasoning, the moment you dismiss the performance increases given by the chipset is the moment you've failed to comprehend what made the Amiga the best machine of its time. Yes, the OS was cut down, I admit that, but the specialized chips played a very significant role in the performance too
luccaskunk 1 year ago
Not realtime, more like nothing slowed it down. Tripos in all its forms, not just amiga os, can shift data a but better than the contermpories.
I know the maiga chips were pretty special too. Thing is, the os never used them to the potentional it should have. 4096 colours? no, 4 for you! AGA is worse with this, as they didn't even ship them with monitor drivers for all of its screenmodes. 1024x768 is possible (I use it), but they pretended it wasn't.
richardmaudsley77 1 year ago
the 4096 color thing was about HAM mode. HAM is slow, even on AGA it's slow. There were a few video games that used HAM however. Also, once you got up to OS3, I believe it handled 256 unless you go over to RTS mode. Actually, I have my my A4000 and one of the two A1200s using a G-Rex PCI bus board and Voodoo5 video card on the 4000 and a Voodoo4 on the 1200. The desktop and most apps run 24bit color. The only thing it doesn't do is play AGA games on those video cards.
luccaskunk 1 year ago
Every Mac now comes with Intel chips.Guess PowerPC is too old for them.
MegaMaster456 2 years ago
You can still run it on PowerPC processors.
fivexthethird 2 years ago
MegaMaster456: Actually, it's not that PowerPC is too old, it's that it's too expensive. IBM charges way too much for the PPC line these days, and with game consoles using them, Apple would have to compete. It's cheaper for them to just use (mostly) off the shelf hardware. Of course by "mostly" I mean that there are some minor differences introduced to the motherboards exclusively to attempt to make it difficult to use their OS on anything else.
luccaskunk 2 years ago
When Apple adopted Intel chips, they said Intel was faster, so had Intel in the meantime been developed to be faster than the PowerPC chip, or should I never trust any companies' claims to faster chips?
ShylosHouse 2 years ago
You should never trust Apple!
Mantua64 2 years ago
I was hoping for a more historical answer, not console-war propaganda. :p
ShylosHouse 2 years ago
It is a historical answer! Apple tells lies in every commercial they make, because they have to. Microsoft and the PC has the upperhand, since everybody use this platform and therefore Apple has to lie if they want people to buy their overpriced crippled underpowered Mac OSX-driven beautiful-designed PC's.
Mantua64 2 years ago
Apple didn't lie, and your answer is false.
Apple don't need to lie to promote their products; they aren't underpowered and they are not overpriced.
At the time of this commercial, the PPC chip WAS faster than the Intel chip being compared in the commercial; now, Intel is faster. It's called technology, and you'd be surprised at how fast it advances.
Eggyrocks1 2 years ago
@Eggyrocks1 They are more costly than PC's , that is a simple fact. You just don't get as much for your money! When you look on the parts within a 1000$ Mac compared to a 1000$ PC you get less. And who cares about the PPC chip anyways? It was a lousy chip back then as it is today as well. Furtermore the architecture is not really comparable to the Intel chip. Both hardware and software is incompatible with eachother.
Mantua64 2 years ago
You should trust YouTube comments even less.
Saavykaas 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Haha, That's quite funny.. I find many YouTube comments educating and informative, but there is a lot of crap as well.. Nevertheless I'm pretty certain that my argument is true;) Most ppl are aware of the pricetag on apple devices. Apple makes nearly 200 dollars on each Iphone they ship, based on their income and sold devices. Compared to Nokia, which makes 9 dollars on each device. Apple seems fucking greedy, but ofc they are still capable of selling their stuff. Stupid ppl I say..
Mantua64 2 years ago
Don't Macs have intel?
AppelTube 2 years ago
They do now, but this was when Intel was shipping their pentiums, which were much slower than PPC chips.
Mordred555 2 years ago
Nope.
Mantua64 2 years ago
How ironic...
slowesttooth 2 years ago