Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Announce the Power Mac G5 at WWDC?
a.ameri writes "Apple Insider is
reporting that Apple will announce computers based on IBM's 64 bit PPC 970 processor in the upcomming WWDC and will market them as G5. The new Power Mac G5s will sport a completely new motherboard design utilizing DDR 400 RAM as well as AGP 8x graphics, FireWire 800, and USB 2.0, sources said. "In the box" connectivity among the news systems is based on Hypertransport which provides 64-bit addressing and will replace Apple's multilevel bus architecture found in current systems. Initial offerings of the Power Mac G5 are said to boast 1.4 to 1.8GHz, single core PPC 970 processors, with the possibility of a dual 1.8GHz chips shortly thereafter."
i just got a 17" powerbook
damn
Please please please editors, post more rumors and speculations about the G5. I /almost/ give a shit.
I've not seen any gigabit ethernet capabilities ?
Does anybody have information about this ?
While it is probably true that Apple will launch a PowerMac G5 at WWDC the information given here is only from a rumor site. Many of the rumor sites cannot be trusted much (such as MacOSRumors) and a one or two are extremely accurate (ThinkSecret). AppleInsider is one of the oldest rumor sites and at one time was one of the best. Recently though it has been taken over and the general accuracy of its stories is now unknown. However this rumor seems to have enough other sites reporting generally the same thing to be true. Its not fact yet though!
Apple themselves have made public demonstrations trying to debunk the myth that clock speed is processing power. Being known for sticking to "slower" processors, it seems that Apple is finally starting to cave into the demands of the consumers.
I have tried to use the Distributed.net client on an AMD Athlon 1600 XP running Linux 2.4.10 and a G4 864 Mhz using Mac OS X 10.2. It seems that in terms of raw processing power, the G4 was actually more powerful, at over 10,260,280 nodes/sec, while the Athlon was only at 8,160,200 nodes/sec, and that's with no backgrounds processes running (besides the OS)
Intel has 3GHZ+ chips out these days. Thats double what the new Mac would have. I know clock speed isn't everything but at a certain point wouldn't you want clock speed over architecture ?
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
...is support for USB 2.0. I just hoped that Apple would smash the PowerBook prices again, since I am buying one during WWDC, but I'm sure that is not gonna happen. :(
3... 2... 1...
Go!
Which wintel motherboards have fw 800 and hypertransport? I'd be interested.
Appleinsider is a rumour site, btw.
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
... According to sources, Apple plans to make the Power Mac G5 available to the public following their introduction on June 23rd. ...
[/quote]what are the `sources'?
OK, now compare a P4 or Athlon to a PPC 970.. sure, like usual 6 months behind Intel and AMD. zzzttt
Anyway, what I found most interesting about the rumor/article was the inclusion of USB2.
They have long championed Firewire as superior (which it is, and is still included) but it is nice to see that they are willing to adapt and a more common USB2.
This acceptance of USB2 shows a willingness to accept standards, no matter how wrong they are.
Thoughts, anyone?
Panther (10.3) we know is coming, that is a given and that is the substance.
The "Shadow" is the G5 and even the most die-hard mac fan would most likely utter the phrase:
I will believe it when I see it.
IMO, apple needs to figure out if they are going to keep/dump metadata...and stick with it.
I find it quite half-assed you can generate previews of images, but not store them.
(with the exception of Internet Explorer, but only one at a time)
(won't someone think of the pr0n collections?)
.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Here's a clue, if you feel the need to post something and then add a snickering little countdown waiting for the "zealots" of a particular camp to reply, you may just be a zealot of the opposing camp yourself. Think about it
Gone are the days of WorkerBee.
You can't bet on the rumormill- only steve knows what's going to happen.
whats stopping IBM from making these chips available
with an appropriate motherboard for folks who would like to run linux/bsd/ on them?
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Maybe in some ways its 6 months behind Intel and AMD but its got features like an 800MHz FSB with RAM installed in pairs, 64 bit AltiVec/VMX/VE enabled CPU, multi-CPU support (almost certainly) and FireWire 800 --does any PC have this as standard yet?-- and HyperTransport. There will also be some other stuff that I can't think of right now.
Also the current Macs with PCI slots or ANY Mac that can run OSX with a PCI slot has been able to support USB 2.0 for almost a year.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
I think that's Altivec. If there's a way to run the G4 with a different core that doesn't have Altivec support you can see the difference.
The distributed.net client is about the only program I know of the G4 does so well on. Maybe somebody will post another? NOT Photoshop.
Clockspeed isn't as important as it used to be. The top of the line P4 is faster than the top of the line Athlon and the top of the line Athlon is faster than the top of the line G4. Remember that the Athlons use quantispeed architecture (marketing BS) too. I bought an Athlon last time and I'm considering a P4 for next time. Either that or an Athlon 64/Opteron.
I call shenanigans on both AppleInsider and Slashdot for being lame. I'll believe it when I see it.
First its a rumor, so I have my doubts. Second from some of the post you did read the article. Apple is putting 1 USB and 1 FW port in the front with others in the back. This is something Apple should have down a long time ago. Third, it does matter what the new machine is, it could be a Quad processor 10GHz, 25 Ghz internal bus with 50x AGP and 10 Terabytes of memory all for $1000 and some would still say "big deal, it doesn't run this or that, or it's not an Intel." Much the same as I don't give a rat's ass about a 3Ghz P4. I love my Macs, they do everything I want and I have no complaints.
those rumors have been floating around for a few weeks, if not months on other sites. For the wannabe-mac fanatics among yuo : here are other rumor adresses :
macrumors (reliable, good forums)
macosrumors (unreliable, bloated, no forums)
looprumors(reliable, low traffic forums)
thinksecret(reliable, low traffic content, low traffic forums)
macwhispers (reliable, mostly hardware info, no forums)
macslash(slashdot for mac, mostly blahblah)
macbidouille(french, rather new, so reliability unconfirmed)
appleturns(100% reliable news by Steve Jobs's alter ego)
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
HyperTransport is an architecture that supports ALL i/o through one chip/chipset Firewire/USB/ethernet/wireless/cache/memory - gigabit ethernet is part of that implementation.
There will also be some other stuff that I can't think of right now. ... yeah, like a new CPU architecture that is going to blow away Intel. ;-)
Because the only reason people buy Apple hardware is for the Mac OS (and related software).
This space intentionally left blank.
Dual-DDR for the RAM. AltiVec wouldn't make sense in the x86 architecture. You can buy cheap SMP motherboards for only $50 more than a standard good motherboard. FireWire 800? Show me a hard drive that can even write your data at 400Mb/s or show me a piece of consumer hardware that NEEDS 800Mb/s today. There is no big hurry to adopt FireWire 800. Anyone know when all the Mac trolls showed up on Slashdot?
Whoops, thanks for that, too early in the morning
with no espresso yet, my brain inserted a "no" in
front of that "with additional ports in the rear".
I'm still skeptical, but that's a bit more reasonable.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Maybe because dumping OS X would sort of be a huge step backwards for mankind.
...unless you mean "reliable in that Apple NEVER does what MacWhispers says"
Congratulations on the most original bit of computing insight I've seen yet regarding what Apple should do. This even beats Dvorak.
In all seriousness, what advantage would people have in paying considerably more for a slower machine with less usability and stability?
Perhaps it's because I'm a Mac person, but please, explain again why people wouldn't just buy a PC? It can't be that people would pay Apple for style only; after all, Dell has those cool, all-black units.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Gee, didn't you see that Intel has released (not just announced) Canterwood systems with 800MHz FSB? and Intel procs are all multi-proc capable/aware, so that data point is a bit behind.
Intel chose NOT to use Hypertransport in lieu of PCI-E, which will launch in Q2 next year and offer a lot more flexibility and functionality. Funny how the PCI SIG didn't select Hypertransport and did select PCI-E. While some *might* try to justify that Intel *controls* the PCI SIG, it's funny who else is listed there and could have chagned the vote...but they didn't.
Both zealot campts mis-quote and disseminate bad info...don't let yourself fall into that trap.
"... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
Aye aye aye, now don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to see the next generation of chips being put in Apple's machines, but doesn't this just seem too easy a rumor to put out? C'mon rumor-mongers, there are much better ones to go after.
Take for instance, this snippet taken from the article: ""In the box" connectivity among the news systems is based on Hypertransport -- a universal chip-to-chip interconnect developed by AMD and partners..."...why don't we start the speculation that we're going to AMD chips? Hm...that could be fun. And to be honest, I'm surprised nobody brought it up yet.
Then again...it wouldn't really surprise me to have IBM's new chips in there (I'm still wondering what's going to happen with Motorola and their silly little antics). We've got FinalCut Pro 4 coming out, Panther (OS 10.3) coming out, a couple new updates just happened (ie, iSynch)...all setting the stage for something new.
Now if they'd just hurry up with the Windows version of the music service to ward off the Redmond fellows...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
This is exactly what happened to Osborne, and drove them out of business. This is also exactly why Apple likes to shove corks up the asses of rumor sites.
Anyone know when all the Mac trolls showed up on Slashdot?
About the same time the virulently anti-Mac trolls
showed up. So yeah, they've been here since the start.
They're here, some of their cases are clear, get used to it.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine...
Even if the opteron doesn't smoke other cpu's the motherboard technology will1
horray for motherboard advancements that are LONG overdue!!!
If you buy any mac before WWDC, and then whine about not waiting to get a 'new model'..... oh well. SOMEONE will whine about it, I know it. Kinda curious as to what this will do to apple's sales over the next week or so before the introduction of things.
moo?
moox. for a new generation.
collectively let out our breath and exhale!
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
The author even already admitted he hasn't RTFA properly.
“Wait for Hurd if you want something real” –Linus
Mac people should know better than anyone why the name G5 - it's been complained about for years.
Marketing 101 (aka The Marketing Myth).
5 is a bigger number than 4 - therefore, the G5 MUST be better than the P4. Just like a 3Ghz PC MUST be faster than a 1.8 GHz...
The Mothership
g{FireWire 800? Show me a hard drive that can even write your data at 400Mb/s or show me a piece of consumer hardware that NEEDS 800Mb/s today. There is no big hurry to adopt FireWire 800.}g
400Megabits/second = 50 Megabytes/second
a fair few higher end ATA disks can top that on sustained reads/writes
and you're assuming that only one device is attached to the bus.. that's not always the case.
Which devices need/support/write/read FW 800? (As in, fully utilise the bandwidth). I'd be interested... Not to mention you need FIBER OPTIC wire to achieve that speed over 3 feet, which is extremely expensive. Already firewire is 30$ for a small wire.
As for HyperTransport, PCs will be using PCI-Express which can reach 32GBit and is the official standard that PCI-SIG approved. Apple once again has chosen to stick with the obsolete or "minority" technology.
"These initial units will ship with Mac OS 10.2, and hence, will not be optimized for the 64 bit PPC 970 processor. Consumers who purchase these Power Mac G5s will receive a coupon for a free copy of Mac OS 10.3 (Panther), which will ship in September and will be optimized for the new 64 bit processor"
Translation: It's a pet rock until September, by which time production can be geared up and units will actually be available. Of course this will kill all sales until then, so announcing this early would be a very bad idea. So an announcement this early is unlikely.
But... we all know it's coming. Won't be cheap tho, but you get what you pay for in the OSX/Win/Linux world. Over 2 years and still not one crash on my Mac.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I didn't think PCI-E and hypertransport were in competition, eg: How HyperTransport and PCI Express complement each other. Could you explain why intel chose one over the other?
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
Speaking of bad info
"Intel procs are all multi-proc capable/aware, so that data point is a bit behind."
Not so, if you want SMP with Intel these days you need a XEON, same basic core as a P4, but a different socket. (and higher pricetag)
Actually, the 686es should have been Hexia, not Sexia. But they ended up in the Pentium line due to name recognition, I guess.
A lot of you have been commenting that you're surprised they have USB 2 ports on them. I personally am not surprised to see them - the current MDD G4s have USB 2 ports on them, it's just the drivers in OS X make them into USB 1, you can actually replace the drivers and get nice 800Mbps ports. The fact that the hardware is there does not mean that they will be supported in the OS - it just means that USB 2 ports are cheeper to get hold of than USB 1 ports.
Bob
Let the anesthetizing begin!!!
Seriously, though.... there are SO many things wrong with your comment, I honestly wouldn't know where to begin...
And I won't even bother....
http://usa.asus.com/products/mb/socketa/a7n8x-d/ov erview.htm
Whether or not this one is Firewire 800, it still has firewire and all the other features of the new mac hardware and it's been out for months(a year?).
This is a troll but I'll respond anyways.
:P
Most of us LIKE Mac OSes. Up until Win2000, I wasn't satisfied with Windows OSes...I am a Wind'rs programmer by trade, but I always liked my Macs just a little more. Between the time os OS9 and 2000 -- I was a little torn over what was better...I think Win2k was a lot better than OS9 in retrospect.
BUT soon after that, I picked up the public beta of OSX and haven't been back to 9 since. I was right back in the Mac camp because it meant for once I didn't need to terminal into my Unix servers to get simple things done. On Windows, yeah, I have the Cyrix (err...is that it?) GNU Tools -- but it never felt right or integrated. The interface felt once again in the background to OSX.
Honestly, I wish Apple was a software only company -- The hardware is nice, but this is the area it seems to lag. I use to buy into the The MegaHertz Myth Is Wrong -- but as a programmer, I realized folks should not have to optimize their code for a specific base EACH AND EVERYTIME A PIECE OF HARDWARE CAME OUT. Some apps work with Altivec rather nicely...they can afford to optimize their code. Most of us want to write efficient portable code that can work anywhere. Of course, I do get pissed off when I hear friends talking about code I *KNOW* they've optimized for Windows and then left unoptimized for the Mac and then compare the two...I do a lot of work in the sound design industry and a lot of friends work at companies that make DSP solutions (both massmarket for consumers and the higher end for designing items that will not be of use to many others) -- and I see this all the time. Someone knows how to optimize to the SSE sets on Intel and have no problem tweaking the hell out of it and claiming benchmarks, but throwing the ported code to some monkey that knows only enough about the Mac to be dangerous -- and its embarassing because they then make outrageous statements about the relative speeds.
As for lack of Applications -- I don't know where folks get this. Numberwise -- yeah. Professional app to professional app, we have what we need. Anything in my field has an equivelent analog in both the Mac and the PC world -- with a lot of specialized apps actually being Mac Only (or at the least Mac First) because the creative market still looks at Mac Users as being more in this camp.
Again, I realize your response was a troll, but I felt like educating ya anyways
Your logic on this is kind of circular. Essentially everyone who responds to anyone will be a zealot...
It is a discussion/news site last I checked...
that's some of the most exciting new comedy I've heard in years!
That was classic intercourse!
So this "completely new" motherboard design is, like usual, about 6 months behind motherboards for AMD and Intel chips. Sweet.
Except that this motherboard will be supporting a 64bit CPU. Now who is playing catch-up?
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
Let's see some gaming benchmarks!!!!
Harddrives have been running at 66 Megabyte transfer rates forever. I think even old externel firewire drives are running at 66 Megabytes/s. Most modern harddrives run at 100 Megabytes a second, which is much closer to 800Mb/s firewire.
:~)
Awww... someone needs a hug!
wtf? Fiber is optical, it's not wire. Fiber is pretty cheap and getting cheaper all the time.
they all suffer from missing out a certain bit of information - the expected price. Yes, the 1.8 may well be up there with the high Pentium IVs, but at the moment you can get a very high spec PIV with probably more power than most people need for little over £500. If Apple release this with a price tag where you get little change from £2500, it doesn't matter that much what sort of spec of machine it can match up to...
MacOS is a better operating system than Windows -- the main things Windows has going for it are market share, which leads to more proprietary software being available, and tradition -- many users have never used anything besides Windows 95 and up, even. Of course, the above comparison is largely subjective. I have however noticed in my experience with Windows, Linux, and Macintosh (I use Windows every day, Macintosh most days, and Linux less than I'd like but still a good deal) that Macs tend to be the most reliable desktop computers, and the only ones that run Riven without the need to very carefully geek Quicktime.
If the internals are all connected via Hyper Transport it should be relatively easy for them to switch to Hammer if they wanted to.
AMD (Opteron), Intel (Itanium/Itanium 2)...
These guys have had 64 bit chipsets for months and years respectively. They are also multiprocessing.
Plus, this is RUMOR, the AMD and Intel chips are REALITY.
Didn't Steve say some time last year that Apple will never introduce new hardware at WWDC?
Of course, the way of Steve is complex and sometimes contradictory.
I don't know, but it works for me.
Steve "I ripped Woz off" Jobs has taken an open source project and turned it into a closed-source stolen OS.
uh no. you can go download it now. It's called Darwin. the only closed part is the stuff apple coded themselves. duh?
"That's because nobody gives a shit about firewire 400. Everyone who wants to actually get things done has been using USB 2.0"
You don't get out much, do you? Never seen a digital camcorder?
That was classic intercourse!
Intel procs are all multi-proc capable/aware, so that data point is a bit behind.
Since when is a P4 multi-cpu capable?
Bob your a redundant! From Robbie (another bob)
Who's to say Apple will announce it now, but not ship it until Panther debuts? Apple announced and demonstrated the original iMac (IIRC) in May 1998, but did not actually begin shipping until August of that year-- I may not have the dates exactly right, but there were certainly at least two months between announcement and availability. And that was not an instance of Jobs saying "This is available now," but product not shipping until weeks later because they couldn't ramp up production quickly enough. It was a stated two or three month delay from the start.
I think that this time, however, Apple would be doing the right thing to release the G5 ASAP-- that way the hardware will be available during back-to-school time, one of Apple's busiest sales periods. If they do the announce-and-wait thing this time, they'll miss the back-to-school sales. They'll also piss off a lot of people who just blew their wad in August on a G4 with significantly less computing power for about the same money that now buys a G5.
As long as everyone who buys a G5 gets a voucher in the box for a free upgrade to 10.3, I see no problem with shipping the hardware a few months before the OS that takes full advantage of it debuts.
~Philly
I live to entertain Slashdot users!
Hmmm.
Remember, the common consumer doesn't know anything about how a CPU works. They see a bigger number on the advertisement for the computer, think it's faster and then purchase it. Why do you think Intel went with an architecture that scales to high clock speeds so easily? And why AMD is using performance ratings? It's because there are far more common consumers than "experts" purchasing computers. Remember, processor companies are in the biz to make money, they're not out to impress the /. crowd.
You mean their interfaces were capable of transferring 66MB/s and 100MB/s respectively. The maximum a current IDE drive can sustain is around 50-60MB/s and then only at the outer edge of the platter. Anything above ATA100 only helps burst transfers from the drive's cache and doesn't really do anything for real world performance (except maybe for those 8MB cache drives).
Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
Does that have anything to do with Dance Dance Revolution?
All it takes is nukes and nerves.
Why don't they give out sacks of Golden Delicious apples with every purchase?
Why don't they stop selling computers and start selling expensive toasters?
Have you noticed that you can run plenty of windows AND GNU/linux apps on mac os through compatibility layers like virtual pc, vmware, etc, through official support(Microsoft Office, and unfortunately IE), and through the darwin core?
Leave the South out of this, you Yankee dickwad. There are bible-thumping inbreds everywhere, not just in the South.
Ok, the Opteron is fair, but even it has yet to hit the marketplace. The Itanium, however, is completely out of the league of desktop computing for most people, relegating it strictly to workstation and professional uses. Granted, Apple will put it first into its PowerMacs, which it claims are targeting professional audiences, but knowing Apple, it will trickle down to the rest of the market soon enough. When will Intel start pushing the Itanium as a desktop processor? Not anytime soon, I'll wager.
Besides, if we want to start talking about who got to 64-bit first, lets not forget all the unix workstation and server makers, like Sun and SGI. Last I checked, they went 64-bit WAY before AMD or Intel did, so does that make both of them obsolete? Somehow I doubt you'd agree with that.
What do you mean by that? Is this site done by Steve or what? Or is it a joke? I don't understand it...
you are wrong
Sound waves should be free!
Whether or not this one is Firewire 800
It is not Firewire 800. Now, where are the Intel mobos with Firewire 800 and a 64 bit CPU, and 8x AGP?
Somehow Hexium just doesn't have quite the same ring as Pentium, though...
I can see why they chose not to pursue that line. Pentium was a strong name, and it prevents them from confusing the users with a new prefix every time they upgrade. We'd be up to, what, Octium by now?
" Show me a hard drive that can even write your data at 400Mb/s"
Well, I have a striped pair in this Mac that can write at just shy of 90MB/sec and read at just over 110MB/sec. It's internal on a USCSI 160 card at the moment, but that's because FW 400 was no good as a USCSI replacement. FW 800 might well be...
That was classic intercourse!
no, you wouldn't. lower MHz at the same processor speed is *better*.
Who cares? I don't need a 64-bit machine. Why would I care if Intel offers a consumer-level 64-bit processor or not? What matters to me is performance/price, and Apple is getting its ass kicked all over the place by that metric. Oh, but someday soon it'll be 64-bit? Whoop-de-doo.
AAPL currently sits at a price it first set in 1987!
Yah, if you neglect the fact that AAPL split twice during this period of time, the price is the same. In actuality the value of a share of stock purchased in 1987 is 4 times higher today.
Some rumor sites claim the PPC prices will be lower than Motorola's G4. Who knows for sure? I would think IBM would offer the lowest prices possible to speed adoption of the chip. I have also read on the web that IBM's costs for G3s were lower than Motorola's because their production facilities were better. *shrug* If PPC970 truly is 25-35% lower than G4s its a no-brainer for Apple to use them.
If the prices are that low I wouldn't expect Apple to lower prices though. The pro models have been fairly consistent at their current price point for some time. I'm sure other costs have gone up with new features like Hypertransport, Firewire 800 and USB 2.0 (how much does Intel charge for that?). All o fthis si specualtion until the hardware actually comes out of course.
As for the stock comment, prices go up and down. I seem to recall a stock split a few years back. The stock has gone up recently with the iTunes sales announcements. However I think stock price is one of the least indicators about how well a company is doing - and certainly has nothing to do with the price of mac hardware.
And if only your mother had stopped drinking and dropping acid while pregnant with you. And dropping you on your head that one time probably didn't help, either.
All you have to do is look at the fact that apple STILL uses a one button mouse, to see the intelligence level of their users.
Apple typically keeps their prices pretty constant (with some exceptions) and applies them to new revs of the same machine. They will probably have a Good, Better, and Best config. for roughly $1500, $2K, and $3K. I would love for them to prove me wrong, though.
"Form should follow function...unless it's just plain ugly."
Thare have been comments following the IBM announcement of the 970 at the Microprocessor Forum that the price will in fact be as cheap or cheaper than the Motorolla G4 which it is replacing in Apple's Pro and Server lines. I would assume the bigger expense is in redesigning the entire Motherboard achitecture; memory; buses; etc. Fortunately there is no big licensing cost for Hypertransport.
Remember that for IBM this is a scaled down version of the Power4, not an upscale chip, so I believe they will price it competitively.
Not to count out the G4 which Moto says will eventually be released as a dual core processor. The next revision ( 7457?) is likely to increase frequency over 1.4GHz at a lower voltage so it still has some life in portables and iMacs/eMacs. Also, we might be surprised to find that AltiVec performance on the "G5" is NOT better than the G4...!
IBM is already working on the 970's replacement which is the baby sibling of the Power5.
In regard to to share price, you must also factor in a 2 for 1 share split which happened during the bubble of the late nineties/2000 when APPL had reached $53 and was slipping down to $46. I think this left the stock then at $23 following the split.
The iTunes Music store added about $4 recently and if the G5 with Panther is a hit, and they don't wait too long to put it into PowerBooks then you might see the stock at $23 again. (Not a bad post bubble performance by any tech company!)
more or less, generally speaking, stock prices-the "market"- today mean almost zip to any company once they've spent the IPO cash they get for them. This "market" is gambling and rumors and shills and wave this and wave at that theories more than a reflection of a companies actual worth. At best, they are a very rough indicator (see SCOX), at worst, they mean zip except in the face of a takeover. People don't* buy or sell or use macintosh computers based on todays "stock" price in apple.
*probably a very small "few", but really, you know what I am saying here.
Which devices need/support/write/read FW 800? (As in, fully utilise the bandwidth).
That's right. 640K is enough for anybody.
Not to mention you need FIBER OPTIC wire to achieve that speed over 3 feet
9-pin to 9-pin 14' 800/800 FireWire Cable - $44.95ÂÂ IN STOCK
No kidding?
As for HyperTransport, PCs will be using PCI-Express which can reach 32GBit and is the official standard that PCI-SIG approved.
Hey, check it out! The troll doesn't know the difference between a chipset and an expansion slot! Neato.
I've had two of the dual-USB iBooks, a 500MHz/320MB/20GB/CD purchased back in June 2001 and used daily until December 2002, when I upgraded to an 800MHz/640MB/30GB/Combo. I have never had a problem with either unit, nor with iTunes locking up. The speed is just fine.
I think the problem is that you don't take care of your hardware, and don't know how to maintain the OS. Either that or you're just making the whole thing up.
so you're ticked off that an iBook with a chip that's soon to be two generations old doesn't stack up to your probably latest-and-greatest PC?
woof!
If the battery life of apple laptops is adversely affected by an attempt to stay in the pointless meggahurtz race. My iBook 800Mhz is more than quick enough for anything I want to do, and 4.5 hour battery life (on average, using Airport) is the reason I bought it (apart from OS X itself).
So this "completely new" motherboard design is, like usual, about 6 months behind motherboards for AMD and Intel chips. Sweet.
That's okay. PC-land is way more than six months behind Apple in practically every other respect.
Find me a dual-processor computer with built-in FireWire 800 and 802.11g.
Find me an all-in-one computer with an articulated 17" digital LCD.
Find me a 17" laptop with built-in Gigabit ethernet.
You Mac-haters love to hop up and down on things like clock speed and bus speed, things that frankly just don't matter very much. When you do a feature-for-feature comparison of a Mac (any variety) to the competition, it's easy to see why. Because by every other metric, you guys lose big time.
Show me a hard drive that can even write your data at 400Mb/s or show me a piece of consumer hardware that NEEDS 800Mb/s today.
HD-DV camcorder. What? They're not available today? Oh, well, then forget it. If it's not on the market right this fucking minute, I don't guess there's any reason to worry about it, is there?
640K is enough for everybody.
There is no big hurry to adopt FireWire 800.
Virtually every FireWire product manufacturer (except Sony, of course) has moved to FireWire 800. No big hurry? Dude, there's no big hurry to adopt Fiber Channel, either... among the homebrew hobbyist set. Out there in the real world, both FireWire (400 and 800) and Fibre Channel are everywhere.
Looks like you got one of the 2.8% of Apple "bad stock" 97.2% quality is the HIGHEST in the computer industry.
Your "problems" are bogus because either you haven't updated your software properly, dropped it, or just got one of the very FEW lemons. The Ibook is one of the fastest, nicest (for the price) laptops availible.
Wouldn't this break binary compatability with current Macs? That would mean s/w distributors have to sell two versions of s/w; wouldn't that strangle the 3rd party software for Apple market?
Practice Kind Randomness and Beautiful Acts of Nonsense.
You also have to take into account share dillution too. There are almost 12x as many shares floating out there as there were in 1987.
That's not true. I believe the cost is about 25 cents US per port, if that - and I doubt that most companies blanch at the thought of paying 50 cents more per computer or mainboard.
USB is cheaper to implement, but that's mainly because Intel wants to saturate the market with it. I've seen tests where even Firewire 400 is able to sustain a faster connection than USB 2 (which is supposed to have an 80 Mbps advantage). So one could argue that, in a sense, you get what you pay for.
good post and I'll add - PowerBook G3's and G4's can also use USB 2.0 cardbus PCMCIA cards
With the hypertransport and some of the other stuff it just seems that it's too much of a jump. I think we will see a G5 based on the IBM chip, we will see USB 2.0 and we may even see Firwire 800 (faster then the original firewire). The rest of the stuff my require too many changes to OSX to be brought out in this time frame. Or, quite possibly, Motorola may have been working on something totally new and unknown to us due to NDA's with Apple. IE, don't hold your breath and if you want a Mac, don't hold off. Buy the Mac you want now. It will work.
Gorkman
You also have to take into account share dillution too.
Depends on your perspective. If you are interested in the market cap of the company, total number of shares x market price indicates the valuation of the company is 12x what it was in 1987. If you are interested in shareholder return, then the number is 4x.
Either way it shows that the original post is totally off-base.
I, on the other hand, purchased a 700Mhz G3 iBook several months ago as my first ever Mac, mostly to play with OS X, and thought that it was such a great machine that I also switched my desktop to a Power Mac. The G3 may be a little light on horsepower for apps such as iMovie and maybe even iPhoto, but it's a great little machine for surfing, word processor use, and yes, even iTunes rocks on it.
Which wintel motherboards have fw 800 and hypertransport? I'd be interested.
I wasn't really going to comment on this, but since it got modded up 5, Insightful...
nForce, nForce2
You might be further interested in knowing that hypertransport was primarily designed by AMD and is used in all of their Opteron systems, and will also be used in all Athlon64 systems. I guess that's not wintel per se... but it's a PC motherboard nonetheless.
Furthermore, if there is a demand for fw 800 on PCs, they will have it... a small upside of not being at the whim of a single company *cough*Apple*cough*.
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
Few points:
- Apple should fix the latch right away (did they?)
- iTunes - if application(s) start locking up, trash the associated preferences file(s), and/or fix your permissions (try Google); it's weak, but it beats having to fix your registry
- YOUR REBOOTING IT? You should rarely have to do that, just open it to wake it up and use it, close it to put it to sleep (this takes literally 2-3 seconds)
If you're not smart enough to send your machine off to Apple Service, don't blame them.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
I like the handles. I like the case design. I especially like the pull out locking handle mechanism for the side door. There is no case out there that is easier to work on. The drive carriers snap into and out of place, the RAM and PCI slots are super accessable. Even the optical bays are easy to get to. From a desktop IT point of view, these current enclosures are a joy to work on.
I have faith that if Apple changes the design of their boxen, they will change it for the better. But then I remember the hockey-puck mouse too. : (
Cursing in the French language is like wiping your ass with silk.
I am a Windows admin (please save your snide comments) and I was at the mall yesterday. I haven't touched a Mac in some time and went into the apple store to see what all the hype was about. I have to say after playing with a variety of systems I wasn't into it at all. I understand if I had one and became intimate with one I'd discover what all those people are talking about that have switched. But maybe its becuase I'm use to having more then one mouse button, but the interface wasn't nearly as intutive as advertised. and the desktop seemed all about bells & whistles (which are nice, but at home I want to game, host a web site, surf porn, and maybe do some multimedia stuff). Don't get me wrong, I love the hardware and damn the new iMac is sexy, if I could get one that ran Windows or RedHat (or Mandrake) I'd think about it, but the freaking Mac software is priced out of my range. I am looking for a new home PC and the Dell XPS is my choice right now, but I'd love to hear about someone in a similar situation as I that went with a Mac and what their experience was.
But as the popular MacObserver states, "A mac on your desk is worth two on the rumor sites."
Do you buy a computer every 6 months? Must be nice...
Apple will announce computers based on IBM's 64 bit PPC 970 processor in the upcomming WWDC and will market them as G5...Initial offerings of the Power Mac G5 are said to boast 1.4 to 1.8GHz, single core PPC 970 processors Isn't the whole "G" thing copyrighted by Motorola? Even if it's not, G5 is a lame and misleading name. Not only are G3s and G4s made by Motorola, they are 32-bit. Even if Apple somehow thought G5 would be a good idea, I don't think IBM would stand for it. Many people know Gx = Motorola = slow development. It seems like it'd be a better idea just to call it what it is, the PPC970, and calling the Power Macs, Power Mac 970.
With "Marketing" in your nickname, it cancels out and then some. Any whiff or hint of marketdroidness, and even a single digit UID would be worthless. Just ask SalesWeasel(871) with his triple digit UID. Betcha he wished he'd used something more cool...
The company is losing the war, plain and simple.
There's a war? Nobody told me there was a war.
Apple is one of the most consistently profitable companies in the industry. (Or, at least, has been for about the past five years.)
Oh, and as for your wisecrack about the stock price: it's called a stock split, dude. You wake up one morning and there's a letter from the company in your mailbox. Yesterday you owned ten thousand shares at $40 each. Today you own twenty thousand shares at $20 each.
Apple has done this TWICE in the past 10 years. So the shares that are currently sitting at 1987 prices are worth four times as much as they were in 1987, because there's four times as many of 'em.
The clip that holds it shut broke within the first two weeks.
The clip that holds an iBook shut is made out of 18/10 stainless steel. It's not going to break.
iTunes locks up half the time and is seriously lacking in the features department.
iTunes never locks up. Seriously. It has never locked up, ever. The nature of the operating system makes it impossible for iTunes to lock up. The only way OS X software can lock up is if it gets executed as part of the kernel, as a kext. Apart from the iPod driver, iTunes has no kernel software.
And features? What features?
The thing is so slow that it's almost painful to use.
Wrong. I own a 500 MHz iBook with 256 MB of RAM. It's no speed-demon, but it's not painful to use.
I have to go do something else while the damn thing boots up.
Well... yeah! Mac OS X takes a while to boot. Duh.
I've booted my iBook twice in the past year, not counting software updates. Once I had to change batteries on a plane. Once I had a kernel panic. (A USB thing, since fixed in 10.2.6.) Both times, the reboot was interminable. But so what? If you do it twice a year, what's the big?
You, sir, are a troll. And an exceedingly bad one at that.
I wasn't really going to comment on this, but since it got modded up 5, Insightful...
nForce, nForce2
Ah, thanks. I agree, I made a simple enquiry. Modding seemed - extravagant?
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
No, you 100k+ fool! Go back to elementary school and eat crayons!
As mentioned several times above, FireWire 800 is essentially useless at this point. And 802.11g isn't even finalized, and might turn out to be much slower than planned. Oh yeah, by the way, where did you buy this computer? How do you like it?
Find me an all-in-one computer with an articulated 17" digital LCD.
All-in-one anything sucks. Pixels going dead? Buy a new computer! Want to upgrade the motherboard? Buy a new computer!
Find me a 17" laptop with built-in Gigabit ethernet.
Find me an individual that actually uses Gigabit ethernet at home. Also find me someone that wants to lug around a 17" laptop.
You Mac lovers love to hop up and down on things that you have, but that you don't actually need.
I agree that the G3 is not the fastest processor out there but I'm hoping it can stay around a little longer. As you said, the speed is great for many uses. I think it's real strengths are seen in its low power consumption and heat dissipation. Many of these new processors require monstrous heat sinks or fans. My iBook is so great because it doesn't need a fan - it works silently and, under normal conditions, doesn't get really hot. The G3 is a great processor for laptops: the lack of a fan and low temperatures adds up to a portable computer that doesn't get in the way audibly or temperaturely. :P
But how slowly will 32 bit applications run on it?
Your UID is not sufficiently low to win an argument.
Mine is.
Now, stop talking and stand in the corner.
An obvious advantage of FW800 or other high bandwidth ports such as USB 2.0 is that you can use a multitude of lower bandwidth devices on the one port without saturating the port's bandwidth.
FireWire 800 is essentially useless at this point
;-)
As mentioned several times above, the fact that it's not yet a bottleneck does not mean it's essentially useless. FireWire 800 hard drives and arrays are faster than FireWire 400 drives and arrays. And HD-DV camcorders with FireWire 800 interfaces will be on the shelf at your neighborhood Good Guys by Christmas.
And 802.11g isn't even finalized, and might turn out to be much slower than planned.
How is it going to get slower, exactly? I'm connected via 802.11g as I write this.
Oh yeah, by the way, where did you buy this computer? How do you like it?
I bought it at the Knox Street Apple Store several months ago. I love it. I would never, ever go back.
All-in-one anything sucks.
Wrong, dude. Your personal preference does not translate into a statement of fact.
Pixels going dead? Buy a new computer!
What do you mean, "pixels going dead?" Pixels don't go dead. They either come off the assembly line defective, or they continue to work pretty much forever.
Also, Apple's repair policies are the most customer-friendly in the industry. See the recent Consumer Reports article.
And yes, if you're into upgrading your computer, an all-in-one is not for you. Don't buy one. But the fact is that the vast majority of computer buyers do not upgrade their computers, so the all-in-one design is a good one for most people.
Find me an individual that actually uses Gigabit ethernet at home.
My hand's up, dude. All you need is a crossover cable.
Also find me someone that wants to lug around a 17" laptop.
I'd happily lug one if I hadn't spent my wad on my G4 tower. My friend David has a 17" which he brings to work every day, and it's the bee's knees, dude.
But it's easy for you to snipe, I know. It's a natural response to jealousy.
You Mac lovers love to hop up and down on things that you have, but that you don't actually need.
Do any of us actually need any of this stuff? Of course not. All we need is food, shelter, and clothing. (Of course, my friend's PowerBook can be used as shelter, but that's another point.)
You have the P4 Xeon for that. The original poster should probably have said each Intel CPU architecture are multi-proc capable (since the PPro, that is).
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
We can only hope!
/me practices his Dance Dance sk177z to show off for the ladies
Well... since the current G4 is less than half as fast as a PC and costs twice as much, then I guess that will put the G5 at 4x the cost of an equally equipped PC.
But if Apple does the unimaginable and puts a realstic price tag on them, I'll be first in line to buy one.
Well you can see why they never got as far as Rectium.
Yeah, it's a rumor, but this is a pretty substatiated rumor, that i think we can all agree is happening. One thing still in dispute, is if the new processor is gonna be called a G5 or not. I'm sure Apple wants to get away from the image that the motorola processor havee generated over the last few years.
I would expect to see the PPC 970 at WWDC, or shortly after, i.e. August. As for USB 2, it's coming. Apple has already started using USB 2 cards in its powermac lineup (just not supported by the OS). As for apple trying to catch up in the Mhz race, i don't see this. IBM is the one who's set the Mhz of the 970. I also agree with many rumor sites, stating that the 970 will not be any more expensive that the current G4 lineup. Apple is the only company getting anything based off the G4 motorola line, but IBM currently builds the 970 for it's own blade servers, thus they don't have to gear up just to make chips for apple.
Yeah, the P4 is up over 3Ghz, but looking back, crays are still uber fast, and they don't run ungodly mhz......
Also, i wouldn't count on Apple calling it a G5, as apple might go back to calling their chips by their developed name...ie-970
As for 10.3 and the 64-bit stuff, the 64 bit only comes into play when you start getting 64 bit software to run on the machine, that's why Panther is so big, it'll be a 64 bit OS. Also expect a 64-bit version of Project Builder to help move to 64-bit apps.
AMD is not the founder of hypertransport...They are part of a group who's developing it, and one of the last members to join if i recall...... And I don't think that the transition of an AMD chip is much more complicated than you make it out to be....
Personally, if the idea of a 970 makes your blood boil, wait until WWDC and make an informed choice...if you can't wait to buy a mac, but it now.....
How cany anyone say that the 970 is behind AMD/Intel? Last time i looked, IBMs own 970 is FASTER than the new opterons, aren't those supposed to be fast?
Sorry for the sarcasm, but i find that PC users bash what they don't understand. Apple is heavily imitated by the PC world, so the must be doing something right. Let's just all watch and see what happens at WWDC, and talk about it later. Gossiping about new Mac Hardware......$Free Writing Cocoa apps that screa.........$Free Showing your PC friends how must faster your PPC 970 is over their WINTEL box......$Priceless
According to YahooFinance, in April 87 AAPL closed at 79.25. Adjusted for splits and dividends this is equivalent to 19.76 today. On Friday AAPL, closed at 18.17.
Back in 96' or 97' I can recall a bunch of hype in the public markets for the infamous DEC ALpha. I can recall banner adds here on slashdot for "64bit power" and other advertisments basically to the effect of "my processor is bigger than yours" type stuff. The difference now is that the market seems slightly more ready for 64 bit computing as more than 2 vendors are selling 64 bit systems. Intel (ia 64), IBM (ppc 970), Transmeta (128bit/2 core), MIPS, AMD, and I think you can still buy a new Alpha from HP still. I suspect the market still isnt' ready for 64 bit computing, but the saturation of vendors trying to be the one wwho actually makes penetration, like sperm on the egg of the consumer market. Apple is probably the most end-user'ish vendor on the market with very little server penetration, and this is promising news. Most of the other 64 platforms go the way of awsome servers. Apple has the chance to sell systems to mac-heads who would do anything to recapture their former elitness geek glory of years gone by. The onyl way 64 bit system will work ijs if they are compatible with the 32 bit software, and yes I mean the OS + user apps. This is why Apple, and AMD have an advantage. Intell seems to have the notion that since it is the market leader that it can simply force a new architecture down our necks, and the market has decided otherwise, and Intel hasn't lived up to its own expectations either. Time will tell is the IBM incarnation of the PPC is going to make it, and Apple has a history of over pricing their gear. If they could get their systems down to the average price of $1200 usd, then they would have a chance.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
I've read several rumor sites myself, and I've read that the PPC970's manufacturing price point is actually cheaper than the existing chips Apple uses. So if this is true, it raises serious issues with Apple. 1. Apple needs higher clock speeds to remain competitive in the minds of Joe Consumer and Joe IT Worker (see #2). 2. If the PPC970 is cheaper to manufacture and consumes less power than the existing G3 and G4 chips Apple computers feature, then the PPC970 needs to be implemented immediately throughout the Mac line. 3. Abruptly phasing out all G3/G4 machines (#2) would kill sales of existing units on the shelves. 4. Apple would want to offer the PPC970 at the top end to enjoy large profit margins from early adopters before implementing the 970 throughout the entire Mac line. The greater good requires Apple to incur short-term losses (think existing G3's and G4's in the stores) in order to leapfrog the entire PC market by offering 64 bit solutions top-to-bottom in their product line. It is crucial Apple comes out ahead of AMD's consumer 64bit offerings. But because of #3 and #4, Apple will probably choose otherwise... If Apple were smart, they'd start off with a single 1.4 ghz PPC970 in the eMacs and iMacs, and then work their way up the PowerMac ladder with dual (or even quad) processors up to 1.8 ghz. Afterall, it would be easier for $7/hr. sales employee at Worst Buy explaining why Joe Consumer should pick a 1.4 ghz 64-bit PPC970 powered eMac over a 2.5 or 3.0 ghz P4 equipped PC than it would continuing to argue the merits of the G4 line...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
He's probably refering to the Kernel version, not the distirbution version. Companies like RedHat and SuSE give their own version numbers for their distribution, but they're all based on a Linux "kernel", which has its own version, and I think that's more reliable of an indicator than the distirbution number.
Of course, Apple hasn't shipped a computer in colors other than white/grey/silver in, what, over two years??...
Anyone know when all the Mac trolls showed up on Slashdot?
All you have to do is look at the ID numbers after their log-in name and you will see that Mac users have been here on Slashdot from the very beginning back in 97 or 98. Remember, Slashdot is News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Not News for Wintel or Linux exclusively.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Where is the apple one? Is it available? No.
I'm an AMD proponent anyways, 8X AGP has been here for a big while, 64 bit cpus coming later this year (who knows, maybe even before apple's), I don't care about FW800, much like everybody else so that's a moot point. I'll just stick a card in there if I ever need it, at least I have the option of not paying for it.
It's very easy.
The processors will continue from G5 to G9, and eventually to G9.2. The next processor after that will be GX 10.0.
Got it?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
I know whatcha mean, who needs to think about future needs? 640K outta be enough memory for anyone!
- Bill G.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
Mac users don't upgrade their motherboards, don't usually upgrade their processors so that argument about all-in-one is pretty lame.
Pixels going dead? Get Apple to replace them. Pretty simple as long as you have AppleCare.
All-in-one's are perfect for their target. My mom loves hers. Less wires, less clutter...Not every computer user is a pro you know.
I use gigabit ethernet in the home. I am constantly copying large movies from my G4 to my iBook to bring to clients. There, you're proved wrong yet again.
Don't assume all mac users are my mom, and don't assume all mac users are pro users like me. Your assumptions will most likely be wrong.
As more users join this site, will my uid gain more credibility ? I am keen to find out.
Kid. Let me tell you something. Slashdot is a pyramid scheme. I got sucked into years ago, and despite my comparatively low uid, I still haven't gotten the laptop I was promised. It's only the people with sub-100 ids that have really benefited. To get your laptop, you'd have to get over 1 billion people to sign up, and frankly, that's unlikely to happen.
This processor absolutely rocks! It is used by IBM to build multimillion dollar mainframes.
Apple could do a lot worse. At 1.4Ghz a single processor can take on Dual Intel 3.0Ghz Xeons. Imagine dual 1.8Ghz...droooooool!
Not quite. Hypertransport is a high speed bus used to connect the CPU to the peripheral chips. There will still be an ethernet chip, and a firewire chip, but they will live on a Hypertransport bus rather than a PCI or PCI-X bus.
HyperTransport technology transfers data at 12.8 Gigabytes per second. It is designed to be approximately 48 times faster than PCI, 12 times faster than PCI X and 10 times faster than 4-channel Infiniband.
The current G4 suffers from a severe bus bandwidth bottleneck. This is an on-chip problem, so no fancy peripheral chips can rectify it. This is why the current DDR PowerMacs don't see the significant benefit that DDR technology should provide. In most current P4/Athlon/G4 performance comparisons, the G4's lagard performace can be much more attributed to its poor memory bandwidth than it's core clock speed.
Although initial 970 core clock speeds don't seem to be significantly greater than the current G4, its peripheral interface bandwidth is lightyears ahead. Hypertransport would help the 970 sing, significantly improving its throughput. Hypertransport would be wasted on a G4. It would be like having a superhighway run by your city, but your on/off ramps are potholed dirt tracks with metering lights.
I think P4's are still 686. So it'd be Hexium Lordknowswhat. I'm glad it's Pentium 4, myself.
"Hi5" sounds good to me!
The article does a good job of speaking to the differences and the appropriate uses of each. It does not, however, discuss the history or the competition for adoption that has occurred in the background. Hypertransport was originally presented by AMD's consortium as a competitor to PCI-E and AMD worked hard to drive OEMs to HT rather than PCI-E.
This competition was essentially silenced when the PCI SIG selected PCI-E as the next-generation interconnect.
It is interesting to note that the author of the article suggested that PCI-E is the interconnect of choice for expansion buses and backplanes since one of the bigger design-wins for HT is the embedded backplane market.
While I can understand the "new" marketing for each technology, they were presented as competitors by both companies until the SIG made its choice.
"... but you can love completely without complete understanding." - Norman Maclean, "A River Runs Through It"
Shall we compare 50% market cap growth (I would imagine you still don't see how to compute that, but I'm not going to educate you) with the growth of Apple's competitors in the same 16 years? Whether you pick Microsoft, Dell, or even the PC industry as a whole, Apple is being left in the dust.
I reiterate my original point (excuse me, flamebait): the success of this product (if it exists) will be critical for Apple's continued success (perhaps even existence)--so it better be affordable. Why is that so hard to accept?
As if we don't know your tatics by now!
Eat this troll - every computer bar M$ runs on a Linux/Unix/BSD/OS X operating system. M$ is the only stand out. You could apply the same reasoning to M$, because they're not an OS company, but a software vendor, and they should join the Unix crowd.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
It does if you custom build your machines. In general, I can also build a system with this stuff at a considerably cheaper price than it would cost me to run out and buy a new Apple computer.
Just to mention, I think both Mac and PC have their own individual strengths..but it's a shit situation any way you slice it. Mac's can't hit the processing power of most modern PC's, but you're stuck using Windows or BSD/Linux/etc, which means a lack of professional music and graphics applications. Mac's have a better interface, but you're locked into using paying out the ass for a system that you can't build yourself and there's a lack of 3rd party support for certain types of applications. So, we as users have to pick and choose.
Cut the slagging on each others systems; it's all relative to what we use our computers for. Personally, I want a Mac for my audio work, a PC for graphics (sorry, but until XSI is ported over..), and a FreeBSD box for day-to-day use and servers. In the meantime, i'm stuck with my one PC, because I'm not exactly rolling in cash, and paying $4000-$6000 for a Mac that's loaded with the type of specs I expect isn't really within my budget right now.
P4s are still 586 based. They're the DX of the 586 world.
If you're going to mention As The Apple Turns, you must also mention its evil twin site Crazy Apple Rumors.
I visit them both daily.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
iTunes never locks up. Seriously. It has never locked up, ever. The nature of the operating system makes it impossible for iTunes to lock up. The only way OS X software can lock up is if it gets executed as part of the kernel, as a kext. Apart from the iPod driver, iTunes has no kernel software
Ok, it is NOT impossible.
The ARCHITECTURE of the OS in theory would prevent iTunes from locking up the OS, but the OS in and of itself does not prevent an application like iTunes from crashing or locking itself up.
Secondly, due to the ARCHITECTURE of the MacOSX and its 'kernel', even Applications can bring the system down that have no direct access to the kernel level.
The kernel level in MacOSX(Darwin) is not nearly as protected as most people believe. There is no separation of the OS and the kernel as in an OS as WindowsNT/2k/XP. That is one of the differences between an object based client/server microkernel as in NT and the monolithic kernel in MacOSX and even the microkernel in Linux.
For example, the WIN32 kernel is a separate kernel than the NT kernel, as WIN32 is just an OS Client Subsystem that sits on the NT kernel. This is technology that does not exist in any *nix variant (or other consumer level OS) and therefore in these *nix variants there is no abstraction between the true OS kernel and the Client OS kernel. Even if you hate Microsoft, you have to admire the team that created the NT architecture and its object based client/server microkernel variant.
You need to read a bit more on the theory of the architecture and its actual implementation â" the Apple sound bites always sound good, but you also have to realize that even with multiple layers of hardware and kernel abstraction, there is never an absolute in being completely crash proof.
Also realize that your comments are the same ones said almost 10 years ago by both OS/2 and WindowsNT users. It is just new to the Mac with OSX to have a modern OS that has crash protection mechanisms. Unfortunately, it was only PC (and *nix) users that have enjoyed these for years.
PS, I have seen iTunes crash as well, it is not âimpossibleâ(TM).
(I am a âProudâ(TM) user of Windows2003 Server, WindowsXP, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac System 8.1, and Mac OSX â" prejudice of OSes is nothing but ignorance in action.)
I definitely second your opinion that the G3 is a great processor for portables. My 12" iBook replaced a 12" Dell, and the iBook is not only a much more durable and solid-feeling laptop, it's much quieter than the Dell and stays very cool after hours of use, unlike the Dell which I could barely keep on my lap after a half hour.
Eat this smartass - MS windows is about 9 times bigger than all other operating systems combined (in the desktop area).
So now you want to move into the realm of market cap?
Oh, excellent - flamebait AND ad-hominem attacks. Not to mention you failed to notice that the original post regarding market cap wasn't from me, and was BEFORE your rebuttal on share price.
Your posting style is probably the MOST OBNOXIOUS I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Yeah, and insects outnumber humans 200 million to one.
They may not need to make a Windows version of the music store - rumours are running around that it'll be made accessible through Amazon.com. This may be a better way to allow access to Windows users.
Umm,
I don't think you qualified your statment correctly. How bout, "Every desktop computer sold today runs on a unix derived OS".
Of couse, their are lots of lecacy home computers that run on somthing other than a unix flavor (Amiga, Apple II(gs), Atari).
And don't forget about the Mainframe players who are still VERY relevant for large information transaction systems. As I understand, these are largely CPM based (the OS that NT was inspired by).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Mac's can't hit the processing power of most modern PC's, but you're stuck using Windows or BSD/Linux/etc, which means a lack of professional music and graphics applications
I only disagree on the availability of graphics and professional music applications on the PC.
I know of a couple of applications that are only available for the Mac platform in these areas, and yet I know of at least 20 mainstream applications in this area that are NOT available for the Mac.
The Mac having better music and graphical design applications is a myth that is carried over from the late 80s, early 90s.
Several of our techs and users in our animation and graphics department would love to debate this Mac myth.
(And I'm not knocking the Mac at all, but there is nothing technologically or based on application availability in the Mac platform that gives it an advantage. â" At least not in the last 10 years.)
The ARCHITECTURE of the OS in theory would prevent iTunes from locking up the OS, but the OS in and of itself does not prevent an application like iTunes from crashing or locking itself up.
If the kernel is not being preempted, you can always shut down an application. It's not possible for an application to lock up the kernel. Can't be done.
That is one of the differences between an object based client/server microkernel as in NT and the monolithic kernel in MacOSX and even the microkernel in Linux.
Oh, okay. I understand now. You don't know what the FUCK you are talking about. Thanks for clearing that up.
Even if you hate Microsoft, you have to admire the team that created the NT architecture
You mean VMS?
PS, I have seen iTunes crash as well, it is not âimpossibleâ(TM).
Sure it can crash. Applications can crash easily. Try to dereference a null pointer: you'll crash. But you can't lock up the computer. It can't be done. The kernel will always allow you to kill a misbehaving process.
I am a âProudâ(TM) user of Windows2003 Server, WindowsXP, Linux, FreeBSD, Mac System 8.1, and Mac OSX
Do you think we came here to read your resume? Get thee back, troll.
That's okay. PC-land is way more than six months behind Apple in practically every other respect.
Find me a dual-processor computer with built-in FireWire 800 and 802.11g.
Find me an all-in-one computer with an articulated 17" digital LCD.
Find me a 17" laptop with built-in Gigabit ethernet
Mac people don't seem to get the concept that in the PC world, you can actually build your own PC design if a vendor does not offer the features you want.
There are many Mainboards that have built in Dual-Processor Support with Gigabit Ethernet and even Firewire 800.
Additionally, dropping in a Gigabit Ethernet and Firewire 800 Card into existing PCs is not rocket science. And this is technology that has been available in the 'PC' world for a long time.
Mac users also act like they were the first ones to get dual processor machines. Do you realize that I even have Pentium 133 dual processor boards in the closet? Dual processor boards in the PC world have been common for a LONG, LONG time. WindowsNT Dual Processor boxes were pretty common back in 1993/1994. Geesh.
As for the 17" Laptop Screen...
Um... can you say large black masking lines between the pixels? Other vendors could punch out 17" LCDs for their laptops just as easily by making the space between the pixels larger.
This is why even the 16â displays have not been successful in the laptop world, besides the fact that the 17â Mac laptops are as huge as a horse, which is not something you want when buying a computer to carry around.
For example, go look at the Large Mac LCD Screens, and then notice the big black lines that are visibility between the pixels. Ugly uh?
Then go look at a 1600x1200 15" display on a laptop like from Toshiba. The black lines between the pixels are invisible and the screen resolution is near film/paper quality.
Making a large LCD Monitor is easy; having a dense pixel large LCD Monitor is another story and something that is STILL not available on any Mac laptop.
As for 802.11g, again, just drop a card in the PC - Done. Have a Laptop, drop in a PCMCIA card, 802.11g - Done.
PC users are NOT tied to just what their hardware 'GOD' puts in the box.
I really get tired of zealots that don't take time to actually think or look outside their cave to see what the rest of the world is doing.
"Every desktop computer sold today runs on a unix derived OS".
NT, the core of Win2k, and WinXP (the largest segment of the current computer market) are very much NOT derived from UNIX. The underlying architecture is vastly different from the UNIX model.
Pick up "Inside WindowsNT" for a read if you don't realize that NT abandoned *nix concepts and was written with no homage to the *nix designs.
Some rumor sites claim the PPC prices will be lower than Motorola's G4. Who knows for sure? I would think IBM would offer the lowest prices possible to speed adoption of the chip
Sure, maybe in a year or so... but IBM has a new fab to pay for, and until they get all the new production kinks worked out of the 970, those who HAVE TO HAVE IT will pay what they'll pay for it, and they'd be crazy to throw that money away.
You also have to look at the machines this thing will probably be going into, IBM still sells servers with PPC 604e's for 10's of thousands of dollars. I think people are setting themselves up for this thing to cost the same as a G4, and while it may eventually as a first run it'd be doubtful... wouldn't it?
However I think stock price is one of the least indicators about how well a company is doing - and certainly has nothing to do with the price of mac hardware.
The stock price is an indicator of how well wall street (and the public) think the company is doing, as well as its potential future prospects. It's a little sad right now, as basically wall street doesn't value Apple's current hardware business whatsoever, and all the rise (and now its fallen back a bunch) has been due to potential profits if the music service really hits.
You could say "who cares what wall street thinks", and if they were a private company you'd be right. But since they aren't, not worrying about your stock price is a good way to wittle yourself down to get acquired or become so cash strapped you stumble and drop away eventually.
G3 + AltiVec = G4
I've done a brief analysis of the 970 on my website: http://haxor.dk
mind you there are some cases where this might be beneficial - say specialised infiband or sci or myrinet interfaces - but by and large these are few and far between.
It says DDR 400 but that doesn't mean it will use the 400FSB. My A7V8X motherboard can use 400FSB DDR, but it only supports an XP Barton.
I noticed my PBG4/867 was slow to boot OSX, but I found this is only if you have it set to sync to a timeserver and are not connected to a network with a connection to the net, so disable the timeserver feature or plug in your ethernet when you boot up, and it will boot VERY fast.
So a computer that sounds like a jet engine is okay
Or that vibrates like a jackhammer
Or a screen that flickers like mad
Or where the power supply buzzes
Or where the monitor is 5" too tall, 10" too close
Where the machine is like a space heater, and it's already 80F
Where the hard drive clicks and grinds every other minute
Where the mouse is 4" too high, and the keyboard 5" too far away
All of those are 'comfort' issues
Incidentally, they are also efficiency issues, as well as performance issues. High performance and high efficiency are correlated, though not necessarily causally linked.
A system that wastes half it's power as heat, noise, and vibration, vs the same system that wastes only 1/4 of it's power as heat, noise, and vibration... the latter system should outperform the first system by 1/4.
So comfort, performance, and efficiency are all intricately connected. You cannot use an uncomfortable system for extended periods of time, without injuring yourself (noise, headaches, vision problems, attention span, repetitive stress injuries, etc), and a system that is grossly inefficient is a tremendous waste.
GPL Deconstructed
I'm thinking that it seems mac's hardware is consisently one step ahead of x86's... if i were wanting uber hardware for a linux box, macs seem the way to go. note: i've never owned a mac, but it seems that they have cool stuff and better integration and are a more finished product that 99% of PCs. Granted I despise apple's os, but if u could toss the *bsd thing and have pure linux would be really cool.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
nForce boards have FireWire (top speed: 400 Mbps), not FW800.
Sounds very nice, now if only I did not have to sell a kidney to buy one. If I could dual boot, OS X and Win32 (for my main use of the comuter, GAMES!) I'd probably be one kidney short ;).
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
i'll buy one. hell, i'll order ten of them for my office...
the day quark xpress 6 comes out.
seriously. the only reason i and a good many other mac IT folks with purchasing power have still got previous generation macs on our desks is that f*ing quark xpress isn't X native yet. the new G4s don't boot in 9, so it's not an option to dual-boot or run 9 and wait to upgrade to X. everybody i've talked to pretty much agrees, apple needs to light a fire under quark. or maybe buy them, since apple seems to have eaten up all the companies that make video editing software to create final cut and dvd studio. maybe an apple iQuark...
anyhoo, the day xpress 6 is available, apple will immediately see a spike in sales of new systems and OS X boxes. i'd be willing to put money on it.
Quark has had 2+ years now to carbonize xpress. i thought adobe was lagging with photoshop being so late to the game, but quark makes them look like early adopters by comparison. and with every day they don't have a carbonized xpress, their market share in the heavy mac-using print graphics world is eroding away, given over in droves to adobe indesign.
probably off-topic, but i felt a rant coming on and this was a target of opportunity.
- Entertaining Bits from the Ancient Kernel Tree
There are many Mainboards that have built in Dual-Processor Support with Gigabit Ethernet and even Firewire 800.
Link, please?
Additionally, dropping in a Gigabit Ethernet and Firewire 800 Card into existing PCs is not rocket science.
No, it's not. Once you get the interrupt and driver issues sorted out, of course. The compatibility problem isn't insurmountable, either. But these things shouldn't be necessary. This is the same basic argument about SoundBlaster boards and other such unnecessaries. Yes, it's easy to put them in. But it's absurd that you have to.
Mac users also act like they were the first ones to get dual processor machines.
No. You are either exaggerating, or you grossly misunderstand the Mac users' position.
Um... can you say large black masking lines between the pixels?
Yes, I can say it. But no, the 17" PowerBook doesn't have any such "large black masking lines." (See? Told you I could say it.) You would know this if you'd spent any time in front of one.
the 17â Mac laptops are as huge as a horse, which is not something you want when buying a computer to carry around.
The 17" PowerBook is lighter than the average PC notebook. It's also about an inch thick and weighs only 6-1/2" pounds with the battery, and the battery's good for as long as 6 hours if you're conservative. (Turn off the wireless adapter, spin down the drive, dim the screen; you know, the usual stuff.) Running full blast, the battery's still good enough to let you watch a DVD or two before you have to change. The PowerBook is actually quite small and light for being so fully loaded (built-in DVD burner, anyone?) and having such a huge screen. Again, if you'd ever looked at one in person, you'd know this.
Besides, if the 17" PowerBook is too big for you, buy the 15" or the 12".
go look at the Large Mac LCD Screens, and then notice the big black lines that are visibility between the pixels. Ugly uh?
Since I'm sitting in front of a 23" Cinema Display right now, I think I'm qualified to say that there are no big black lines. (No, it's not mine. I came into the office to get some things done and saw your post when I launched my browser. If I could get away with it, I'd take this display home. It's, hands down, the best I've ever used.)
The black lines between the pixels are invisible and the screen resolution is near film/paper quality.
Okay, now I KNOW you're confused. 1600x1200 at 15" does not equate to paper resolution, much less film. You're off by about at least a factor of six for paper, and closer to 20 for film.
having a dense pixel large LCD Monitor is another story and something that is STILL not available on any Mac laptop.
The 17" PowerBook has a 1440x900 screen, which comes out to a resolution of about 96 pixels per inch.
As for 802.11g, again, just drop a card in the PC - Done. Have a Laptop, drop in a PCMCIA card, 802.11g - Done.
No, not done. There's the issue of antennas. You can use a small external antenna and get lousy reception, or a large, cumber some external antenna and get good reception. Either way, you're stuck with an external antenna which, on a laptop, is just begging to get in the way.
Then there's the fact that you can't even do 802.11g at full speed over PCMCIA. The bus isn't fast enough. That's why Apple uses Compact PCI for their AirPort Extreme cards.
And, finally, the overriding point: you shouldn't have to.
PC users are NOT tied to just what their hardware 'GOD' puts in the box.
Neither are Mac users. Our machines come with PCI slots, PCMCIA slots, and Compact PCI slots, too. (Except those that don't, of course. Many people don't need them, and choose to buy machines that don't have them, and are consequently smaller and cheaper.) It's just that we don't have to load them down with a bunch of shit just to get a minimally functional computer.
I really get tired of zealots that don't take time to actually think or look outside their cave to see what the rest of the world is doing.
Are you referring to yourself, here, or what?
Da Blog
While it's largely true that "clock speed alone doesn't mean that much anymore", Apple's biggest defecit has been in system bus speed. Their best G4 tower still uses a 266Mhz bus, if I recall correctly.
By comparison, current P4 boards have as high as an 800Mhz bus.
In the last 2-3 years or so, I'd say that bus speed on the motherboard is much more of a bottleneck than the CPU. Cranking a CPU's processor speed up gives diminishing returns if the rest of the support chips and RAM can only move the data around at a fraction of the speed the CPU crunches the data at.
This problem gets compounded when everything else in the machine gets faster and faster (such as video cards, hard drives, etc.). All those devices push data out to the motherboard, and there's only so much "bandwidth" to go around for cards and integrated controller-based devices. When that gets flooded out, performance suffers.
This is painfully obvious when people buy G3 and G4 upgrade cards for older generation Macs (such as Beige G3's), upgrade to a Radeon video card, and then try enabling "Quartz Extreme" graphics acceleration under OS X. The 100Mhz bus speed of a Beige G3 gets saturated with the video acceleration on - and performs worse than with it off.
Attending WWDC -> Aus$2000....
i don't read slashdot anymore.
iTunes Music Store is run off of 'em. ;-)
x se rve/
http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/06/02/
Find me a Mac laptop with a 1600x1200 screen.
There are none. But this is okay, because a 15" screen with a resolution of 1600x1200 is too far from the optimum screen resolution of 96 ppi. In other words, a 15" screen at 1600x1200 has the same problem as a 19" screen at 800x600.
Find me a Mac with hardware SCSI RAID.
Put a SCSI RAID card in a Mac. Problem solved. Of course, nobody uses SCSI RAID any more. And Fibre Channel cards are $500 a pop.
Find me a quad processor Mac.
There are none, as you well know.
Find me a Mac laptop that can hold two hard disks.
Find you a bloated, oversized Mac laptop? No thank you.
Find me a Mac laptop that can take two batteries.
Find you a bloated, oversized Mac laptop? No thank you.
Find me a Mac that can hold 4GB of ECC RAM
Nope.
You seem to be missing the point, though. You're pulling out trivialities. (Two hard drives in a laptop? That's pretty stupid, dude.) I'm listing core features like widescreen LCD's, FireWire 800, built-in wireless networking, built-in gigabit. Your points are laughable next to mine.
Before you troll, make sure you correct your cranio-rectal inversion, or else you'll just look like a moron.
I'm not so sure your comparison is valid, because you generally don't know from one moment to the next what the CPU speed of your PC is. It stays the same, and it is what it was when you bought it. You may even forget about it if you're not a slashdotter.
In contrast, I know my S2000 redlines at 9K every time I drive it. I have a 466Mhz Celeron (Win98) next to a 350Mhz iMac (OS9), but the only time I think about the speed of either machine is when I'm adding/upgrading, or if someone asks. The iMac is zippier for most things, but I've just come to expect that.
Tim
CompactPCI is a standard designed to replace VME in telecomm environments. A CompactPCI card is roughly 14 inches square if memory serves, which large connectors along one edge that are almost as wide as an iBook is thick.
You're right that PCMCIA isn't fast enough for 802.11g, but nobody (PC or Mac) has used pure PCMCIA for many, many years. Instead, they use CardBus, which is basically a removable PCI standard, not entirely unlike CompactPCI, but at least an order of magnitude smaller.
The Airport Extreme cards, AFAIK, are either CardBus or PCI, though I'm not sure which.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
I dunno, the early performance estimates I've heard for the 970 are pretty impressive. IBM has proven the technology with the Power4 architecture (yes, I know the 970 isn't the Power4, but still, they share much of the same logic circuits). I still have high hopes for this one. Remember, the 970 is not the G4, which they've admittedly had troubles with.
Did they actually release a 786? I was under the impression that the P4 was a big enough architectural leap to justify changing the x86 number. Surely it's not classified in the same category as the P3, is it?
mini pci, not compact pci
Who decided that 96 DPI was "optimum" ?
Put a SCSI RAID card in a Mac.
SO this is an option, but dropping a FW800 or 802.11g card into a PC isn't ? Talk about double standards.
Problem solved. Of course, nobody uses SCSI RAID any more.
You have a very strange concept of "nobody".
And Fibre Channel cards are $500 a pop.
Uh huh. Priced some FC drives to go with that card, have you ?
FC is not really the best option for direct-attached-disk to a workstation.
Find you a bloated, oversized Mac laptop? No thank you.
Tou could hardly call something like the Dell Latitude D600 "bloated" - at least, not compared to the monstrous 17" PB you seem to think is pretty cool.
Or is bloat only measured in thickness in your world ? How curious...
You seem to be missing the point, though. You're pulling out trivialities.
Bwahaha. Pot. Kettle. Black.
hard drives in a laptop? That's pretty stupid, dude.
I like my data. Think RAID 1.
I'm listing core features like widescreen LCD's, FireWire 800, built-in wireless networking, built-in gigabit.
No, you're listing very specific features that only Macs happen to have ("all-in-one computer with an articulated 17" digital LCD") and trying to call them "core features".
You want widescreen LCDs ? PCs can have them
You want FW800 ? You can have it in a PC
You want built-in wireless ? PCs have it.
And I must say, if you think something like "built-in" (as opposed to on an expansion card) FW800, or gigabit ethernet in a laptop is more of a "core feature" than being able to hold lots of RAM, you have strange priorities.
Like I said originally, you're picking out very specific configurations that Macs happen to have - but are available for PCs in a different form - and trying to extrapolate superiority from it.
That having been said, here's a list of some of the more egregious errors in your post:
1. Linux does not use a microkernel (unless it's MkLinux).
2. Regarding the Win32/NT kernel separation, the BSD personality layer behaves similarly (assuming you described NT reasonably well), communicating with Mach (the OS kernel, as you put it) using client/server communication (Mach messaging).
3. No, I don't have to admire anything about the NT kernel. I run in terror at the very thought. Until 2000, it was barely usable, far less so than even the public beta of Mac OS X.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
>the new iMac is sexy, if I could get one that ran Windows or RedHat (or Mandrake) I'd think about it
You can get Mandrake for PPC here, and also NetBSD, Yellowdoglinux, MkLinux, Debian (!), SuSE, etc.
What are you waiting for?
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
Who decided that 96 DPI was "optimum" ?
It's a standard. Virtually all monitors, with a few notable exceptions, are right around 96 ppi, +/- 10%.
SO this is an option, but dropping a FW800 or 802.11g card into a PC isn't ? Talk about double standards.
Having something that virtually nobody will use as an optional expansion card is okay. Having something that everybody will use as an optional expansion card is dumb.
Uh huh. Priced some FC drives to go with that card, have you ?
Silly troll. The only thing that's fibre channel is the host interface. The drive-side interface can be anything from ATA to SSA to FC to ESCON.
FC is not really the best option for direct-attached-disk to a workstation.
Based on what? A silly Slashdot troll's idea of good and bad? No thanks. I think I'll stick to (1) the industry standard, and (2) what I know from firsthand experience works.
I like my data. Think RAID 1.
In a laptop. Wow. That's... yup. I had to double check. That's by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
You want widescreen LCDs ? PCs can have them
For instance?
You want FW800 ? You can have it in a PC
For instance?
You want built-in wireless ? PCs have it.
For instance?
I still haven't seen a link to that PC motherboard ("mainboard," pff) with built-in FireWire 800, either. Silly troll.
Where's the creativity apple? U guys should name it H1. Yeah. Hold on.. Nope.. Never mind..
> if u could toss the *bsd thing and have pure linux would be really cool.
: //www.debian.org/ports/powerpc/c om/us/private/products/suse_linux /ppc/. gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-ppc-install.xm lhttp://www.mklinux.org/c .html
Wake up. You can.
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ppc.php3
http
http://www.suse.
http://www.yellowdoglinux.com/
http://www
http://vinelinux.org/pp
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
No announcement. Some people will buy G4 Macs they had been putting off buying while waiting for the new G5s.
Pre Xmas, new G5 line will be announced. Pros and kids with rich parents will upgrade. Cheap punters will bitch and moan and keep using their old G4s, and upgrade mid-next year when prices have dropped.
Or not. I'm just making this shit up.
Virtually all desktop computers, +/- maybe 5%, run Windows. Ergo, Windows must be best, right ?
Having something that everybody will use as an optional expansion card is dumb.
Once again, you've got a pretty weird idea of "everybody". Right now, "everybody" uses USB and *maybe* FW400 for the small number of devices that support only it. Perhaps what you really mean is "everybody in some tiny market segment".
The only thing that's fibre channel is the host interface. The drive-side interface can be anything from ATA to SSA to FC to ESCON.
Uh huh. Priced some suitable converters lately ? Not everyone can justify laying out ten grand for an XRAID when all they want is some nice fast local storage for their workstation.
Based on what? A silly Slashdot troll's idea of good and bad? No thanks. I think I'll stick to (1) the industry standard, and (2) what I know from firsthand experience works.
Which industry are you in where the "standard" way of attaching a bunch of disk to a workstation is Fibre Channel ?
In a laptop. Wow. That's... yup. I had to double check. That's by far the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Good for you. One of the stupidest things I've ever heard is your assertion that "everybody" is using the "industry standard" and attaching storage to their desktop workstations via FC.
Widescreen LCDs. Firewire 800. Builtin Wireless
I still haven't seen a link to that PC motherboard ("mainboard," pff) with built-in FireWire 800, either.
Why the obsession with "built-in" ?
Where's the Mac with "built-in" SCSI ?
Where's the Mac with "built-in" ATA RAID ?
Silly troll.
Ah, the irony. A hypocrite who thinks an "an articulated 17" digital LCD" is a core feature, higher DPI is bad and FC is the "industry standard" method of connecting disk space to workstations calling *me* a troll.
We must remember how tight lipped Apple almost always is, but we can estimate with some degree of certainty that whenever Apple announces a price cut on a particular product line that they are gearing up to release an updated one. We also know that there is one particular product line that is moving more units then another, except to say that occassionally there is surprise like the imac and the ipod. Nevertheless I'm an ardent speculator of future Apples, thus: From all of the hyperboly I've read about the imminent release of the G5 for the last two years , I haven't once gleaned a snippet of info about Altivec, ie as to whether its included in the G5 Architecture or not and if it isn't a more powerful inclusion, what replaces it ?
This is somewhat OT, but it is relevant in that many percieve the Mac as being relegated to non business applications.
The introduction of the PPC970 will no doubt improve Apple's fortunes in a very cut throat computer market led mostly by FUD, price sensitivity and monopoly practices. Allow me to explain.
As many here know, Linux is eating into Windows server marketshare in all areas, as it is becoming acceptable in business to actually think about what one spends the IT dollars on before one spends them. This is a market that Linux will almost certainly dominate in the next 4 to 5 years, as I cannot imagine that Redmond will be able to introduce technology spectacular enough for corporations to not consider using Linux in that space instead, as has been shown in numerous articles here on slashdot.
On the desktop there is also movement, particularly in civillian infrastructure IT such as local government offices, health departments etc, worldwide as the departments are increasingly having to cope with IT spending cuts and definitely get more bang for their IT buck with Linux than they do with Windows.
Where does the Mac fit in here? Recently, here in Switzerland, I had to buy a new car after trashing my old one, and in my tour of various used car lots, came across a wierd phenomenon: The majority of the offices of said used car lots were using Filemaker database applications on Macs for their bookkeeping, inventory tracking etc. This would be similar to the windows world of Access applications, except the people claimed that the Macs "just work" when asked why they weren't using newer PC's with Access.
The Mac, with it's simplicity and robustness, makes friends even today where Windows can often be a royal pain in the butt to administer (my job) . Not only this, but Mac OSX is very compatible to Linux and the execs and management in a company would be more amenable to running a Mac with a hyped to the extreme PPC970 (the marketing is important in these areas) than a beige box if they thought that it could be used to bolster their egos ("the PPC970 is much faster than any Intel", "My Powerbook goes so well with my metallic Audi TT"). It is kind of elitist, but I've never known Management types not to fall for status symbols, and this status symbol would actually be worth something of true value as opposed to the chrome cufflinks and platinum Rolex.
Canon recently (as in the last couple of weeks) announced their G5 digital camera ... this is the followup to the G1, G2 and G3.
... I find it doubtful that after that, Apple will now come out with the G5 themselves.
Why no G4? Because, apparantly, Apple had discussions and pursuaded them to skip "G4".
So
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
I make this point to people constantly and it never seems to register. There's no way to measure subjective speed in a user on a given platform, of course. If there was, the OS itself would conceivably have a 'productivity' rating or some other such nonsense. But I do wish it was measurable just to prove the point.
As for that other clown who keeps saying stuff like 'cars never go fast enough', again, he's illustrating your point... but while poking you in the eye. Irritating.
Now, one could make a case for not 'switching', ever, based on this argument. The pain of relearning a new interface paradigm is great, for many... makes you wonder what the 'productivity' difference is between (to pick a not so random example) the various car dashboards. Simple, I know.... but how would you quantify the intangibles... I like Mac OS X myself, but again, the fact that I can do things like a cmd-tab between apps while performing a drag-and-drop operation is huge to me... but not measurable in any metric.
Ah, I'm getting incoherant. I'll just say Good Post and leave it at that.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
USB would probably not be as popular as it is were it not for Apple making it the sole port on the orignal iMac. This created demand for USB devices, which previously did not exist. One can argue that given Apple's low market penetration that this argument is specious. But, consider this, every person who bought an iMac had to buy a new USB printer if they wanted to print. That ends up being a lot of printers(and scanners).
So, I'm not surprised to see USB2.0 on the new Macs for two reasons: Apple has been consistently adopting industry standards for years, and, it's just a frigging rumor!
My other sig is extremely clever...
HEy whats this dual processor shit.
i hope apple does not make that mistake. one thing that would really turn heads is an x server with 4 - 8 proccesors. that would really make apple in the server buis. hopefully they wont stop at two.
If the first 970's really are single proc than will they be any faster than current dual proc G4's? I mean what would be the point? I love dual procs on a unix OS. Talk about smooooth....
The computer that crunches bits the fastest is the one that has the highest "quality".
Exactly! Just like how the fastest automobile is the one with the best "quality"... after all, speed is all that matters in the end!
Are you saying that someone suggested Apple ship computers with Dvorak keyboards?
They already tried that.
MacRumors linked the same story.... and they got threatened by Apple Legal.
It's gone now. I wonder if slashdot will get the same letter.
This is a sort of throw-around question. It's not something I'd probably ever do, but I'm curious to see if people think it would be possible...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
I've read several rumor sites myself, and I've read that the PPC970's manufacturing price point is actually cheaper than the existing chips Apple uses. So if this is true, it raises serious issues with Apple.
1. Apple needs higher clock speeds to remain competitive in the minds of Joe Consumer and Joe IT Worker (see #2).
2. If the PPC970 is cheaper to manufacture and consumes less power than the existing G3 and G4 chips Apple computers feature, then the PPC970 needs to be implemented immediately throughout the Mac line.
3. Abruptly phasing out all G3/G4 machines (#2) would kill sales of existing units on the shelves.
4. Apple would want to offer the PPC970 at the top end to enjoy large profit margins from early adopters before implementing the 970 throughout the entire Mac line. The greater good requires Apple to incur short-term losses (think existing G3's and G4's in the stores) in order to leapfrog the entire PC market by offering 64 bit solutions top-to-bottom in their product line.
It is crucial Apple comes out ahead of AMD's consumer 64bit offerings. But because of #3 and #4, Apple will probably choose otherwise... If Apple were smart, they'd start off with a single 1.4 ghz PPC970 in the eMacs and iMacs, and then work their way up the PowerMac ladder with dual (or even quad) processors up to 1.8 ghz.
Afterall, it would be easier for $7/hr. sales employee at Worst Buy explaining why Joe Consumer should pick a 1.4 ghz 64-bit PPC970 powered eMac over a 2.5 or 3.0 ghz P4 equipped PC than it would continuing to argue the merits of the G4 line...
>> Why on Earth would you want to pay 2 or 3 times as much money for hardware that is less than 1/2 as powerful just to run Windows or Linux?
.NET costs over $3000).
WTF are you talking about? Check the prices at http://store.apple.com/ before dishing out more stupid misinformations like that, and you will find Macs are actually cheaper than most Wintel PCs with similar features.
For instance, you can get an eMac for $799, iBook for $999, iMac for $1299, PowerMac for $1499, PowerBook G4 for $1599. Even the cheapest Mac is more powerful and comes with more features and free software than most people can handle, not to mention Mac's sex appeal that just doesn't exist in Windows land.
There are many Linux distros for Mac, but why would anyone bother? I have been programming for Windows and Unix for over 10 years, and to me nothing (not any version of Windows, nor Solaris or HP-UX or Linux) comes close to Mac OS X in terms of usability, style or stability.
Mac OS X also comes free with so many best-of-class programs (iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iSync, iCal, Safari, and many more) that you can't even buy on other platforms. There are also dozens programming tools (not only the usual OSS like gcc / Perl / Python / Ruby / PHP, but also the highly sophisticated Apple tools such as Project Builder and Interface Builder) that would cost hundreds or thousands of dollars (MS Visual Studio
>> Apple doesn't have a prayer of competing in the Joe IT Worker space. Wintel rules business operations, Unix still has a mindshare in web services, Linux is making a LARGE dent in web services, Mac is a non-player.
First off, you obviously don't know that Mac OS X is UNIX, and Apple is now the largest UNIX vendor (by volumes, not revenues).
Secondly, Apple's server market share had grown nearly 300% in the second half of 2002 since Xserve was launched. In fact Apple shipped 60% more Servers in 6 months than the totla of Intel Itanium2 based servers in 2002.
Now take your ignorant FUD to somewhere else, idiot.
"I use gigabit ethernet in the home. I am constantly copying large movies from my G4 to my iBook to bring to clients. There, you're proved wrong yet again."
uh...
ibooks have 10/100 ethernet, not gigabit?
In a platform agnostic way, what's the best performance/$ ? I'm guessing it's a Duron box overclocked ($130 for a basic, functioning computer w/o video), but are their some cheap Sparcs out there or MIPS, PPC, RISC, AIX? Then again, what about high-end clones of sparcs etc?
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
And Gentoo, and (with a few changes) Linux from Scratch.
Jeremy
Looking back now, I agree that my original post in this discussion comes across as flamebait; subsequent posts are downright mean. I've seen you in other threads lately, and you seem like a decent guy. Sorry I flamed you.
Actually, I tend to agree with you..what I should have added in there (but apparently didn't) was that Apple tries to lock their users into using their hardware if they want certain software, which is somewhat limiting.
There's a big push on the Mac side for various developers of Windows apps to port stuff over to their side, but it's tough to find Mac-only apps being ported to Windows. It isn't a lack of user demand, either; it's straight-up platform snobbery. Christ, even Cubase is available for the Mac.
So, rephrase my comment to scratch out Windows and just keep the BSD/Linux. Dunno what the hell I was thinking by posting that, as your comment echoes perfectly what i'm always saying!