You make good points rmendis, but I'd say that Apple is in no position to purchase SGI now either.
Apple has a lot on their plate just now with Panther, the 970 and who knows what else is currently in the pipeline. Besides that, I think that a close partnership with IBM might be better for Apple, and they wouldn't want to step on their chip supplier's toes right now with a venture that might put them in direct competition with Big Blue.
Having said that, if no mention of a relationship with IBM that goes beyond supplier/vendor comes out over the next few weeks it could mean that Apple intends to go it alone (or with a SGI acquisition) into the high end.
Apple Computer's board of directors called a special meeting to address a "sudden financial downturn," caused by a price war in the computer industry. At the meeting, the board asked president John Sculley to step down from his position, according to a wrongful-dismissal lawsuit later filed by Sculley.
Sculley was blamed for Apple's dismal performance in recent years. Although the groundbreaking Macintosh was released on his watch, some blamed him for missing the chance to make the Macintosh operating system the industry standard. He also spent eighteen months promoting the Newton, a handheld computer that Apple would invest ten years and an estimated $500 million in developing before finally pulling the plug in 1998. For the next several years, Apple went through two more presidents before drafting Apple cofounder Steve Jobs as acting president in 1998
If you look at the Xserve spec pages, they are 17.6" wide and 28" deep. In other words, that's about 5 and a quarter 12" PowerBooks. I have seen the laptop boxes, they are not oversized enough to contain an Xserve. However, the "eyewitness" may not know what he or she is seeing and may mistake an Xserve box for a laptop one, as the boxes are too narrow to be PowerMacs.
The Xserves are 1.73" high. My point is that the Xserves and Powerbook 17's have similar shapes, and are both small compared to, say, a Powermac. Therefore, it is quite possible that a person who got a brief glimpse at a xServe box thought it might be a Powerbook.
My point is that the Xserves and Powerbook 17's have similar shapes, and are both small compared to, say, a Powermac. Therefore, it is quite possible that a person who got a brief glimpse at a xServe box thought it might be a Powerbook.
Spoken like one who has never seen an Xserve.
Sometimes I just despair of the average Al forum reader.
Sometimes I just despair of the average Al forum reader.
I have seen a Xserve. Besides,
XServe: 28 by 17.6 inches=1.59
Powerbook 17: 15.4 by 10.2 inches=1.51
Both are thin: 1.73" vs. 1.0"
The shape is basically the same. The Xserve is bigger, but given the circumstances of the "sighting" one could easily be confused for the other as they both have the same distinctive shape.
AtAT has reversed its position and now expects G5s on Monday with immediate availability.
"No, what we meant to imply is that while it's all still just hearsay at this point, the say we're hearing hints strongly at a whiz-bang Power Mac G5 intro this Monday, with immediate availability right after the keynote. And while we're trying desperately not to get our hopes up until we see something at least vaguely resembling evidence, we have to admit, we're starting to get a little antsy. Must... control.... enthusiasm... Must... think... underwhelming... thoughts..."
The shape is basically the same. The Xserve is bigger, but given the circumstances of the "sighting" one could easily be confused for the other as they both have the same distinctive shape.
It's not even close! The Xserve's shortest dimension is 2" greater than the 17" PB's largest! The Xserve is twice as thick! And you, sir, are a blinkered idiot to think anyone could confuse the two.
I really do despair of the level of intelligence around here. Somebody say something intelligent, quick!
And you, sir, are a blinkered idiot to think anyone could confuse the two.
We're not talking about confusing an Xserve and a Powerbook 17. I agree that this is almost impossible. We're talking about confusing shipping boxes, given (a) the person probably had little time (b) the reference object was much bigger than either would be and (c) maybe some wishful thinking (lots of people want Powerbook update).
It's not even close! The Xserve's shortest dimension is 2" greater than the 17" PB's largest! The Xserve is twice as thick! And you, sir, are a blinkered idiot to think anyone could confuse the two.
I really do despair of the level of intelligence around here. Somebody say something intelligent, quick!
Well here is something intelligent: Your wrong! I quote the Apple Xserve page:
Quote:
Size and weight:
1.73 inches (4.4 cm) high by 17.6 inches (44.7 cm) wide by 28 inches (71.1 cm) deep
Quote:
Size and weight (17-inch model)
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.1 kg) with battery and optical drive installed (8)
I think you are thinking of the Xserve Raid" http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ That thing is more than twice as thick as the Powerbook.
It's "you're wrong" and yes I know it's not twice as thick, it's only almost twice as thick. And it's certainly not as thick as some of the folk posting in this thread. I think I should be allowed some hyperbole in order to make my point and that's all I have to say about that.
We're not talking about confusing an Xserve and a Powerbook 17. I agree that this is almost impossible. We're talking about confusing shipping boxes, given (a) the person probably had little time (b) the reference object was much bigger than either would be and (c) maybe some wishful thinking (lots of people want Powerbook update).
I'm just saying that it's a possibility. Sheesh.
Indeed we are! Geometrically speaking, are the Xserve and PB 17" similar? Roughly. Congruent? Hell no.
Have you ever seen the shipping boxes for Xserves? And for PowerBooks? They are not the same shape at all. Xserve boxes are deep and narrow, whereas most of Apple's laptop boxes have a squarer shape.
That being said, is it possible that the boxes could have been confused? Yes, by someone stupid and unfamiliar with Apple's boxen, which is unlikely considering that someone seeing new boxes has probably seen old, non-concealed boxes in addition.
Here's a bit that I guess alot of folks may already know, but . . . just in case you didn't. Thanks to a "roadmap" briefing from Dell today, I can confirm that no 64bit workstations are planned by that company until April 2004. April and afterward, they get very ambiguous. Maybe yes, Maybe no. They readily admit that the 32bit performance is in the dumper for Itanium, and WinXP64 isn't perfected.
How does this fit in w/ WWDC and Apple? Well, IF (and that's a big word) Apple releases their 970 PowerMac and shortly there-after Panther (around September), then they can have at least a 7 to 8 month jump on Dell.
What really brought this to my attention is that alot of the engineers where I work are having problems with the 4GB memory limitation of 32bit processors (they've been recently forced to migrate from HP 64bit Unix workstations to 2.66 - 3.06MHz P4 Win2K boxes, Pro E and UniGraphics).
Apple has an opportunity to really get some enterprise accounts if they capitalize on their immanent advancements.
If this WWDC can be "over the top", all the better.
You make good points rmendis, but I'd say that Apple is in no position to purchase SGI now either.
Apple has a lot on their plate just now with Panther, the 970 and who knows what else is currently in the pipeline...
Having said that, if no mention of a relationship with IBM that goes beyond supplier/vendor comes out over the next few weeks it could mean that Apple intends to go it alone (or with a SGI acquisition) into the high end.
I'd agree that perhaps right now is not the time, but definitely this year.
I'd say once Apple has it's 64-bit PPC970 Mac OS X Panther manchines out the door and the iTunes Music Store for Windows, i think then that would be the time.
Panther is out in Sept., so perhaps thereafter sometime?
Also note that SGI is the only company of IBM, HP, Sun (& Digital) that didn't have a strategic relationship/deal with NeXT. (IBM had strategic relationships with both NeXT then Apple).
On June 18, 1993, John Sculley officially resigned as president of Apple Computer, while retaining his title as chairman of the board. Sculley said he wanted to concentrate on strategy, while new president Michael Spindler ran day-to-day operations. However, the following September, Sculley filed a wrongful-dismissal lawsuit claiming he had been forced to step down by hostile directors. He claimed his dismissal was a breach of contract, as well as a case of age discrimination.
Sculley had served as president since 1983. During his term, Apple released the Macintosh computer and the PowerBook. The Newton, Apple's ill-fated handheld computer, was a pet project of Sculley's. In 1985, he essentially fired Steve Jobs, asking him to step down as president while retaining the title of chairman-ironically, the same situation he himself was placed in by Apple's board of directors eight years later.
Comments
Apple has a lot on their plate just now with Panther, the 970 and who knows what else is currently in the pipeline. Besides that, I think that a close partnership with IBM might be better for Apple, and they wouldn't want to step on their chip supplier's toes right now with a venture that might put them in direct competition with Big Blue.
Having said that, if no mention of a relationship with IBM that goes beyond supplier/vendor comes out over the next few weeks it could mean that Apple intends to go it alone (or with a SGI acquisition) into the high end.
Aphelion ...
June 17 1993, Emergency board meeting at Apple
Apple Computer's board of directors called a special meeting to address a "sudden financial downturn," caused by a price war in the computer industry. At the meeting, the board asked president John Sculley to step down from his position, according to a wrongful-dismissal lawsuit later filed by Sculley.
Sculley was blamed for Apple's dismal performance in recent years. Although the groundbreaking Macintosh was released on his watch, some blamed him for missing the chance to make the Macintosh operating system the industry standard. He also spent eighteen months promoting the Newton, a handheld computer that Apple would invest ten years and an estimated $500 million in developing before finally pulling the plug in 1998. For the next several years, Apple went through two more presidents before drafting Apple cofounder Steve Jobs as acting president in 1998
Originally posted by Spart
If you look at the Xserve spec pages, they are 17.6" wide and 28" deep. In other words, that's about 5 and a quarter 12" PowerBooks. I have seen the laptop boxes, they are not oversized enough to contain an Xserve. However, the "eyewitness" may not know what he or she is seeing and may mistake an Xserve box for a laptop one, as the boxes are too narrow to be PowerMacs.
The Xserves are 1.73" high. My point is that the Xserves and Powerbook 17's have similar shapes, and are both small compared to, say, a Powermac. Therefore, it is quite possible that a person who got a brief glimpse at a xServe box thought it might be a Powerbook.
Originally posted by qazII
My point is that the Xserves and Powerbook 17's have similar shapes, and are both small compared to, say, a Powermac. Therefore, it is quite possible that a person who got a brief glimpse at a xServe box thought it might be a Powerbook.
Spoken like one who has never seen an Xserve.
Sometimes I just despair of the average Al forum reader.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Spoken like one who has never seen an Xserve.
Sometimes I just despair of the average Al forum reader.
I have seen a Xserve. Besides,
XServe: 28 by 17.6 inches=1.59
Powerbook 17: 15.4 by 10.2 inches=1.51
Both are thin: 1.73" vs. 1.0"
The shape is basically the same. The Xserve is bigger, but given the circumstances of the "sighting" one could easily be confused for the other as they both have the same distinctive shape.
"No, what we meant to imply is that while it's all still just hearsay at this point, the say we're hearing hints strongly at a whiz-bang Power Mac G5 intro this Monday, with immediate availability right after the keynote. And while we're trying desperately not to get our hopes up until we see something at least vaguely resembling evidence, we have to admit, we're starting to get a little antsy. Must... control.... enthusiasm... Must... think... underwhelming... thoughts..."
We've long known the motherboard was hamstringing the PowerMacs.
I know... I know... we want the 970s. I'm just sayin'.
What if?
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
AtAT has reversed its position and now expects G5s on Monday with immediate availability.
"Must... control.... enthusiasm... Must... think... underwhelming... thoughts..."
Originally posted by qazII
I have seen a Xserve. Besides,
XServe: 28 by 17.6 inches=1.59
Powerbook 17: 15.4 by 10.2 inches=1.51
Both are thin: 1.73" vs. 1.0"
The shape is basically the same. The Xserve is bigger, but given the circumstances of the "sighting" one could easily be confused for the other as they both have the same distinctive shape.
It's not even close! The Xserve's shortest dimension is 2" greater than the 17" PB's largest! The Xserve is twice as thick! And you, sir, are a blinkered idiot to think anyone could confuse the two.
I really do despair of the level of intelligence around here. Somebody say something intelligent, quick!
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
Somebody say something intelligent, quick!
[rapid voice high-pitched voice] E=mc^2 [/rapid voice high-pitched voice]
Originally posted by Leonis
NETRO is BACK!
netro is my favorit viking
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
And you, sir, are a blinkered idiot to think anyone could confuse the two.
We're not talking about confusing an Xserve and a Powerbook 17. I agree that this is almost impossible. We're talking about confusing shipping boxes, given (a) the person probably had little time (b) the reference object was much bigger than either would be and (c) maybe some wishful thinking (lots of people want Powerbook update).
I'm just saying that it's a possibility. Sheesh.
Originally posted by Tomb of the Unknown
It's not even close! The Xserve's shortest dimension is 2" greater than the 17" PB's largest! The Xserve is twice as thick! And you, sir, are a blinkered idiot to think anyone could confuse the two.
I really do despair of the level of intelligence around here. Somebody say something intelligent, quick!
Well here is something intelligent: Your wrong! I quote the Apple Xserve page:
Size and weight:
1.73 inches (4.4 cm) high by 17.6 inches (44.7 cm) wide by 28 inches (71.1 cm) deep
Size and weight (17-inch model)
Height: 1.0 inch (2.6 cm)
Width: 15.4 inches (39.2 cm)
Depth: 10.2 inches (25.9 cm)
Weight: 6.8 pounds (3.1 kg) with battery and optical drive installed (8)
I think you are thinking of the Xserve Raid" http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/ That thing is more than twice as thick as the Powerbook.
Originally posted by jante99
Well here is something intelligent: Your wrong!
It's "you're wrong" and yes I know it's not twice as thick, it's only almost twice as thick. And it's certainly not as thick as some of the folk posting in this thread. I think I should be allowed some hyperbole in order to make my point and that's all I have to say about that.
Originally posted by qazII
We're not talking about confusing an Xserve and a Powerbook 17. I agree that this is almost impossible. We're talking about confusing shipping boxes, given (a) the person probably had little time (b) the reference object was much bigger than either would be and (c) maybe some wishful thinking (lots of people want Powerbook update).
I'm just saying that it's a possibility. Sheesh.
Indeed we are! Geometrically speaking, are the Xserve and PB 17" similar? Roughly. Congruent? Hell no.
Have you ever seen the shipping boxes for Xserves? And for PowerBooks? They are not the same shape at all. Xserve boxes are deep and narrow, whereas most of Apple's laptop boxes have a squarer shape.
That being said, is it possible that the boxes could have been confused? Yes, by someone stupid and unfamiliar with Apple's boxen, which is unlikely considering that someone seeing new boxes has probably seen old, non-concealed boxes in addition.
How does this fit in w/ WWDC and Apple? Well, IF (and that's a big word) Apple releases their 970 PowerMac and shortly there-after Panther (around September), then they can have at least a 7 to 8 month jump on Dell.
What really brought this to my attention is that alot of the engineers where I work are having problems with the 4GB memory limitation of 32bit processors (they've been recently forced to migrate from HP 64bit Unix workstations to 2.66 - 3.06MHz P4 Win2K boxes, Pro E and UniGraphics).
Apple has an opportunity to really get some enterprise accounts if they capitalize on their immanent advancements.
If this WWDC can be "over the top", all the better.
Originally posted by Aphelion
You make good points rmendis, but I'd say that Apple is in no position to purchase SGI now either.
Apple has a lot on their plate just now with Panther, the 970 and who knows what else is currently in the pipeline...
Having said that, if no mention of a relationship with IBM that goes beyond supplier/vendor comes out over the next few weeks it could mean that Apple intends to go it alone (or with a SGI acquisition) into the high end.
I'd agree that perhaps right now is not the time, but definitely this year.
I'd say once Apple has it's 64-bit PPC970 Mac OS X Panther manchines out the door and the iTunes Music Store for Windows, i think then that would be the time.
Panther is out in Sept., so perhaps thereafter sometime?
Also note that SGI is the only company of IBM, HP, Sun (& Digital) that didn't have a strategic relationship/deal with NeXT. (IBM had strategic relationships with both NeXT then Apple).
1993 Sculley quits Apple
On June 18, 1993, John Sculley officially resigned as president of Apple Computer, while retaining his title as chairman of the board. Sculley said he wanted to concentrate on strategy, while new president Michael Spindler ran day-to-day operations. However, the following September, Sculley filed a wrongful-dismissal lawsuit claiming he had been forced to step down by hostile directors. He claimed his dismissal was a breach of contract, as well as a case of age discrimination.
Sculley had served as president since 1983. During his term, Apple released the Macintosh computer and the PowerBook. The Newton, Apple's ill-fated handheld computer, was a pet project of Sculley's. In 1985, he essentially fired Steve Jobs, asking him to step down as president while retaining the title of chairman-ironically, the same situation he himself was placed in by Apple's board of directors eight years later.