New G5 sighting

Oh...this is from UBC? Hm.....


UBC rocks by the way

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>

I like all references concerning the G5, but as soon as I see the word spymac go along with it, I'll just have to look away and shake my head.
They're so obviously full if it and are only looking to get traffic and/or get email adresses for hell-knows-what purpose.
If you guys think MOSR sucks, then how would you describe Spymac?

G-News

[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
<strong> If you guys think MOSR sucks, then how would you describe Spymac? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Blows

lol!

Interesting....I am a music teacher and I have never heard of this software....I know most of the notation software.....

I'm going to check it out. And also; YES, SpyMac's creator's are traffic WHORES.

[quote]Macintosh computer with G3, G4, or G5 processor and at least 96 Mbytes of memory, running Mac OS-X.<hr></blockquote>


I always thought 128 MB ram was minimum for OS X.

Alas, another bogus "sighting".

[quote]Originally posted by G-News:
<strong>
If you guys think MOSR sucks, then how would you describe Spymac?

</strong><hr></blockquote>


"... and upstanding citizen of marketing".

(1 976 bul-sh!t, for entertainment purposes only, void where prohibited by law)

Is there any connection between Spymac and this website that they found? I don't think so. So Spymac's reputation in this case is irrelevant, because all they did was identify an independent website maintained by a developer who makes a G5 reference. Spymac is the messenger in this case, nothing more, so you all need to chill with the slams on Spymac.

In fact, I'm getting real sick of all the rumor site bashing that goes on here. WTF is everyone's problem? The entire point of rumor sites is speculation, rumor, and BS...all rumor sites are full of it, some more than others, but to say that MOSR blows or sucks or whatever, but AI is solid, that's ludicrous. Oh, check it out, the new iMac specs!

<a href="http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2" target="_blank">http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2</a>

A thick Apple studio display design? BTO superdrive (LOL, BTO, on an iMac, what nonsense)? 999, 1299, 1599 on prices? Powered by a GHz G3? Contrary to having the inside line to Apple's skunkworks, AI appears to have gotten virtually EVERYTHING about the new iMac wrong, besides it having a 15" LCD (duh!), and the video card (an easy guess).

Now, back to reality:

The G5 references by developers are becoming commonplace. This is a sure sign that the G5 introduction is imminent. My guess is that it was expected at MWSF, and that's why all these websites began to reference it. Now we will have to wait a few weeks or maybe months...apparently it was delayed for some reason.

Didn't Jobs say something about the really good stuff not being at MWSF, or something to that effect? I didn't listen to the entire keynote, but perhaps someone who has could confirm or deny this.

This is so cool....finally, the GHz gap will be closed, and the performance gap will widen, in favor of the Powermac G5!

[quote]Originally posted by Cobra:
<strong>


I always thought 128 MB ram was minimum for OS X.

Alas, another bogus "sighting". </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not necessarily, Adobe is saying the same with their <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/golive/systemreqs.html" target="_blank">GoLive requirements</a>.

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Cobra:
<strong>


I always thought 128 MB ram was minimum for OS X.

Alas, another bogus "sighting". </strong><hr></blockquote>

You do realise that 128 mb ram is just a number plucked from some apple engineer's ass and has absolutely no relevance to epson software engineers who are paying more attention to the needs of their software than the fine print on the mac os x box?

as far as RAM goes you can get by with less that 128MB if you don't use classic. I've run classic on 96MB and it didn't suck too bad.

VF

1 slip up by a software vendor I can understand. Maybe someone forgot about their NDA or the marketing person didn't know. 2 are a possibility but it is getting harder to believe. But, I think it is getting a little ridiculous. I do not think that many people are slipping up and making these disclosures. A shareware vendor would either not have access to a G5 Mac to determine compatibility or would be a one person shop and be MORE than aware of the NDA they signed.

I think some people are looking for hits or just having fun with us.

I have to wonder if some of these vendors just have read MOSR and the Register like all of us, and so stick G5 in because they think it may be out soon.

Its like the parable of the white farmer and the native man.
Farmer asks the man what the winter will be like

"should be a rough one" he says. So the farmer and his friends go out a cut extra firewood for winter.

A few days later he sees the man again and ask if he has any new info on the approaching winter.

"Looks like a real bad one" the man answers, again the farmer and his neighbors run out and cut even more firewood. A few days later the two men come across each other again.. "So how bad will the winter be?" the white man asks

"looks to be one of the worst I have ever seen" the native man replies. The white man starts to leave and then turns and asks "How do you know so much about the coming winter?"


"Easy" the native man replies "the white folks have been stocking up on firewood like crazy this year."



[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Mike D ]</p>