Oh one other thought, I see that the only site that I found that mentioned keycolor was from the uk, is it possible that this is a uk vs us publishing thing? Or has k been bastardized to black to the point that now it's a widely held misconception:)
I don't work in the industry so if you do, I'll assume that we're both correct. Perhaps black is the most common key color so that's what everyone defaults it to? Or is "key color" just printing/publishing lingo for black?
Wouldn't the BIOS be considered a more fundamental part of the hardware. EG, if you don't need your floppy, you wouldn't expect Teac to give you a refund if you removed it from your computer and mailed it back to them? That and unlike a copy of an OS, how much is the BIOS as a factor of cost on a machine, would it even be worth the effort to get this refund even if it were offered?
Well, two answers right? Either a flat NO, since turning it off could negate the usefullness of having it to being with.
br.
OR, yes, but anything that expects to have it on won't run. Which for many might be a reasonable alternative.
Hey, IBM is a Business Machine company. They probably still support the time clocks they were making in 1957 and the Photocopiers and Typewriters they were making in 1973 if you're a big Business and want to sign the support contract.
Hey IBM is a COMPANY and they won't support anything that is not worth their while to support. Supporting OS/2 even though they bleed (and have always bled) money from it shows a lot more than simply just some customers out there willing to sign support contracts. I know that money was still the primary reason they supported it (not directly of course), but it still shows a lot of commitment on their part as many companies would have dropped support long ago (and by support I'm talking more than just a person to cry to on the other end of the phone).
Plus, my statement was in reference to the original poster saying something to the effect that Alpha will be support 10 years into the future and somehow equating that to having a leg up on some of it's other processing breatheren.
when they COULD have sold the chip to use in apples (instead of PPC) they declined (morons)
I've never heard this, do you have any links to articles that talk about this? I don't know that I'd go as far as calling them "morons", without knowing the details, but if Apple were looking for something along the lines of their deal with IBM/Mot, I could see how DEC wouldn't want to get into such a intimate deal. Plus the monikor "morons" has to be reserved for Motorola and their handling of RISC and the cpu market in general. Makes any blunder that DEC made look small chips in comparison.
it is still the processor in the #2 & #3 fastest systems in the world
You have to be careful bringing up the SC lists. Keep in mind that those machines are multi-cpu. It takes 4096 1.25ghz alphas to hold #2/#3, it takes 8192 POWER3's, but they're only running at 375mhz, so which processor is "superior"? #5 is 2304 Xeons (I assume P4), is the Xeon superior to Alpha since for half the processors you get 80% of the performance?
Not making any statements about superiority here, just saying that the top500 list isn't exactly the best indicator.
Uh, POWER/PowerPC is "bounded" and "small market" but yet Alpha is not? Bounded by what? Clock speed? How is POWER bounded but Alpha not? Are you saying that POWER is going to soon hit some performance/clockrate wall? Even if you are talking pure clockrate, IBM has been able to crank out quite powerful cpu's that run at slower clocks.
A commitment of at least a Decade of support
Hey, IBM STILL supports OS/2, are you saying that they are likely to just drop support for POWER and leave their customers high and dry? I don't get where you make your comparisons? Sure PA-RISC is obviously dead end and SPARC leaves a lot to be desired performance wise, but "single source" for SPARC? Sun doesn't even make the chips, how is that single source compared to Alpha? Who else produces Alphas, are you including Intel?
Almost all those things either require extensive training or cost a lot of money (equipment/travel). This is a $35 (or however much it costs to get into the park) thrill that almost anyone can participate in. Hell, I can hop on my bike and get up to 120mph in less time and it won't cost me jack (well except for gas and the massive fine if I get caught), but I still look forward to trying this thing out.
Glad you bring those up, as those were two technologies that were superiour but because of actions by key players, weren't as successful as they could/should have been.
OS/2 to this day is a better BASE OS than Windows could ever hope to be. The API was much cleaner and it actually made sense. Now there were certainly some UI issues (sorta liked it or hate it) and the config/setup was never a smooth as it could have been, but it was overall a superiour product.
Ditto MCA, it was a higher performance, scalable, bus that didn't require jumpers to configure, a godsend at the time. If not for IBMs decision to close the arch. and charge royalties (creating the gang of 7 and EISA) we may all be on some variant of the MCA bus right now.
Now don't get me wrong, OS/2 and MCA were not perfect, but they were significantly better than anything at the time and their demise/lack of overall success was not due to their technology.
The Intel 8088 ran at 4.77mhz. I thought that Intel had one that ran at 8mhz, or maybe I'm just remembering the 8086. I do remember that someone had an 8088-II as well (or was that a 8086-2, hmmm, my mind gets fuzzier over the years).
That's only true until people take up the ew features
That's true, I should have said that the 286 was faster at running the 16bit apps that existed at the time. It wasn't until 32bit apps became more prevelant, and OS's could take advantage of v86/protected mode did the 386 really show it's true capabilities.
This has nothing to do with IBM's pc (including ThinkPad) business. They are free to use whatever they think best (which usually means Intel, though not purely for performance reasons). This announcment is simply IBM Semiconductor getting a new customer. Any issues with Transmeta are the providence of Transmeta and PC OEM's (which includes the PC arm of IBM).
It wasn't until Athlon that AMD could top an Intel processor in performance
I think that you're not going far enough back. Remember that AMD offered 386/40 when Intel stopped at 33 and AMD also had 486/120 when Intel stopped at 100. So AMD does have a history of offering higher performing processors (not necessarily faster clock for clock, but a part that is faster than anything that Intel had in the same family). I remember that someone also had a 286/20 when Intel maxed at 12, but I can't remember if that was AMD or someone else.
IBM is simply offering production services to AMD, this is not another AIM alliance or anything like that. So IBM mgmt slowness should not be an issue at all. AMD simply is another IBM Semi customer.
As for IBM mgmt, well yes, in many ways IBM is the poster child for the slow and ponderous company. However, when they decide to do something (and do it right, well as much as can be expected) they can be the unstoppable force. RS/6000 and ThinkPad are two excellent examples.
I guess this means, that there might actually be a big computer manufacturer that will back AMD
No it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the PC portion of IBM. This is simply IBM Semi helping out AMD in the manufacture (process and design) of their chips. There is nothing to imply that IBM will suddenly start switching over to AMD cpus.
Actually the 286 -> 386 transition is similar to the P3 -> P4 in that clock for clock, the "older" generation was faster than the "newer". The 386 was a massive jump in features though (full 32bit, v86 mode, real protected mode, etc) that no one really cared.
My P330 is similar, cost pp is around.50 and it cost a bit more (but has features out the wahzoo). However for a $200 inkjet, they'll do full page bleeds, which is VERY nice. Luckily I have a full page (8.5x11) capable dye sub so it's not a big deal for me, but if not for that I'd own a nicer inkjet as well. Note that even with my VERY old camera (Olympus D500.7MP), my 8.5x11's look VERY nice (you have to look very closely to notice that resolution isn't that high). This is due to two factors, first, the D500 produces great pictures, much better than cameras I've seen with twice the resolution. Some things aren't as sharp as the higher res cameras, but for the majority of pix I take, the overall color quality beats a higher pixel count any day. Secondly, my large dye sub has some very sophisticated scaling routines that do a most excellent job of scaling images up.
I'm waiting now for something like the X3 or other higher end digital camera before I upgrade and am very excited to see what the printer will do with a high quality hi rez image.
He said "affordable";) Actually dyesub printers are getting relatively cheap, at least compared to days past. The Olympus printers are nice (I have the p330 and the p400 looks sweet). They are not however anywhere near the $200 price range of the nicer inkjets that I assume the original poster means by "affordable".
But that said, I don't think printing technology is holding anything up. After all, you always want the best quality now, you can always acquire and print with better tech tomorrow, but any better tech won't improve the pictures you've already taken.
Uh, this may come as a surprise to you, but Apple doesn't make the CPUs in the PowerMac
Nope, well aware. But from a corporate standpoint, it doesn't matter who makes the cpu, Apple gets hurt in the end. If superdrives start failing all over the place, can Apple say, "hey don't blame us, Panasonic made the drives". Sure they can say it, but Apple suffers most since people will say "My stupid Mac doesn't work".
If the lack of news there came as a surprise to you
Never said surprised, I said disappointed. After all, Apple does have a faster processor at their disposal. I don't know if the 1.25GHz part is significantly different than the 1Ghz, but if it's not, then why not provide a 1.25Ghz model as well for those who want the ponies and can live with a 10% reduction in battery time?
That's the hand Apple has to play, and they're making the best of it
But that doesn't mean that as a Mac user that I can't be dissapointed that this is the situation right? I didn't say that Apple are retards for not announcing a 3Ghz PowerMac when they had the chance. I think pretty much EVERY somewhat knowledgeable Mac user knows full well what the cpu/Mot situation is.
IRT switching to x86, I too once thought that this would be the biggest mistake ever, now I'm not totally convinced. Well, I still think so, but I do see the following occuring. As Apple continues to innovate with their software, the hardware, while cool, becomes less relevant. Now I think it is critically important to differentiate between Apple simply swapping cpus and Apple selling beige boxes, two completely different issues. It is the former that I'm referring to. After all, other than nerds, who amongst Apples core customers really cares what type of cpu (other than for performance reasons) that is inside their box?
Addresses two key issues with Apple. First is slow cpu's. cpu speed isn't as big of a deal with laptop users, so the ghz gap isn't as pronounced here. Second, and most important, laptops have much higher margins than desktops. Apple already sells a higher percentage of laptops, this does nothing but help the bottom line and if they continue, the bottom line will still look good (even if market share drops).
Most dissapointing
No advancment on the ghz front. I just said that it doesn't matter _as_much_, but it's still dissapointing that Apple continues to lag here.
New FireWire connector. I know that this might not be Apples fault, but yet another connector type for 800Gb FireWire, ugh. Yeah yeah, an adapters available, but couldn't IEEE figure out a way to make the two compatable?
Most "interesting"
Safari. How does this fit into the big picture. Does Safari really make the Mac a sweeter deal for those who were fence sitting (or firmly on the other side)? Does what Apple gets from it outweigh the development costs of it? Is this another sign that Apple is distancing themselves from Microsoft? Now with Safari, Office is the only thing left that Apple has a dependency on M$.
Most likely to go "cube"
The 12" PowerBook. Yes portability is good, but does it sell in enough numbers to keep it alive. Will people want a G4 bad enough to pay the extra for the 12" PB vs the iBook? Subnotes/small notes are notoriously hard to sell, but I guess it does plug a hole in the Apple notebook strategy.
Yikes the control area of the thing looks tiny! Someone mentioned if Nintendo is going after the adult market due to the more "sophisticated" design. I ask the opposite, is Nintendo potentially alienating their adult market by making the controls too small to use confortably by anyone over the age of 15.
Also, in the shot of it next to the "old" GBA, doesn't it look like it's actually a little bigger when it's opened up? It's probably a lot thinner, but I think it has a bit of a clunky/chunky prototypish look to it.
Well if the article is right, then Apple will be releasing new models at MWSF right? This in itself is a bit of a scoop, you wouldn't expect them to have an all new iMac since the this model has only been out for a year or so and the point in which sales dropped off would not have given them enough time to design an all new iMac (esp considering how long it took for them to come up with the latest one). I assume then that they are simply retiring the current line and coming out with different screen sizes with tweeks in configuration.
Either that, or they have strengthened the arm enough to stick a 19" crt on it;)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh one other thought, I see that the only site that I found that mentioned keycolor was from the uk, is it possible that this is a uk vs us publishing thing? Or has k been bastardized to black to the point that now it's a widely held misconception :)
Here are
some links
that say
I'm right
Here's one that says we're both right
I don't work in the industry so if you do, I'll assume that we're both correct. Perhaps black is the most common key color so that's what everyone defaults it to? Or is "key color" just printing/publishing lingo for black?
Wouldn't the BIOS be considered a more fundamental part of the hardware. EG, if you don't need your floppy, you wouldn't expect Teac to give you a refund if you removed it from your computer and mailed it back to them? That and unlike a copy of an OS, how much is the BIOS as a factor of cost on a machine, would it even be worth the effort to get this refund even if it were offered?
Well, two answers right? Either a flat NO, since turning it off could negate the usefullness of having it to being with.
br. OR, yes, but anything that expects to have it on won't run. Which for many might be a reasonable alternative.
100% of C, M, Y and K gives you black
Well actually 100% K alone gives you blac K , 100% CMY gives you a dark grey in most real world output devices, hence the need for K.
Hey, IBM is a Business Machine company. They probably still support the time clocks they were making in 1957 and the Photocopiers and Typewriters they were making in 1973 if you're a big Business and want to sign the support contract.
Hey IBM is a COMPANY and they won't support anything that is not worth their while to support. Supporting OS/2 even though they bleed (and have always bled) money from it shows a lot more than simply just some customers out there willing to sign support contracts. I know that money was still the primary reason they supported it (not directly of course), but it still shows a lot of commitment on their part as many companies would have dropped support long ago (and by support I'm talking more than just a person to cry to on the other end of the phone).
Plus, my statement was in reference to the original poster saying something to the effect that Alpha will be support 10 years into the future and somehow equating that to having a leg up on some of it's other processing breatheren.
when they COULD have sold the chip to use in apples (instead of PPC) they declined (morons)
I've never heard this, do you have any links to articles that talk about this? I don't know that I'd go as far as calling them "morons", without knowing the details, but if Apple were looking for something along the lines of their deal with IBM/Mot, I could see how DEC wouldn't want to get into such a intimate deal. Plus the monikor "morons" has to be reserved for Motorola and their handling of RISC and the cpu market in general. Makes any blunder that DEC made look small chips in comparison.
it is still the processor in the #2 & #3 fastest systems in the world
You have to be careful bringing up the SC lists. Keep in mind that those machines are multi-cpu. It takes 4096 1.25ghz alphas to hold #2/#3, it takes 8192 POWER3's, but they're only running at 375mhz, so which processor is "superior"? #5 is 2304 Xeons (I assume P4), is the Xeon superior to Alpha since for half the processors you get 80% of the performance?
Not making any statements about superiority here, just saying that the top500 list isn't exactly the best indicator.
IBM/Motorola Chipped thingie (Small market, bounded technology)
Uh, POWER/PowerPC is "bounded" and "small market" but yet Alpha is not? Bounded by what? Clock speed? How is POWER bounded but Alpha not? Are you saying that POWER is going to soon hit some performance/clockrate wall? Even if you are talking pure clockrate, IBM has been able to crank out quite powerful cpu's that run at slower clocks.
A commitment of at least a Decade of support
Hey, IBM STILL supports OS/2, are you saying that they are likely to just drop support for POWER and leave their customers high and dry? I don't get where you make your comparisons? Sure PA-RISC is obviously dead end and SPARC leaves a lot to be desired performance wise, but "single source" for SPARC? Sun doesn't even make the chips, how is that single source compared to Alpha? Who else produces Alphas, are you including Intel?
Almost all those things either require extensive training or cost a lot of money (equipment/travel). This is a $35 (or however much it costs to get into the park) thrill that almost anyone can participate in. Hell, I can hop on my bike and get up to 120mph in less time and it won't cost me jack (well except for gas and the massive fine if I get caught), but I still look forward to trying this thing out.
Glad you bring those up, as those were two technologies that were superiour but because of actions by key players, weren't as successful as they could/should have been.
OS/2 to this day is a better BASE OS than Windows could ever hope to be. The API was much cleaner and it actually made sense. Now there were certainly some UI issues (sorta liked it or hate it) and the config/setup was never a smooth as it could have been, but it was overall a superiour product.
Ditto MCA, it was a higher performance, scalable, bus that didn't require jumpers to configure, a godsend at the time. If not for IBMs decision to close the arch. and charge royalties (creating the gang of 7 and EISA) we may all be on some variant of the MCA bus right now.
Now don't get me wrong, OS/2 and MCA were not perfect, but they were significantly better than anything at the time and their demise/lack of overall success was not due to their technology.
The Intel 8088 ran at 4.77mhz. I thought that Intel had one that ran at 8mhz, or maybe I'm just remembering the 8086. I do remember that someone had an 8088-II as well (or was that a 8086-2, hmmm, my mind gets fuzzier over the years).
That's only true until people take up the ew features
That's true, I should have said that the 286 was faster at running the 16bit apps that existed at the time. It wasn't until 32bit apps became more prevelant, and OS's could take advantage of v86/protected mode did the 386 really show it's true capabilities.
This has nothing to do with IBM's pc (including ThinkPad) business. They are free to use whatever they think best (which usually means Intel, though not purely for performance reasons). This announcment is simply IBM Semiconductor getting a new customer. Any issues with Transmeta are the providence of Transmeta and PC OEM's (which includes the PC arm of IBM).
It wasn't until Athlon that AMD could top an Intel processor in performance
I think that you're not going far enough back. Remember that AMD offered 386/40 when Intel stopped at 33 and AMD also had 486/120 when Intel stopped at 100. So AMD does have a history of offering higher performing processors (not necessarily faster clock for clock, but a part that is faster than anything that Intel had in the same family). I remember that someone also had a 286/20 when Intel maxed at 12, but I can't remember if that was AMD or someone else.
IBM is simply offering production services to AMD, this is not another AIM alliance or anything like that. So IBM mgmt slowness should not be an issue at all. AMD simply is another IBM Semi customer.
As for IBM mgmt, well yes, in many ways IBM is the poster child for the slow and ponderous company. However, when they decide to do something (and do it right, well as much as can be expected) they can be the unstoppable force. RS/6000 and ThinkPad are two excellent examples.
I guess this means, that there might actually be a big computer manufacturer that will back AMD
No it doesn't. This has nothing to do with the PC portion of IBM. This is simply IBM Semi helping out AMD in the manufacture (process and design) of their chips. There is nothing to imply that IBM will suddenly start switching over to AMD cpus.
But the relationship appears to be one way, how is AMD going to help IBM on the PPC?
Actually the 286 -> 386 transition is similar to the P3 -> P4 in that clock for clock, the "older" generation was faster than the "newer". The 386 was a massive jump in features though (full 32bit, v86 mode, real protected mode, etc) that no one really cared.
My P330 is similar, cost pp is around .50 and it cost a bit more (but has features out the wahzoo). However for a $200 inkjet, they'll do full page bleeds, which is VERY nice. Luckily I have a full page (8.5x11) capable dye sub so it's not a big deal for me, but if not for that I'd own a nicer inkjet as well. Note that even with my VERY old camera (Olympus D500 .7MP), my 8.5x11's look VERY nice (you have to look very closely to notice that resolution isn't that high). This is due to two factors, first, the D500 produces great pictures, much better than cameras I've seen with twice the resolution. Some things aren't as sharp as the higher res cameras, but for the majority of pix I take, the overall color quality beats a higher pixel count any day. Secondly, my large dye sub has some very sophisticated scaling routines that do a most excellent job of scaling images up.
I'm waiting now for something like the X3 or other higher end digital camera before I upgrade and am very excited to see what the printer will do with a high quality hi rez image.
He said "affordable" ;) Actually dyesub printers are getting relatively cheap, at least compared to days past. The Olympus printers are nice (I have the p330 and the p400 looks sweet). They are not however anywhere near the $200 price range of the nicer inkjets that I assume the original poster means by "affordable".
But that said, I don't think printing technology is holding anything up. After all, you always want the best quality now, you can always acquire and print with better tech tomorrow, but any better tech won't improve the pictures you've already taken.
Uh, this may come as a surprise to you, but Apple doesn't make the CPUs in the PowerMac
Nope, well aware. But from a corporate standpoint, it doesn't matter who makes the cpu, Apple gets hurt in the end. If superdrives start failing all over the place, can Apple say, "hey don't blame us, Panasonic made the drives". Sure they can say it, but Apple suffers most since people will say "My stupid Mac doesn't work".
If the lack of news there came as a surprise to you
Never said surprised, I said disappointed. After all, Apple does have a faster processor at their disposal. I don't know if the 1.25GHz part is significantly different than the 1Ghz, but if it's not, then why not provide a 1.25Ghz model as well for those who want the ponies and can live with a 10% reduction in battery time?
That's the hand Apple has to play, and they're making the best of it
But that doesn't mean that as a Mac user that I can't be dissapointed that this is the situation right? I didn't say that Apple are retards for not announcing a 3Ghz PowerMac when they had the chance. I think pretty much EVERY somewhat knowledgeable Mac user knows full well what the cpu/Mot situation is.
IRT switching to x86, I too once thought that this would be the biggest mistake ever, now I'm not totally convinced. Well, I still think so, but I do see the following occuring. As Apple continues to innovate with their software, the hardware, while cool, becomes less relevant. Now I think it is critically important to differentiate between Apple simply swapping cpus and Apple selling beige boxes, two completely different issues. It is the former that I'm referring to. After all, other than nerds, who amongst Apples core customers really cares what type of cpu (other than for performance reasons) that is inside their box?
"Year of the notebook"
Addresses two key issues with Apple. First is slow cpu's. cpu speed isn't as big of a deal with laptop users, so the ghz gap isn't as pronounced here. Second, and most important, laptops have much higher margins than desktops. Apple already sells a higher percentage of laptops, this does nothing but help the bottom line and if they continue, the bottom line will still look good (even if market share drops).
Most dissapointing
No advancment on the ghz front. I just said that it doesn't matter _as_much_, but it's still dissapointing that Apple continues to lag here.
New FireWire connector. I know that this might not be Apples fault, but yet another connector type for 800Gb FireWire, ugh. Yeah yeah, an adapters available, but couldn't IEEE figure out a way to make the two compatable?
Most "interesting"
Safari. How does this fit into the big picture. Does Safari really make the Mac a sweeter deal for those who were fence sitting (or firmly on the other side)? Does what Apple gets from it outweigh the development costs of it? Is this another sign that Apple is distancing themselves from Microsoft? Now with Safari, Office is the only thing left that Apple has a dependency on M$.
Most likely to go "cube"
The 12" PowerBook. Yes portability is good, but does it sell in enough numbers to keep it alive. Will people want a G4 bad enough to pay the extra for the 12" PB vs the iBook? Subnotes/small notes are notoriously hard to sell, but I guess it does plug a hole in the Apple notebook strategy.
Yikes the control area of the thing looks tiny! Someone mentioned if Nintendo is going after the adult market due to the more "sophisticated" design. I ask the opposite, is Nintendo potentially alienating their adult market by making the controls too small to use confortably by anyone over the age of 15.
Also, in the shot of it next to the "old" GBA, doesn't it look like it's actually a little bigger when it's opened up? It's probably a lot thinner, but I think it has a bit of a clunky/chunky prototypish look to it.
Well if the article is right, then Apple will be releasing new models at MWSF right? This in itself is a bit of a scoop, you wouldn't expect them to have an all new iMac since the this model has only been out for a year or so and the point in which sales dropped off would not have given them enough time to design an all new iMac (esp considering how long it took for them to come up with the latest one). I assume then that they are simply retiring the current line and coming out with different screen sizes with tweeks in configuration.
;)
Either that, or they have strengthened the arm enough to stick a 19" crt on it