EGT
May 25, 02:01 PM
Think "Mac Pro". Then you can ditch that troublesome G5 for something decent. :eek: :p
Blackcat
Mar 19, 04:14 PM
Does iTunes really only sell you a license to the track? Is this in writing anywhere?
Suture
Mar 23, 08:12 AM
rtdgoldfish -- that's awesome. I hope you catch the thief. Keep us updated.
ddtlm
Sep 18, 12:10 PM
I would be amazed if Apple launched a "G5" in early 2003 because they just came out with their DDR tower mobo. They can't afford to make em and then throw them away a few months later.
The PCI G4's were short lived because they used the G3 mobos... a very different situation from what we have now.
There will be no "G5" in early at least not one that replaces the current tower lineup.
The PCI G4's were short lived because they used the G3 mobos... a very different situation from what we have now.
There will be no "G5" in early at least not one that replaces the current tower lineup.
EricNau
Apr 25, 09:35 PM
Somewhere in the preferences menu, under identity, enter your MR screen name at "e-mail or name" and 3446 at "team number". :)
You don't need to have the same identity as your MacRumors name (although it would make sense).
You don't need to have the same identity as your MacRumors name (although it would make sense).
chicagdan
Sep 1, 03:48 PM
It's unlikely to be a non-computer company. The synergy mergers of the 90s have been such an unmitigated disaster that companies no longer merge to get big, they merge to get small ... i.e., IBM buying Apple so it can stop making PCs, letting a more skilled company take up the slack.
Dave Marsh
Oct 31, 01:49 AM
While I understand why we all want faster Macs, including those who actually need the additional speed (and the rest of us who just think it would be nice to not have to listen to Windows PC owners telling us about their latest CPU's clock speed), I don't really understand why turning to Intel's CPUs is the solution. Yes, Intel knows how to crank out fast processors, but those processors will NOT run Mac software natively.
I believe Apple does keep current a version of MacOS X that runs on X86 processors, but what about all the Mac commercial application software we now use? NONE of it would run on an Intel Mac. It would all have to be rewritten to run in MacOS X on Intel processors, which means we would have to repurchase ALL the software we're currently using. Why would a vendor who currently has an Intel Windows version of their program go to that expense for 5% of the market? Also, how many frustrated Mac users faced with that prospect would incur that repurchase expense?
I also believe Apple currently makes most of its profit by selling a tightly hardware/OS-integrated product. It's able to do that because it controls the hardware AND the OS. This permits them to sell an exceptionally high quality product, with outstanding industrial design. If it switches to Intel's technology, it loses that edge. Then, people would just see a pretty Mac box, with MacOS X inside running on Intel parts. Most non-Mac people truly believe Windows XP is just as good as MacOS X. So, where's the edge that justifies the premium Apple charges to come from? Are switchers really just converting because of Windows, or does the hardware itself play a part in the overall user experience? If the insides are the same, and XP is just as good (NOT MY opinion, by the way), just how much extra is the pretty case worth? Enough to repurchase all my Windows software to run on an Intel Mac?
IBM has produced a path out of this performance mess. Note I say performance, NOT clock speed. I don't think anyone is professing that IBM's 970-series processors will ever out-clock Intel. As Ars Technica noted in their excellent article on the 970 this week, the new processor follows an entirely different philosophy from Intel's. IBM is more focused on total throughput performance, Intel is more focused on highest speed (for its obvious marketing advantage). While we don't yet know just how well this first generation PPC64 will perform vis-a-vis the latest P4, Itanium, or Hammer CPU, we do know that IBM has the expertise, resources, and incentive to tweak the design of this processor to strengthen its weaknesses. (Motorola lost interest in producing desktop computer CPUs years ago, and is now apparently focusing on low voltage, embedded processors.) That means we'll be able to move forward without Apple's entire developer infrastructure and customers being financially harmed.
We should also keep in mind that Apple has been buying up high-end media software companies over the past couple of years, even though it didn't have the hardware to take full advantage of it. The new IBM 970-series processors built on POWER4 technology offer an answer to this standing question.
No, I don't believe Apple has ANY intention of switching to Intel. The x86 MacOS X exercise is just a demonstration project, likely a last-ditch bargaining chip to keep the company alive if all else fails.
Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest. In 18 years of using Macs, I've had to replace a couple of keyboards, a monitor, and a power supply. Otherwise, they never had a hardware issue. I know that's not everyone's experience, but I believe it applies to most Apple users even today. Apple was the first to introduce the use of the 3 1/4" floppy in a commercial personal computer, and the first to discontinue it, the first to incorporate actual sound (vice a beep), the first to use a graphical interface. And even though Intel's USB was built-into PCs before Macs, it was Apple's initiative with the iMac that pressed it into ubiquitous use. It's been Apple's innovation, its R&D, its risk taking that's driven the personal computer experience. Virtually everyone else follows Apple's lead. And, I believe, we're now seeing Apple's next move down this road.
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.) It's also continuing down the integrated digital user experience road with the iApps, the iPod, the i???. To do this, it needs the flexibility to select the best technology around, and then design its own hardware to accommodate it. Switching to Intel would not facilitate that option, and it would alienate its developers and customer base.
I believe Apple does keep current a version of MacOS X that runs on X86 processors, but what about all the Mac commercial application software we now use? NONE of it would run on an Intel Mac. It would all have to be rewritten to run in MacOS X on Intel processors, which means we would have to repurchase ALL the software we're currently using. Why would a vendor who currently has an Intel Windows version of their program go to that expense for 5% of the market? Also, how many frustrated Mac users faced with that prospect would incur that repurchase expense?
I also believe Apple currently makes most of its profit by selling a tightly hardware/OS-integrated product. It's able to do that because it controls the hardware AND the OS. This permits them to sell an exceptionally high quality product, with outstanding industrial design. If it switches to Intel's technology, it loses that edge. Then, people would just see a pretty Mac box, with MacOS X inside running on Intel parts. Most non-Mac people truly believe Windows XP is just as good as MacOS X. So, where's the edge that justifies the premium Apple charges to come from? Are switchers really just converting because of Windows, or does the hardware itself play a part in the overall user experience? If the insides are the same, and XP is just as good (NOT MY opinion, by the way), just how much extra is the pretty case worth? Enough to repurchase all my Windows software to run on an Intel Mac?
IBM has produced a path out of this performance mess. Note I say performance, NOT clock speed. I don't think anyone is professing that IBM's 970-series processors will ever out-clock Intel. As Ars Technica noted in their excellent article on the 970 this week, the new processor follows an entirely different philosophy from Intel's. IBM is more focused on total throughput performance, Intel is more focused on highest speed (for its obvious marketing advantage). While we don't yet know just how well this first generation PPC64 will perform vis-a-vis the latest P4, Itanium, or Hammer CPU, we do know that IBM has the expertise, resources, and incentive to tweak the design of this processor to strengthen its weaknesses. (Motorola lost interest in producing desktop computer CPUs years ago, and is now apparently focusing on low voltage, embedded processors.) That means we'll be able to move forward without Apple's entire developer infrastructure and customers being financially harmed.
We should also keep in mind that Apple has been buying up high-end media software companies over the past couple of years, even though it didn't have the hardware to take full advantage of it. The new IBM 970-series processors built on POWER4 technology offer an answer to this standing question.
No, I don't believe Apple has ANY intention of switching to Intel. The x86 MacOS X exercise is just a demonstration project, likely a last-ditch bargaining chip to keep the company alive if all else fails.
Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest. In 18 years of using Macs, I've had to replace a couple of keyboards, a monitor, and a power supply. Otherwise, they never had a hardware issue. I know that's not everyone's experience, but I believe it applies to most Apple users even today. Apple was the first to introduce the use of the 3 1/4" floppy in a commercial personal computer, and the first to discontinue it, the first to incorporate actual sound (vice a beep), the first to use a graphical interface. And even though Intel's USB was built-into PCs before Macs, it was Apple's initiative with the iMac that pressed it into ubiquitous use. It's been Apple's innovation, its R&D, its risk taking that's driven the personal computer experience. Virtually everyone else follows Apple's lead. And, I believe, we're now seeing Apple's next move down this road.
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.) It's also continuing down the integrated digital user experience road with the iApps, the iPod, the i???. To do this, it needs the flexibility to select the best technology around, and then design its own hardware to accommodate it. Switching to Intel would not facilitate that option, and it would alienate its developers and customer base.
MisterMe
Oct 17, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by vollspacken
yeah, they did! Unfortunately I waited till the end of September (AppleExpo Paris...) when the $200,- promo went out, because I thought new PBs would come out soon:(
...as we now know, they didn't and I have to wait till January or later to pay more for features I don't need (Superdrive, IMHO more heat due o overclocked processor to compete with intel Mhz...)
But maybe I will be suprised because by now I set my expectations so low...:D You can go to the education area of the Apple Store (http://www.apple.com/education/) where you can find prices that are somewhat lower for those available to the general public. You don't have to wait for promotions, although those may reduce your price even more.
yeah, they did! Unfortunately I waited till the end of September (AppleExpo Paris...) when the $200,- promo went out, because I thought new PBs would come out soon:(
...as we now know, they didn't and I have to wait till January or later to pay more for features I don't need (Superdrive, IMHO more heat due o overclocked processor to compete with intel Mhz...)
But maybe I will be suprised because by now I set my expectations so low...:D You can go to the education area of the Apple Store (http://www.apple.com/education/) where you can find prices that are somewhat lower for those available to the general public. You don't have to wait for promotions, although those may reduce your price even more.
jayeskreezy
Apr 3, 10:32 PM
great detective work...too bad about your xbox360 though....good that they didnt take anything else...well, hopefully you're able to be compensated...did you have renters insurance?
MacBytes
Dec 1, 09:47 AM
Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: Top 10 for X (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041201104731)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Link: Top 10 for X (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20041201104731)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Sun Baked
Sep 15, 10:25 AM
Think Hypertransport...
Sounds like AMD just announced the slip in it's timetable, so Hypertransport equiped PCs will be shipping Q1 2003.
I fully expect Apple to ship Hypertransport (or RapidI/O) systems at the same time (or before) as the rest of the market.
Apple's ability to ship standardized PC items 12-18 months (seems much later lately) after adoption by PC manufacturers proves my point.
Thus Apple should announce the machines in January with a 6-8 week ship time, usual snafus and delays should get the G5 machines into peoples hands on April 1, 2003.
Sounds like AMD just announced the slip in it's timetable, so Hypertransport equiped PCs will be shipping Q1 2003.
I fully expect Apple to ship Hypertransport (or RapidI/O) systems at the same time (or before) as the rest of the market.
Apple's ability to ship standardized PC items 12-18 months (seems much later lately) after adoption by PC manufacturers proves my point.
Thus Apple should announce the machines in January with a 6-8 week ship time, usual snafus and delays should get the G5 machines into peoples hands on April 1, 2003.
mkrishnan
Nov 9, 07:14 PM
I missed mod/it/xm tracking on my amiga/pc ...
Did you ever use Med to make mods on the Amiga? Ahhhh, good times.... :rolleyes:
Did you ever use Med to make mods on the Amiga? Ahhhh, good times.... :rolleyes:
ddtlm
Oct 3, 06:47 PM
MacBandit:
You misunderstood what I said about larger sized chips. By shrinking a chip size you also shrink the length of the connections between transistors thus speeding up the chip. This has nothing to do with the clock rate. This is why chip manufacturors are constantly going to smaller and smaller etching.
You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about how that works. It is the fundamental nature of synchronous digital devices (such as all current processors) not to get faster or slower without a change in design or a change in clock speed.
Chip makers go to smaller manufacturing processes for several reasons, including the fact that die sizes are smaller which makes the chips cheaper to manufacture, that the chips can clock higher, and that the chips tend to produce less heat at a given clockspeed.
Die size itself does not dictate clock speed. It can influence it because errors are more common during the manufacture of larger dies, and it can influence it if the die is so large that signals cannot propigate as far as they need to during a single clock cycle. However simply adding something like an AltiVec unit to a G3 would not cause either of these to happen to any large degree since the die size is so darn small right now (20% or something the size of a P4).
Also I know that the G4 uses a slightly different architecture that allows simmetric-multiproccessing this doesn't change the fact that the G4 was a very small step from the G3 and in whole was based upon the G3.
Times change. The 750fx has little in common with the MPC7455.
Yes I do believe that IBM was able to achieve 2ghz with a G3.
You are wrong. IBM surely posseses chips that can make it to 2.0ghz, but the 750fx is not one of them. No two ways about it. It is not possible to take a 750fx chip to 2ghz, no matter how lucky you are. There is a limit which clock speeds of a design will approach and never exceed, no matter how many samples are tried. You can rest assured that the limit is less than 2ghz; it's probably in the low 1.x ghz range.
You misunderstood what I said about larger sized chips. By shrinking a chip size you also shrink the length of the connections between transistors thus speeding up the chip. This has nothing to do with the clock rate. This is why chip manufacturors are constantly going to smaller and smaller etching.
You seem to have some serious misunderstandings about how that works. It is the fundamental nature of synchronous digital devices (such as all current processors) not to get faster or slower without a change in design or a change in clock speed.
Chip makers go to smaller manufacturing processes for several reasons, including the fact that die sizes are smaller which makes the chips cheaper to manufacture, that the chips can clock higher, and that the chips tend to produce less heat at a given clockspeed.
Die size itself does not dictate clock speed. It can influence it because errors are more common during the manufacture of larger dies, and it can influence it if the die is so large that signals cannot propigate as far as they need to during a single clock cycle. However simply adding something like an AltiVec unit to a G3 would not cause either of these to happen to any large degree since the die size is so darn small right now (20% or something the size of a P4).
Also I know that the G4 uses a slightly different architecture that allows simmetric-multiproccessing this doesn't change the fact that the G4 was a very small step from the G3 and in whole was based upon the G3.
Times change. The 750fx has little in common with the MPC7455.
Yes I do believe that IBM was able to achieve 2ghz with a G3.
You are wrong. IBM surely posseses chips that can make it to 2.0ghz, but the 750fx is not one of them. No two ways about it. It is not possible to take a 750fx chip to 2ghz, no matter how lucky you are. There is a limit which clock speeds of a design will approach and never exceed, no matter how many samples are tried. You can rest assured that the limit is less than 2ghz; it's probably in the low 1.x ghz range.
eyelikeart
Nov 16, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I'd say, but the word filter would take it out. :eek: ;)
:eek: why I never!
;)
603 or 604 isn't too bad...almost a G3...
I'd say, but the word filter would take it out. :eek: ;)
:eek: why I never!
;)
603 or 604 isn't too bad...almost a G3...
sparkleytone
Sep 10, 12:05 PM
all i have to say is ... wow.
NewbieNerd
Mar 19, 09:52 PM
I voted FFVI Advance as I've played the SNES version so many times and I expect the GBA rehash to be even better. A close call with both IV and V, the latter I'm playing right now...I just love the job system in V where you actually combine the skills you learn of different jobs, unlike III where the only point of learning 2 jobs is so that you can comfortably be one of those 2 jobs at any time.
VI was just the first, in my mind, to have great weapons/armor/relics that allowed for equiping characters to be based on preference and not just have a single piece of equipment that was hands down better than all others.
I have FFIV for the GBA, it's slathered in CHEEEESE. :) I just need to finish it. I almost shite myself when I noticed readers from Nintendo Power gave it an award for best writing/story in a game. They can't be serious? :eek:
<]=)
At least to me, compare with FFI, II, and III, the storyline in IV was WAAAY better and really lead to the great storylines that were to come in latter FFs. True, it can't compare to the storylines in the FFs since, but it was a huge step.
VI was just the first, in my mind, to have great weapons/armor/relics that allowed for equiping characters to be based on preference and not just have a single piece of equipment that was hands down better than all others.
I have FFIV for the GBA, it's slathered in CHEEEESE. :) I just need to finish it. I almost shite myself when I noticed readers from Nintendo Power gave it an award for best writing/story in a game. They can't be serious? :eek:
<]=)
At least to me, compare with FFI, II, and III, the storyline in IV was WAAAY better and really lead to the great storylines that were to come in latter FFs. True, it can't compare to the storylines in the FFs since, but it was a huge step.
dragula53
Nov 4, 03:15 PM
I really wanted to like konfabulator.
but it is S L O W.
Dashboard is 10000000x better, because it doesn't eat up my system resources.
Apple came out with a better product, and I am tired of Arlo whining.
my .02
but it is S L O W.
Dashboard is 10000000x better, because it doesn't eat up my system resources.
Apple came out with a better product, and I am tired of Arlo whining.
my .02
beatle888
Oct 16, 02:38 PM
theres a thread on the 970 on the main
page....you can come join if you would like.
page....you can come join if you would like.
solvs
Jun 13, 08:38 PM
That said, I do have a profile (http://myspace.com/i_h8myspace) up there
Kinda freaked me out when I first rolled over it because I wasn't paying attention (did some kinda weird ripple thingy... stupid work PC), but I like the new hair style.
Kinda freaked me out when I first rolled over it because I wasn't paying attention (did some kinda weird ripple thingy... stupid work PC), but I like the new hair style.
dmw007
Apr 28, 11:28 AM
My Dual 2.3GHz Power Mac G5 is folding (as it is always) as we speak. :)
Lets beat those Dutch Power Cows! :)
Lets beat those Dutch Power Cows! :)
AvSRoCkCO1067
May 1, 05:45 PM
Being a student, the upcoming release of Office has actually caught my attention.
In fact, I hesitated before purchasing my MacBook Pro because I thought I would be unable to run Office 2007 (and, of course, Windows Vista...)
Now with Bootcamp out, my interest in Office 2007 has again returned. The concept behind the new User Interface is pretty solid; the "ribbon" sounds pretty cool.
Until I saw this screenshot, released today...
http://officeblogs.net/UI/WordVista.png
Isn't that...ugly? What are your thoughts?
In fact, I hesitated before purchasing my MacBook Pro because I thought I would be unable to run Office 2007 (and, of course, Windows Vista...)
Now with Bootcamp out, my interest in Office 2007 has again returned. The concept behind the new User Interface is pretty solid; the "ribbon" sounds pretty cool.
Until I saw this screenshot, released today...
http://officeblogs.net/UI/WordVista.png
Isn't that...ugly? What are your thoughts?
yellow
Apr 14, 12:19 PM
My frequent lament:
Too true.. Roanoke isn't too far from me, maybe I could egg his house. :)
Too true.. Roanoke isn't too far from me, maybe I could egg his house. :)
medea
Sep 24, 09:19 PM
The PDA is no more, you can fit all the good things about them in an iPod. Apple brought out the first PDA and the next thing they bring out is going to be another first......
Inhale420
Oct 30, 02:19 PM
no, but it's a good indicator that you're smoking crack.
No comments:
Post a Comment