I heard that PowerPC is completely free and open. Does that

>>61286436
>Does that make it less likely to be NSA backdoored
No

What OS do you plan to run on your PowerPC cpu?

>>61286493
OpenBSD

I'm currently running it on an Intel Atom notebook which I'm pretty sure is pozzed by the NSA. I need something earlier.

>>61286534
use a pre-2013 amd processor

>>61286549
What models should I look for?

File: 1440553816469.jpg (63KB, 532x502px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 532x502px

>>61286534
How do you know openBSD isn;t backdoored? When was the last time it was independently audited?

>>61286560
How to know anything? It's definitely our best bet.

>>61286573
The point I was getting at is - If you are hiding from the state, your best bet it to be off the grid completely anon.

If you just want to hide from the local gooberment or Jamal, good encryption and common sense 2017 is enough.

>>61286612
I don't want to hide anything. Privacy and secrecy aren't the same thing.

Anyway, it looks like the Powermac G5 had a quad core 2.4Ghz processor. That's more powerful than any computer I've ever owned. Maybe that + OpenBSD will do nicely.

>>61286650
>powermac g5
>"more powerful than any computer I've ever owned"

Nigga are you using a pentium 3 or something?

>>61286684
A G5 quad is about as powerful as a 3GHz Core2Duo m8.

>>61286684
I got a Celeron Dell laptop in 2003 and used that until the end of the decade. Ran fine but eventually just got too hot inside to stay alive. Then got an Intel macbook with some i series in it, but it's still slightly less powerful than 2.4 Ghz. Picked up the netbook for OpenBSD last year.

I don't really value hardware performance. It doesn't make sense to me. Ideally I'd like to never buy a computer again because I think everything is perfectly fast enough now, but I'm worried about hardware level security.

>>61286726
If you don't really care about hardware performance, get a PowerMac G4 MDD with dual 1.42GHz CPUs. It'll be a lot more reliable than any G5, and with a little soldering you can even get the CPUs to 1.6GHz. You can get the datasheets for literally everything in it, too, including the CPUs.

>>61286781
What makes it more reliable than a G5? Were there problems that plagued that model? I don't care about performance but I'm also not going to go deliberately slower.

>>61286821
What makes it more reliable than a G5?
The G5s have issues with the watercooling system, and even the ones which aren't watercooled have overheating chipsets, which cause bad BGA solder joints and kill the motherboard. The only relatively reliable G5 is the lowest-end 1.6GHz single CPU model, which gets absolutely obliterated by a dual 1.42 MDD

G5 IS great but it will break eventually 100% guaranteed

>>61286873
>>61286888
Ah ok.
I think I even saw a G4 at the second-hand store the other day. I will check it out again.
How about the Powerbooks? Are they reliable?

>>61286914
Aliminium PowerBooks are quite reliable, yes. The later ones have a little issue with the wireless card hanging the system if you're using over 1GB of ram, but I do believe that is an OS X issue. Get your hands on a high resolution 15" model if you can, it's the best G4 computer ever made. DDR2, 1440x960 display, 1.67GHz G4, and 4-5h battery life.

>>61286436
Backdoors are certainly not in the specs or any processor standard architecture. However it will never avoid manufacturers to add backdoors in the silicium work.