umm, what does he mean by: "New Studio HD Displays 15, 17, 19 at 1024x764, 1280x1024, 1600x1200"?
None of those are capable of displaying "HD" content at native rez (1920x1080).
The rest is definitely not to optimistic... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
However, I'm planning on getting what ever Apple offers in the Middle Range ($2000-$2300)+ Geforce4Ti or Radeon8500 (if offered) + a 17in LCD... so I wouldn't mind a Dual 1Ghz with DDR...
Noone gives much credence to most of what is posted in HTML around here. Now someone offers a (unprofessional looking) PDF, and somehow it becomes equivalent to the printed word, and it feels like it deserves more trust than other "predictions."
Maybe I'll create a little Quicktime newsflash with my predictions..
Theory is the first victim when confronted by a user plugging in cables.
Are you saying that a USB2 hub will accumulate a slow device's data packet until it can retransmit it at high speed? That might be true of some hubs, is it true of all? I know that in some configurations each USB1 packet takes an inordinately large amount of USB2 bandwidth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would make them USB2 switches (not hubs) in my book. Certainly a good idea, though!
<strong>No one gives much credence to most of what is posted in HTML around here. Now someone offers a (unprofessional looking) PDF, and somehow it becomes equivalent to the printed word, and it feels like it deserves more trust than other "predictions."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So true! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
These are the speeds that the G5 was meant to be introduced at. Maybe this is the 32bit version of the G5, so that it would have signifigant changes to the architecture of the chip, but not enough to warrant changing the name to a G5. The change is meant to be more than the difference between the PII and the PIII.... I read this somewhere, a man from motorola talking on the subject of the future G4s, but he may just be mentioning the chips that we already use.......
Oh well, its a shame that this is totally bogus, but I want to believe.... I mean Come on, a 60% clock speed boost with a chip in the same generation? "I don't think so...."
It's definately not true. As someone else points out, these new "Studio HD" displays could not exist, they are no where near the resolution needed.
Second, Anyone notice that he has the Cinema HD display (current one) priced at US$3999? It currently costs US$3499 and I really doubt Apple would add $500 to its cost. That would anger a lot of people.
Third, he has a 3U Xserve appearing with 14 drive bays, and also Dual 1.2 Ghz G4s, etc. He obviously is assuming this is the Xserve RAID Steve mentioned and showed at the intro. But the XServe RAID is only 14 drive bays in a RAID setup with massive redundancy and a nice Fibre Channel connection to an Xserve. It won't have its own processors (IIRC).
Fourth, he mentions Jul 2003 introducing Dual 1833 G4s. NOTHING I have heard out of Moto/IBM/Apple indicates anyone has a G4 that fast. I don't buy it. Everything I hear is G5 Jul 03.
Also, his video cards in the Powermac stay at 64 MB standard all the way to next year. No chance. Just no chance.
Superdrive HC? Blu-ray drive? Not in a 1599 machine by 2004. I love how he gets all his tech info from /. and then regardless of time/price throws it in somewhere.
This entire PDF is a pile of crap. Ignore it completely.
God it seems no one here knows you CAN have rackmounted G4's (no not the Xserve) while leaving your MB in its original case OR putting it in one of marathon's PowerRacks.
One of the least known performance enhancements on the modern Macintosh is the Font Side Bus which is dedicated to keep the FPU (Font Processing Unit) fed with Font Data. THis bus is often clogged by beginning designers who use 10+ fonts for a single page newsletter. Expanding this no doubt reflects Apple's commitment to consumers and fledgling designers. Forget Video Editing and 3D, we're going to take on the School Newsletter market! <hr></blockquote>
I think it is wise of apple to take on the 3D and Videomarket. This is market is in a constant need of upgrade. Thats means very potential costumers for a long time into the future. We are the first ones to buy new hardware. Apple already has computers that will fit the schoolmarket. Hell, if your not doing 3D, Video, sound or science what is the need of buying the new hardware? If you only use pagemaker, photoshop and related stuff than a used G4 450-500mhz will do just fine. If you only write letters to your mom and surf the internet on your computor you can get your self an iMacG3 or a PMG3. If your not into 3D, Video, sound or science your needs has already been filled. You will not be so quick to buy new hardware if you really dont need it, am I not right. That makes you a less potential costumer.
Steve Jobs at NY: - From now on we will be delivering extreme power only. :cool:
Do you REALLY need more than 2GB of RAM? What the H do you do with your computer, anyway? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know of course what he is going to do with his computer, but it is very simple in scientific applications to write a simple command-line driven program, that would ask for more than 1GB of RAM!
I don't know of course what he is going to do with his computer, but it is very simple in scientific applications to write a simple command-line driven program, that would ask for more than 1GB of RAM!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about a well written program?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes, even a well writen program can be very RAM hungry. The example I have in mind is some application requiring a multiple array with millions of elements in the total. Here the problem comes from an intrinsic restriction and not from the programming quality.
Comments
<strong>Something to read and hope it's not true
<a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~octopus/Prijslijsten/Computers/Computermerken/MacFuture.pdf"; target="_blank">http://www.xs4all.nl/~octopus/Prijslijsten/Computers/Computermerken/MacFuture.pdf</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
umm, what does he mean by: "New Studio HD Displays 15, 17, 19 at 1024x764, 1280x1024, 1600x1200"?
None of those are capable of displaying "HD" content at native rez (1920x1080).
The rest is definitely not to optimistic... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
However, I'm planning on getting what ever Apple offers in the Middle Range ($2000-$2300)+ Geforce4Ti or Radeon8500 (if offered) + a 17in LCD... so I wouldn't mind a Dual 1Ghz with DDR...
Blizaine
Noone gives much credence to most of what is posted in HTML around here. Now someone offers a (unprofessional looking) PDF, and somehow it becomes equivalent to the printed word, and it feels like it deserves more trust than other "predictions."
Maybe I'll create a little Quicktime newsflash with my predictions..
<strong>
Theory is the first victim when confronted by a user plugging in cables.
Are you saying that a USB2 hub will accumulate a slow device's data packet until it can retransmit it at high speed? That might be true of some hubs, is it true of all? I know that in some configurations each USB1 packet takes an inordinately large amount of USB2 bandwidth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That would make them USB2 switches (not hubs) in my book. Certainly a good idea, though!
<strong>No one gives much credence to most of what is posted in HTML around here. Now someone offers a (unprofessional looking) PDF, and somehow it becomes equivalent to the printed word, and it feels like it deserves more trust than other "predictions."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So true! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
1.2Ghz
1.4Ghz
1.6Ghz
These are the speeds that the G5 was meant to be introduced at. Maybe this is the 32bit version of the G5, so that it would have signifigant changes to the architecture of the chip, but not enough to warrant changing the name to a G5. The change is meant to be more than the difference between the PII and the PIII.... I read this somewhere, a man from motorola talking on the subject of the future G4s, but he may just be mentioning the chips that we already use.......
Oh well, its a shame that this is totally bogus, but I want to believe.... I mean Come on, a 60% clock speed boost with a chip in the same generation? "I don't think so...."
<strong>Something to read and hope it's not true
<a href="http://www.xs4all.nl/~octopus/Prijslijsten/Computers/Computermerken/MacFuture.pdf"; target="_blank">http://www.xs4all.nl/~octopus/Prijslijsten/Computers/Computermerken/MacFuture.pdf</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Well,
It's definately not true. As someone else points out, these new "Studio HD" displays could not exist, they are no where near the resolution needed.
Second, Anyone notice that he has the Cinema HD display (current one) priced at US$3999? It currently costs US$3499 and I really doubt Apple would add $500 to its cost. That would anger a lot of people.
Third, he has a 3U Xserve appearing with 14 drive bays, and also Dual 1.2 Ghz G4s, etc. He obviously is assuming this is the Xserve RAID Steve mentioned and showed at the intro. But the XServe RAID is only 14 drive bays in a RAID setup with massive redundancy and a nice Fibre Channel connection to an Xserve. It won't have its own processors (IIRC).
Fourth, he mentions Jul 2003 introducing Dual 1833 G4s. NOTHING I have heard out of Moto/IBM/Apple indicates anyone has a G4 that fast. I don't buy it. Everything I hear is G5 Jul 03.
Also, his video cards in the Powermac stay at 64 MB standard all the way to next year. No chance. Just no chance.
Superdrive HC? Blu-ray drive? Not in a 1599 machine by 2004. I love how he gets all his tech info from /. and then regardless of time/price throws it in somewhere.
This entire PDF is a pile of crap. Ignore it completely.
<a href="http://www.marathoncomputer.com/"; target="_blank">marathon computer</a>
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: TommyBrando ]</p>
However, it make me smile at the notion of a 17 inch LCD G5 iMac with kick bottom (ass to you Americans...) graphics card...
That would be my mac-in-heaven-mac.
Der-rool, der-rool.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
Buy BobtheTomato
One of the least known performance enhancements on the modern Macintosh is the Font Side Bus which is dedicated to keep the FPU (Font Processing Unit) fed with Font Data. THis bus is often clogged by beginning designers who use 10+ fonts for a single page newsletter. Expanding this no doubt reflects Apple's commitment to consumers and fledgling designers. Forget Video Editing and 3D, we're going to take on the School Newsletter market! <hr></blockquote>
I think it is wise of apple to take on the 3D and Videomarket. This is market is in a constant need of upgrade. Thats means very potential costumers for a long time into the future. We are the first ones to buy new hardware. Apple already has computers that will fit the schoolmarket. Hell, if your not doing 3D, Video, sound or science what is the need of buying the new hardware? If you only use pagemaker, photoshop and related stuff than a used G4 450-500mhz will do just fine. If you only write letters to your mom and surf the internet on your computor you can get your self an iMacG3 or a PMG3. If your not into 3D, Video, sound or science your needs has already been filled. You will not be so quick to buy new hardware if you really dont need it, am I not right. That makes you a less potential costumer.
Steve Jobs at NY: - From now on we will be delivering extreme power only. :cool:
<strong>
Do you REALLY need more than 2GB of RAM? What the H do you do with your computer, anyway? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know of course what he is going to do with his computer, but it is very simple in scientific applications to write a simple command-line driven program, that would ask for more than 1GB of RAM!
<strong>
I don't know of course what he is going to do with his computer, but it is very simple in scientific applications to write a simple command-line driven program, that would ask for more than 1GB of RAM!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What about a well written program?
<strong>
What about a well written program?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes, even a well writen program can be very RAM hungry. The example I have in mind is some application requiring a multiple array with millions of elements in the total. Here the problem comes from an intrinsic restriction and not from the programming quality.