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."
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)
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'?
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.
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)
Gone are the days of WorkerBee.
You can't bet on the rumormill- only steve knows what's going to happen.
Maybe because dumping OS X would sort of be a huge step backwards for mankind.
The comparison is not as stupid as it sounds, your argument is actually a lot worse. Not trying to flame here, but seriously, do you really think the amount of Ghz is what really counts nowdays ?
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Well, when AMD switched to the Barton architecture for the Athlon XP, they boosted the performance rating to 3000 (and it truely was a 3Ghz equivalent) but dropped the clockspeed a bit (relative to the 2800)
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
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
But how does a company attempt to reverse its brand name and build a new one? Apple has a name for itself, but so do G3 and G4. G5 allows Apple to continue it's run with brand recognition.
The Political Programmer
but at a certain point wouldn't you want clock speed over architecture ?
No. Intel has shown that you can sacrifice too much chasing clock speed in the case of the P4. Look at the Centrino - the same performance of the P4M at 2/3 the clock speed.
With the G5 we are talking about a 64 bit CPU with clock speeds in the 1.2 - 1.8 GHz range. This is in fact quite competitive just on a clock speed basis with current 64 bit designs from AMD and Intel.
History is repeating itself. This is what, the third year now of "the G5 is about to be released?" ... This is exactly what happened to Osborne.
Uh, no. It was Osborne himself who torpedoed sales of his current model by saying how great the forthcoming one would be. History would only be repeating itself if Steve Jobs had been saying for three years that the G5 would be coming soon and would be significantly better than the current G4s. The rumor sites can say whatever they want, but the official word comes from Apple, who do not comment on unannounced products (except maybe indirectly, by sending in the lawyers when a rumor site is a little too spot-on, or has photos/screenshots they shouldn't).
The bottom line is, buy a computer when you really need one-- there's ALWAYS a better one just around the corner, and you must learn to accept that. If you insist on including the word of the rumor sites in your purchase plans, make what they say a consideration, but not THE consideration.
~Philly
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!
You seem to be missing the point - what good is the Centrino being just as fast at 2/3 the clockspeed if the P4 still has enough headroom to (say) quadruple it's clockspeed and the Centrino only has enough headroom to double it ?
CPU performance can be increased by (amongst other things) architectural improvements or by ramping clockspeed. Neither, in an of itself, is inherently superior to the other. A CPU that performs twice as fast per clock, but is only clocked at 1/3 the speed, is still slower.
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.
In the computer world, there is no speed limit.
Yes there is: you. Everything external to the CPU limits the computer these days, and responding to human events is like idling at a stop light; your raw RPM doesn't make a big difference. According to procinfo and top, my computers are idle a good 90% of the time. Everyone chasing clock speed really needs to take a step back and instead design an architecture that meets the burst processing pattern that most people have.
The other part of the analogy is not about performance, it's about packaging. You don't buy a car on speed alone. There are styling and comfort factors, and suitability to a purpose. What's really amazing is that Apple is one of the few that understands that; you'd think PC builders would be more inclined to do that sort of thing in order to differentiate themselves from all the other clones that are on shelves.
But as the popular MacObserver states, "A mac on your desk is worth two on the rumor sites."
If Apple utilises IBM's PPC 970 like everyone thinks it will, then the next obvious evolution will be the PPC 980, scheduled for release mid-2004. It's based on POWER5 architecture and should reach speeds at around 4.5-5.0GHz. Then there's the 990, based on the POWER6, blah, blah, blah. It could be a horse race in the next few years.
Not necessarily. You may have noticed (or not) that when Sun went 64-bit, you could still run Solaris 32-bit binaries. They just weren't the *best* option.
Don't assume that being 64-bit makes things incompatible...instruction set is still the same.
And look at the 68K tricks Apple did when they introduced PPC, too.
-psy
Actually, I'd argue that a lot of our computer-related choices are based on "comfort". I choose my OS based on how easily I can get around on it. Others will be comfortable with different operating systems, that's cool, too.
when you think about it, monitor refresh/resolution/size, is all about comfort, keyboard placement and choice, the chair you sit in.. all of these things have a big thing to do with something you spend a good part of your life involved with.
if more speed comes at the cost of comfort or ease of use, then i'll probably take a bit of a trade-off.
I think that you've got to realize that 'comfort' is often a very important part of productivity, not just aesthetics.
You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
However this rumor seems to have enough other sites reporting generally the same thing to be true.
I'd say that that doesn't mean much because rumor sites will probably copy from each other without attribution.
JP
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
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.
appleturns(100% reliable news by Steve Jobs's alter ego)
Parent was probaly tongue in cheek, but for the uninformed: As the Apple Turns, now back after a long hiatus, is nothing like an actual rumor site. It is an Apple themed 'soap opera', very funny, by a guy with a great sense of humor and writing skills to match.
JP
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*
They've done well enough to stay in business, and they have cash in the bank, and continue to release new products that are well received. The stock stuff is way more important to stock traders than it is to consumers. I'll repeat, try to find many normal just joe average people who buy or sell or use a mac or mac product based on stock price. I'll grant perhaps a larger business concern looking to switch or upgrade many hundreds or thousands of machines would definetly look at the company, but I would just ball park guess-and it really is a guess- that is a small percentage of apple sales.
Another example, redhat stock, pretty dismal,especially compared to apple, whereas redhat is starting to be a pretty significant and serious company and has some decent mind share and real decent market share in the linux market. It is barely, just sqeekingly small, profitable now,absrdly tiny, and their share price is dismal. So what, they aren't going away any time soon, either.
I think the stock market is way over hyped,it's hyped by the traders/brokers/investment houses/advertiosers/ news letter writers, etc, and is actually as much or more of a detriment as a benefit to business now. It's both,that's obvious, has some good and bad to it, but I'd have to say it's a net drag on business now, it exists more by inertia and because all the fatcat players at top levels of busy-ness and govern-ment insist on it. That's just an opinion, so it's not correct or incorrect, but I'll say it anyway.
Try an experiment, ask random people how much they "trust" the "stock market" to be "the truth" of various business matters. Although millions are investors and continue to invest, they got the rap now equivalent to used car salesmen or ambulance chasing shysters.
I invest, but only in tangibles and durable goods, real small scale. I won't buy or trade paper, quite frankly, I can do better playing cards, it's more honest. It might be fun to do so, but I have little interest in it,never have either, I prefer to work for a living, not just trade around other peoples work and skim from it. Nothing personal, to you or anyone else who trades,that's your business and you are welcome to it, I'm pretty much a leave people alone kinda guy, it's just how I *personally* see it now. I also follow, and most likely get flamed for this but I don't care, the old,old,old biblical injunctions on how to conduct honorable business, ie and most important, to have honest weights and measures (see modern accounting, tax code, fiat paper, keynesian economics, fractional reserve banking-none of those fit), to not engage in usury, and to accept 100% liability, and to tithe with your net, and by that I mean not dump it into some tv evangelical snake oil salesmans account, but real tithting working with your sweat and goods to help others, for no profit. I also land tithe, I'll let you look that one up if you are interested in how that works. I'm low key on it, hardly ever write on it, but once in awhile I will, especially if it really fits into a conversation, like just right now talking about economics in general.
And also, basically, and just as important to me, from another practical consideration, I remember all the stories, and remember them well,and in some detail, and have done further reading about, what my older relatives told me about the great depression, what happened, what was said to people by the "business experts" and government, etc, and it's the same deal now,just on crack and steroids, so I want naught of the blame on my hands when it FUBARs again. I'll trade any potential "profits" for an 100% claim to "none of the blame", it's a fairer deal to me, and one I am most content with. I've looked at derivative exposures, pensions exposures private and government, what has happened with creative accounting-in the news daily, perceived debt, contractural future debt,especially with uncle sugar,and etc, and I will state it's FUBARed now, big time, just slow to finish bleeding, but it's stuck and the dark red and shiny is spilling out and it appears to be hemophiliac. Pity.
Thanks for your reply. I wish you fair and good and smart trading.
Well, they discontinued that particular model in January 2001. It seems they were testing the waters with that one, and had not yet fully made the transition (all models shipping at that time did not have it). Fast forward to the present - All currently shipping PowerMac G4s have built-in gigabit ethernet. I doubt it will ever go away now. Curiously, the Apple Store does not mention this as a prominent selling point, placing more emphasis on the modem and airport extreme.
4 GB Photoshop files.
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
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?
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.