dorsal
Oct 1, 06:54 AM
Moto was killing themselves to get to 1.25 GHz so 2.0 is out for January. You'll be lucky to see 1.0, 1.25, and 1.5. The "only boot in X" thing is marketing hype. The GPUL is real, but not ready until MWNY (Boston?) along with Apps & OS 10.3 optimized for 64 bit and some amazing high-end graphics demos.
JSRockit
Sep 2, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by formasfunction
as much as I would love for this to be a sure sign, seeing as how I am going to buy a PBTi in october (hopefully), everyone should note that it is probably just a stock photo. If you pay attention to Ads, namely office and car ads, you will notice that for the most part the computers that show up are macs because it is the creative people that are making the ads and as we all know, creatives should and do use macs whenever and where ever possible.
I agree... if you look at movies and ads, you would think 95% of the US uses Apple Computers...especially TiBooks.
as much as I would love for this to be a sure sign, seeing as how I am going to buy a PBTi in october (hopefully), everyone should note that it is probably just a stock photo. If you pay attention to Ads, namely office and car ads, you will notice that for the most part the computers that show up are macs because it is the creative people that are making the ads and as we all know, creatives should and do use macs whenever and where ever possible.
I agree... if you look at movies and ads, you would think 95% of the US uses Apple Computers...especially TiBooks.
Sir_Giggles
Jan 4, 04:07 AM
well spotted , i got too excited about the prospect of a new release from apple !
maybe the mods can move this to the right fourm .
Keep us posted on what changes. It could be for more than just the Cinema Displays.
maybe the mods can move this to the right fourm .
Keep us posted on what changes. It could be for more than just the Cinema Displays.
MisterMe
Sep 14, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by bullrat
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
I'm a potential "switcher" that wants to buy an iMac now but I keep reading all the posts on the various Mac boards about how even the latest 17 inch iMac looks "choppy" or "jerky" when resizing or moving windows and how much slower browsing the Web is than bad old MS on Wintel.
I have not seen those posts, but then I have seen a lot of other bitching and moaning about one thing or another. Point No. 1: Although I don't have access to a 17" iMac, I do have Jaguar installed on my 2000 Firewire PowerBook G3. I don't see any of that choppiness and jerkiness that you mentioned. I would be astonished to find it on a faster machine like the 17" iMac. Point No. 2: Don't take anybody's word for it. Drive down to your nearest Apple retailer. Look at the machines yourself. That should end all arguments.
I'm so bored reading all the MHz doesn't matter blather. It does matter. When a brand new $2000 computer looks choppy using a brand new OS, then something is not right. It should be blazing on all basic functions. Flame away if you like, I see a lot of that on the Mac boards whenever someone happens to disagree with the party line but I'd wager I speak for a lot of potential switchers.
Again, have your actually seen this "choppiness" on that $2000 machine with the brand new OS? Now for the issue of MHz, browse the web sites of the expensive UNIX workstations and servers. Look at the clock speeds of the offerings from IBM, HP, SGI, and Sun. For the most part, you will see that their machines have clock speeds in the sub-GHz range. Yet these are the machines of choice when price is no object and the job must get done. Just think about this: these boards are filled with laments that effectively tell you that you need substaintially higher clock speeds to run a computer game than you need to simulate the gas flow in a jet engine. Don't you think that something is just a bit warped here?
I guess what really blows me away is that Apple appears to be *purposely* cripppling their systems. From what I understand it's possible for Apple to upgrade the processor, bus, memory and other components without any technical difficulties.
Think. Think. Think. Apple does not "appear" to be purposesly crippling its systems. The entirity of the corporation orbits about the Macintosh. No company would purposely cripple its central product. The fact that Apple is only one of two profitable personal computer manufacturers serve as loud testimony to the contrary. Just because a bunch of idle college students post things on the Internet does not make them so.
Okay, you can flame away now -- but all I'm saying is there are a lot of potential switchers waiting to plunk down their hard earned cash if Apple would get it together. I see more and more Apple folks waking up, no longer satisfied to let Apple off the hook for getting further and further behind the rest of the computer world.
If you are serious, then nobody wants to see you flamed. But again, think. Exactly how is Apple behind? If you are talking about the race toward bankruptcy, then I would agree with you. Apple is second to last in that race among personal computer makers.
The best OS deserves the best hardware or at least a lot better hardware than being currently used. You want premium prices? Then give us premium hardware. Geez, drop Motorola if they can't deliver the goods and go with IBM (don't go with Intel or AMD to keep that Apple distinction). But pul-leeze do it soon. I want to buy!
-bullrat
I cannot agree more that the best OS deserves the best currently available hardware. However, the machine has to be affordable. For many years, Apple has ranked among the highest quality hardware manufactures. I am not just talking about microprocessors. I've endured conditions that put Dells out to pasture while my Mac chugged along like a champ.
As for all this business about Motorola this, IBM that, and AMD the other thing, I will leave it to Apple to make the best decision. It knows the players and its own business better than any nitwit posting on an Internet bulletin board.
bretm
Oct 10, 09:34 PM
So I looked in my brand new (as of today) dual gig from macmall - who triples your ram on that model btw.
I had the 256 chip that came with the mac, and the 512 that macmall installed.
Go buy your machines from a third party already!
I had the 256 chip that came with the mac, and the 512 that macmall installed.
Go buy your machines from a third party already!
JSRockit
Sep 23, 05:02 PM
Does anyone expect to see updated specs before January? If so, why? I am wondering if Apple will slap more VRAM and a faster G3 into the 12" iBook before January. Seems it could happen within the next 2 months.
macwannabe
Oct 13, 11:19 AM
Saying that the 2.8GHz P4 is no good because it is based on 25 year old architecture is nonsense as far as I'm concerned.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
Can I take it then that you don't think that any of the cars on the market at the moment are worth having or have been improved at all on the grounds that they are based on an 80 year old design? "I don't think that BMW is any good as it is based on a Ford model T", hmmmmmmmm dodgy logic methinks.
DoFoT9
Jul 23, 05:45 AM
Wow. I need to buy a PS3. The PS3 has 2 Teraflops of power, which is pretty darned good :P
EDIT: Just realised, that no - it doesn't. :P
Double EDIT: Apparently it does, the Terra Soft site just confused me :P http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/36
i thout it was 2 teraflops of GPU power compared 2 the 1 teraflop of the xbox360??
EDIT: Just realised, that no - it doesn't. :P
Double EDIT: Apparently it does, the Terra Soft site just confused me :P http://www.ps3focus.com/archives/36
i thout it was 2 teraflops of GPU power compared 2 the 1 teraflop of the xbox360??
MacBandit
Sep 29, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by barkmonster
for a non altivec, non MP aware test this really seems flawed as any kind of measurement.
So a 933Mhz G4 with PC133, a 2Mb L3, 256K L2 & a 7 stage pipeline, without the aid of altivec has score that makes it 273% faster than a 300Mhz G3 ?
The 733Mhz G4 score is laughable to say the least, it's not even seperating the QS from the digital audio models and there's no way it's 63% faster than a 533Mhz G4 at anything. They both have a 133Mhz FSB and PC133 RAM, 1 has a 4 stage pipeline and 1Mb L2 at a 2:1 ratio, the other has a 7 stage pipeline, a 256K L2 at a 1:1 ratio and a 1Mb L3 at a 3:1 ratio and that cpu didn't use DDR on the L3 either because it was the PPC7450 not the PPC7455.
The speed difference between the 933Mhz G4 and 300Mhz G3 seems about right if you aren't using Altivec. Also on the speed difference between the 733Mhz G4 and 533Mhz G4 is also very possible correct. You have to take into account that there are several generations of the G4. So it is very possible that it is actually 63% faster. Baically they could be running the same Mhz but because on chip is a later generation some improvements it would still be faster. All in all I think these tests are fairly good at testing all kinds of chips though that's all it does. It really doesn't give you a view of overall system speed because of the missing tests for Altivec and such.
for a non altivec, non MP aware test this really seems flawed as any kind of measurement.
So a 933Mhz G4 with PC133, a 2Mb L3, 256K L2 & a 7 stage pipeline, without the aid of altivec has score that makes it 273% faster than a 300Mhz G3 ?
The 733Mhz G4 score is laughable to say the least, it's not even seperating the QS from the digital audio models and there's no way it's 63% faster than a 533Mhz G4 at anything. They both have a 133Mhz FSB and PC133 RAM, 1 has a 4 stage pipeline and 1Mb L2 at a 2:1 ratio, the other has a 7 stage pipeline, a 256K L2 at a 1:1 ratio and a 1Mb L3 at a 3:1 ratio and that cpu didn't use DDR on the L3 either because it was the PPC7450 not the PPC7455.
The speed difference between the 933Mhz G4 and 300Mhz G3 seems about right if you aren't using Altivec. Also on the speed difference between the 733Mhz G4 and 533Mhz G4 is also very possible correct. You have to take into account that there are several generations of the G4. So it is very possible that it is actually 63% faster. Baically they could be running the same Mhz but because on chip is a later generation some improvements it would still be faster. All in all I think these tests are fairly good at testing all kinds of chips though that's all it does. It really doesn't give you a view of overall system speed because of the missing tests for Altivec and such.
trainguy77
Dec 8, 01:10 PM
Folding will run cooler as you may have noticed it does not use all of your CPU power. This has to do with keeping all processes in sink since its working on one WU.
plinden
Jun 16, 12:00 PM
I know we don't need another Vista thread, but AnandTech have done a preview of it here - http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2780
They spent a lot of time comparing it (mostly unfavorably) with Tiger.
Some lowlights:
waiting and oct nirvana Million, dec was jan fort myers, fla mark Sweepstakes, waiting and oct Teixeira+yankees Scheduled start this season was reported
Mark Teixeira#39;s wife is Leigh
New York Yankees Mark Teixeira
Mark Teixeira#39;s Walk Off Home
mark teixeira after teixeira hit a two run home run during the seventh
They spent a lot of time comparing it (mostly unfavorably) with Tiger.
Some lowlights:
daveL
Mar 7, 09:25 PM
I guess this doesn't work on a series 1 directTV tivo, right?
sushi
May 27, 01:34 AM
And I'm all for spoofing SJ.
Me too...when it's funny.
Me too...when it's funny.
iGav
Sep 10, 12:42 PM
How does one know what a IBM or AMD exec looks like?? Also how does one tell them apart???
Airforce
Mar 21, 09:13 AM
I have a question for all of you World of Warcraft players.
When I play games, I don't like to have to interact with other players. I don't like to wait for games to start online. I don't like to be schooled by people who spend exponentially more time playing than I do. I like to play for whatever chunks of time I have and that's it. If I have 30 minutes to play, I want to spend it playing and enjoying myself. I don't want to spend 20 minutes waiting to get a group together.
With all this in mind, could I still play and enjoy World of Warcraft?
Yup! That's how I play. I don't have time to wait around. I play 15 minutes here and there. With rested exp (doubles your exp), I still level up decently fast.
When I play games, I don't like to have to interact with other players. I don't like to wait for games to start online. I don't like to be schooled by people who spend exponentially more time playing than I do. I like to play for whatever chunks of time I have and that's it. If I have 30 minutes to play, I want to spend it playing and enjoying myself. I don't want to spend 20 minutes waiting to get a group together.
With all this in mind, could I still play and enjoy World of Warcraft?
Yup! That's how I play. I don't have time to wait around. I play 15 minutes here and there. With rested exp (doubles your exp), I still level up decently fast.
Balin64
May 19, 06:15 PM
How do I get started?
MLB Shop: Mark Teixeira New
Mark Teixeira - New York
May can focus charles teixeira hit a three-run home run Connected to burn, mar million dec while mark
Rajj
Oct 20, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by coopdog
I got MSN DSL a few weeks ago, my friend says that i can not run a server. He says that all the pings/requests go to the modem not my G4. Also he says that my modem has now port mapping options. The modem is the modem that comes with MSN DSL its a ARESCOM NETDSL 800. Do any of you have MSN or know a way i can run a server? Thanks guys, this place is GREAT!
Are you trying to run an intranet or internet server?
I got MSN DSL a few weeks ago, my friend says that i can not run a server. He says that all the pings/requests go to the modem not my G4. Also he says that my modem has now port mapping options. The modem is the modem that comes with MSN DSL its a ARESCOM NETDSL 800. Do any of you have MSN or know a way i can run a server? Thanks guys, this place is GREAT!
Are you trying to run an intranet or internet server?
bousozoku
Apr 4, 01:26 PM
It sounds okay to me. The only problem I had with Macromedia is that Archive and Install upgrades still didn't allow MX Studio 2004 to work but Macromedia has since provided a kick start application to fix that.
MacBandit
Sep 21, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by DipDog3
If the computer you are using does what you need, why does it matter how fast it is?
I don't have a mac yet, but I am still using a 266Mhz PC and it runs everything that I need pretty well. (for a Windoze machine)
The computer industry is getting to the point where there is no need to upgrade to faster machines.
Really, how much speed do you need? That's the question you need to ask.
And a Mac never becomes obsolete, just sell it on ebay, someone will buy it!
You are the person I have been trying to explain to the community. Why do people need faster cpu/computers if what they have already satisfies them. I would say that people like you make up nearly 75% of the market currently and growing.
In reply to some other people saying they are waiting to buy there next Apple when they are so fast speed doesn't matter for the few of us like you that you will always want something faster. I know I will but I'm not willing to wait 2 years for Apple to release something faster. So I bought now and guess what this thing is so fast I could easily wait 4 maybe 5 years. I know this based on how long I kept my last computer and comparring the the equivalent speeds of them when they were new. Meanwhile I will enjoy my new computer in the time it takes Apple to release the next fastest thing.
If the computer you are using does what you need, why does it matter how fast it is?
I don't have a mac yet, but I am still using a 266Mhz PC and it runs everything that I need pretty well. (for a Windoze machine)
The computer industry is getting to the point where there is no need to upgrade to faster machines.
Really, how much speed do you need? That's the question you need to ask.
And a Mac never becomes obsolete, just sell it on ebay, someone will buy it!
You are the person I have been trying to explain to the community. Why do people need faster cpu/computers if what they have already satisfies them. I would say that people like you make up nearly 75% of the market currently and growing.
In reply to some other people saying they are waiting to buy there next Apple when they are so fast speed doesn't matter for the few of us like you that you will always want something faster. I know I will but I'm not willing to wait 2 years for Apple to release something faster. So I bought now and guess what this thing is so fast I could easily wait 4 maybe 5 years. I know this based on how long I kept my last computer and comparring the the equivalent speeds of them when they were new. Meanwhile I will enjoy my new computer in the time it takes Apple to release the next fastest thing.
Chaszmyr
Sep 7, 07:59 PM
Their homepage cycles through a number of images, and that's just one of them. It's a jpg, and is in no way representative of their server being down.
macridah
Nov 9, 09:25 AM
Downloaded and installed. I don't see any difference between 1.0 and the 1.0RC, but that's typical, well for the company i work for. It's nice to know that it's the official production release.
jettredmont
Sep 10, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Sun Baked
In other words --
OS X + x86 = iBankruptcy(Apple)
Why would any software maker consider making software for Apple's OS X on x86?
They could put all their effort into a Windows version, and let the user dual boot their PC to use it.
Why should they worry about developing an expensive Apple OS X/86 version? Especially when you'll be happy buying the x86 copy anyway.
Save some bucks and kill the Apple OS X/86 software development and make the shareholders happy with increased revenue.
Well, for one, the OSX/x86 "port" would be little more than a recompile (excepting hand-tuned assembly code patches and bits that rely on big/little endian, but if you had a Win port of your code then that batch of stuff is already in the mix).
As a cross-platform developer, I would find it incredibly easy to port my Win/OSX/Linux program over to OSX/x86, because I already have x86 vs PPC blocks of code, and I already have UNIX vs Win blocks of code and I also already have Win vs Aqua vs Console (sorry, no UI on the Linux port :) ) blocks. OSX/x86 would just be a matter of compiling with _API_UNIX and _UI_OSX and _PROC_INTEL all defined.
Yes, it's another executable to distribute, and (potentially) another "version" to sell (though I would hope most companies would go the route Adobe did with Photoshop Elements and deliver all platforms in one box!) And, yes, it is another test bed to set up. But on the development side, if you already do Win/OSX code you're 99% of the way there (and if you only do OSX code right now you're about 95% of the way there, as most apps have very little assembly or endian-reliant blocks of code).
In other words --
OS X + x86 = iBankruptcy(Apple)
Why would any software maker consider making software for Apple's OS X on x86?
They could put all their effort into a Windows version, and let the user dual boot their PC to use it.
Why should they worry about developing an expensive Apple OS X/86 version? Especially when you'll be happy buying the x86 copy anyway.
Save some bucks and kill the Apple OS X/86 software development and make the shareholders happy with increased revenue.
Well, for one, the OSX/x86 "port" would be little more than a recompile (excepting hand-tuned assembly code patches and bits that rely on big/little endian, but if you had a Win port of your code then that batch of stuff is already in the mix).
As a cross-platform developer, I would find it incredibly easy to port my Win/OSX/Linux program over to OSX/x86, because I already have x86 vs PPC blocks of code, and I already have UNIX vs Win blocks of code and I also already have Win vs Aqua vs Console (sorry, no UI on the Linux port :) ) blocks. OSX/x86 would just be a matter of compiling with _API_UNIX and _UI_OSX and _PROC_INTEL all defined.
Yes, it's another executable to distribute, and (potentially) another "version" to sell (though I would hope most companies would go the route Adobe did with Photoshop Elements and deliver all platforms in one box!) And, yes, it is another test bed to set up. But on the development side, if you already do Win/OSX code you're 99% of the way there (and if you only do OSX code right now you're about 95% of the way there, as most apps have very little assembly or endian-reliant blocks of code).
Dagless
Mar 16, 05:54 PM
Faux News?
Either way, I'm off to fill my 1 hour a day addiction of Half Life 2 Deathmatch :D
Either way, I'm off to fill my 1 hour a day addiction of Half Life 2 Deathmatch :D
aussie_geek
Jun 22, 08:25 PM
the iTablet here.
i would jump out and buy one of these on release. every time i read a rumor about these, it takes me a week to settle and realize it is fake.
aussie_geek
i would jump out and buy one of these on release. every time i read a rumor about these, it takes me a week to settle and realize it is fake.
aussie_geek
No comments:
Post a Comment