Hopefully the 2.5 970 rumors to bed will add weight to the idea that Apple has .13 1.4-1.8 gig 970s rockin' and rollin' for a New York time frame intro'.
Apple 'may' use them. Those 'leaks' are almost becoming matter of fact 'hints'.
Hopefully the 2.5 970 rumors to bed will add weight to the idea that Apple has .13 1.4-1.8 gig 970s rockin' and rollin' for a New York time frame intro'.
Apple 'may' use them. Those 'leaks' are almost becoming matter of fact 'hints'.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea the latest rumor that 1.4-1.8ghz is revving up makes me feel warm all over. Curious about the release tho as no keynote this July. Would Apple get enough publicity from a special event on such a huge stpe forward? This is a huge deal for us and possible switchers both to and from.
[quote]Yea the latest rumor that 1.4-1.8ghz is revving up makes me feel warm all over. Curious about the release tho as no keynote this July. Would Apple get enough publicity from a special event on such a huge stpe forward? This is a huge deal for us and possible switchers both to and from.<hr></blockquote>
Broken record time again.
Okay, the ThinkSecret story is not accurate. There is going to be a MWNY this year and Apple is going to attend.
Here is the story. Apple and IDG were getting a bunch of complaints of how expensive it is to attend Macworld in NYC. The costs of the show were much higher than the show in San Francisco and exhibitors were complaining about rising costs in a slowing economy.
So IDG, based out of Massachusetts, decided that the time was right to move the show back to Boston which was supposedly always in the cards any way. IDG had major discussions with Apple about the move before the deal was signed. The deal allowed for IDG to get the new Boston convention center for free for the show for a good number of years and Boston hotels offered a guaranteed number of rooms at a flat low rate.
Boston also arranged for free transportation to the convention center from hotels and back, as well as other benefits.
So Apple was fine with the deal since the cost of exhibiting would go down and since more Mac companies would be able to exhibit at the show. Apple and IDG were also both still angry at the Javitz Center for raising costs right before the show started in 2002 and it basically sealed the deal to move the show.
But as the deal was announced in Boston, Apple did an about face. They said they didn't want to exhibit in Boston and that they were so 'shocked' that it put the 2003 summer expo in jeopardy as well.
Apple was trying to use the situation to their advantage. They decided that they would use the opportunity to get their costs reduced even further and get other benefits from IDG. IDG turned around and said they would block Apple from exhbiting at MWSF unless something was worked out for the summer 2003 expo.
Apple, as we all know, did exhibit in San Francisco and IDG is claiming that things are smoothed over for the 2003 expo. Negotiations for the 2004 Boston expo are underway and said to be progressing as well.
I can say, without a doubt, that ThinkSecret's article is totally off base. Apple will exhibit in NY and Jobs will keynote.
Apple not attending will just be a sign to the media that Apple can't afford to go to two Macworlds and is therefore in trouble once again. They will also be missing out on big press and PR from the 'Mac faithful' if they skip the keynote in NY. The show will go on.
Okay, the ThinkSecret story is not accurate. There is going to be a MWNY this year and Apple is going to attend.
I can say, without a doubt, that ThinkSecret's article is totally off base. Apple will exhibit in NY and Jobs will keynote.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all you needed to say. So TS is full of crap? I have yet to see much egg on their face. Not saying I don't believe you, so to be fair to both I will be nuetral until more evidence is made avilable. The no keynote was a surprise to me as well, but given TS's recent track record I believed them.
That's all you needed to say. So TS is full of crap? I have yet to see much egg on their face. Not saying I don't believe you, so to be fair to both I will be nuetral until more evidence is made avilable. The no keynote was a surprise to me as well, but given TS's recent track record I believed them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea I know this sounds like silly 'cloan-n-dagger' stuff but maybe someone at apple is spreading dis-info and looking to see where it turns up... I wouldn't put it past em...
In all honesty, I can't see Steve Jobs not taking the stage or the opportunity to trash the lastest Pentium 4s in a bake-off with a dual 1.8 gig 970.
C'mon. If he, and Apple, have been working on this baby for as long as he's been 'i-Ceo' on his 2nd reign of power...I put it to the 'insider faithful that Jobs WILL crow big time and in true grand standing fashion about Apple re-taking the performance crown.
Steve Jobs. Not Keynote?
C'mon. We love him giving it to us. And he loves giving it too us!
His keynotes are for Mac users what Billy Graham is for Bible thumpers...
<strong>In all honesty, I can't see Steve Jobs not taking the stage or the opportunity to trash the lastest Pentium 4s in a bake-off with a dual 1.8 gig 970.
C'mon. If he, and Apple, have been working on this baby for as long as he's been 'i-Ceo' on his 2nd reign of power...I put it to the 'insider faithful that Jobs WILL crow big time and in true grand standing fashion about Apple re-taking the performance crown.
Steve Jobs. Not Keynote?
C'mon. We love him giving it to us. And he loves giving it too us!
His keynotes are for Mac users what Billy Graham is for Bible thumpers...
When was the keynot speaker ever anounced this early? I think there is too much time between now and then to count on this information even if it did come from a credable source.
<strong>Think Secret has ways of making you think they are right. That's all. </strong><hr></blockquote>
When they say things like, "Among the changes include no keynote address from Apple CEO Steve Jobs on the opening day..", I believe them. Steve's keynotes are typically on the second day. Nit-picking, but they probably got some 'insider info' and it was just to test them. Rumor sites suck! Rumor forums are where it's at!
Wow, Bodhi is right.. There are way too many 970 threads floating around. We should stick to just one... I meant for the following to be posted to *this* discussion. I ended up posting to the wrong one. Sorry for any redundancy. How about locking some of the others? Anyway...
Check out this recent article that counterbalances some of what Hannibal's latest X86-64 article mentions.
Amorph and Programmer: any comments?
Dave usually accepts e-mail to discuss any issues.
Ahhh St. David, I like him, he's a great guy, helped me a few times in email with a few programming issues a while back ...
Anyway, while I agree with David that Hannibal didn't give Apple or the 970 the credit it deserved, I certainly don't think this was intentional, over-all, I think Hannibal does a great job explaining things ... it's just that, this time, he thought, "Oh well, they're practically 64bit as it is, so for them - from the purely technical standpoint compared to x86 - what's the big deal?" and left it at that ... which in hindsight, may not have been the best POV to run with ... oh well, Hannibal, if you're listening, love your stuff, please keep doing it.
Now, onto another interesting issue that David brought up which has special resonance with discussions that where going on in this board a while back.
Anybody remember the Red Box "Windows" emulator talk that was a-runnin' wild 'round these parts a couple of weeks ago?
The general consensus was, it's probably not a great idea for Apple to write a Windows emulator in OSX, since that will just encourage many developers to write once for Windows, and tell Mac heads to run in emulation.
Well, if you where a software developer, and somebody came along, with a chip, that has their own special proprietary 64bit x86 code, that also happpened to be backward compatible with 32bit code - which also happens to be the type of code that can run on the vast majority of machines out there: which would you pick, the small, specialized 64bit market, or the vast and general 32bit market, and just have your code run in combatibility mode on those 64bit chips?
Guys, if what I've said above is even half right, it looks like Wintel has quite a problem on their hands.
People unhappy about the x86-64 article in this thread too? *sigh*
Look, Hannibal's quote is:
[quote]Should Apple move from 32-bit PPC to 64-bit PPC, Mac users should not expect the same kinds of performance gains that x86 software sees from the jump to x86-64. 64-bit PPC gives you larger integers and more memory, and that's about it. There are no extra registers, no cleaned up addressing scheme, etc.<hr></blockquote>
Specifically, you won't see a huge change in performance when switching from 32-bit mode to 64-bit mode on the 970. The bit-iness doesn't make that big a difference to the 970. The PPC was done right the first time. Now, is there anyone who doesn't think that's obvious from the quote?
Evidently. Apparently the proper way of stating it (from the DKE article) is
[quote]Since the PowerPC does not have an ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) designed in the 70s and 80's, and does not have register limitations that the x86 does, it already sees those potential performance gains. Even with the release of x86-64 the PPC will still have more registers and a cleaner and more advanced ISA.<hr></blockquote>
Now, which of the two sounds like a technical article and which sounds like market-speak. *Sheesh* Ars Technica is not aimed at the technologically illiterate...
The rest of DKE's article points out that the Mac world has less inertia than the Wintel world and will adopt 64-bit computing faster.
While I think it is possible, I'm not certain it's a good idea. Why? Because Apple has very limited developer resources. A 64-bit OSX will mean something useful to a very limited number of users. It will also mean that something that could be useful to a lot more users will not get developed.
The only reason to go 64-bit is to enable Apple to attack a particular (and lucrative) niche. (I'm thinking video editing myself.) It will need to get the app makers in that niche behind it quickly (which probably means throwing money at the app makers rather than spending it somewhere else), and apple then better market the final result to that niche heavily (which means less marketing to the rest of us).
Without that solid approach with defined goals, the effort is essentially wasted. Apple has a history of neat ideas that go nowhere (OpenDoc, anyone?)
Of course, Apple also has a history of being a technological leader. SCSI, USB, FireWire were all led to the mainstream on Macs.
Of course, for the most part, the PC world patiently waited until they were available on Windows and then hailed them as wonderful rather considered switching, but that's a different rant :-).
"64-bitness itself is no freaking panacea. The transfer will fix some problems in x86-land, but since the ppc doesn't have those problems -> they won't be fixed."
Comments
<strong>
No need to stress out, jesus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
To Quote Superintendent Chamers
"take it outside god-boy"
Hey you leave that religious talk in AppleOutsider, you hear? <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Hopefully the 2.5 970 rumors to bed will add weight to the idea that Apple has .13 1.4-1.8 gig 970s rockin' and rollin' for a New York time frame intro'.
Apple 'may' use them. Those 'leaks' are almost becoming matter of fact 'hints'.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Hey you leave that religious talk in AppleOutsider, you hear?
hahaha, I can't seem to get it right today
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Hopefully the 2.5 970 rumors to bed will add weight to the idea that Apple has .13 1.4-1.8 gig 970s rockin' and rollin' for a New York time frame intro'.
Apple 'may' use them. Those 'leaks' are almost becoming matter of fact 'hints'.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea the latest rumor that 1.4-1.8ghz is revving up makes me feel warm all over. Curious about the release tho as no keynote this July. Would Apple get enough publicity from a special event on such a huge stpe forward? This is a huge deal for us and possible switchers both to and from.
<strong>Apple 'may' use them. Those 'leaks' are almost becoming matter of fact 'hints'.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just between the two of us... Im quite sure that at least 50% of those 'leaks' are in fact hints..
Broken record time again.
Okay, the ThinkSecret story is not accurate. There is going to be a MWNY this year and Apple is going to attend.
Here is the story. Apple and IDG were getting a bunch of complaints of how expensive it is to attend Macworld in NYC. The costs of the show were much higher than the show in San Francisco and exhibitors were complaining about rising costs in a slowing economy.
So IDG, based out of Massachusetts, decided that the time was right to move the show back to Boston which was supposedly always in the cards any way. IDG had major discussions with Apple about the move before the deal was signed. The deal allowed for IDG to get the new Boston convention center for free for the show for a good number of years and Boston hotels offered a guaranteed number of rooms at a flat low rate.
Boston also arranged for free transportation to the convention center from hotels and back, as well as other benefits.
So Apple was fine with the deal since the cost of exhibiting would go down and since more Mac companies would be able to exhibit at the show. Apple and IDG were also both still angry at the Javitz Center for raising costs right before the show started in 2002 and it basically sealed the deal to move the show.
But as the deal was announced in Boston, Apple did an about face. They said they didn't want to exhibit in Boston and that they were so 'shocked' that it put the 2003 summer expo in jeopardy as well.
Apple was trying to use the situation to their advantage. They decided that they would use the opportunity to get their costs reduced even further and get other benefits from IDG. IDG turned around and said they would block Apple from exhbiting at MWSF unless something was worked out for the summer 2003 expo.
Apple, as we all know, did exhibit in San Francisco and IDG is claiming that things are smoothed over for the 2003 expo. Negotiations for the 2004 Boston expo are underway and said to be progressing as well.
I can say, without a doubt, that ThinkSecret's article is totally off base. Apple will exhibit in NY and Jobs will keynote.
Apple not attending will just be a sign to the media that Apple can't afford to go to two Macworlds and is therefore in trouble once again. They will also be missing out on big press and PR from the 'Mac faithful' if they skip the keynote in NY. The show will go on.
<strong>
Broken record time again.
Okay, the ThinkSecret story is not accurate. There is going to be a MWNY this year and Apple is going to attend.
I can say, without a doubt, that ThinkSecret's article is totally off base. Apple will exhibit in NY and Jobs will keynote.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's all you needed to say. So TS is full of crap? I have yet to see much egg on their face. Not saying I don't believe you, so to be fair to both I will be nuetral until more evidence is made avilable. The no keynote was a surprise to me as well, but given TS's recent track record I believed them.
<strong>
That's all you needed to say. So TS is full of crap? I have yet to see much egg on their face. Not saying I don't believe you, so to be fair to both I will be nuetral until more evidence is made avilable. The no keynote was a surprise to me as well, but given TS's recent track record I believed them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea I know this sounds like silly 'cloan-n-dagger' stuff but maybe someone at apple is spreading dis-info and looking to see where it turns up... I wouldn't put it past em...
Dave
C'mon. If he, and Apple, have been working on this baby for as long as he's been 'i-Ceo' on his 2nd reign of power...I put it to the 'insider faithful that Jobs WILL crow big time and in true grand standing fashion about Apple re-taking the performance crown.
Steve Jobs. Not Keynote?
C'mon. We love him giving it to us. And he loves giving it too us!
His keynotes are for Mac users what Billy Graham is for Bible thumpers...
Lemon Bon Bon
<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>In all honesty, I can't see Steve Jobs not taking the stage or the opportunity to trash the lastest Pentium 4s in a bake-off with a dual 1.8 gig 970.
C'mon. If he, and Apple, have been working on this baby for as long as he's been 'i-Ceo' on his 2nd reign of power...I put it to the 'insider faithful that Jobs WILL crow big time and in true grand standing fashion about Apple re-taking the performance crown.
Steve Jobs. Not Keynote?
C'mon. We love him giving it to us. And he loves giving it too us!
His keynotes are for Mac users what Billy Graham is for Bible thumpers...
Lemon Bon Bon
<img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
When was the keynot speaker ever anounced this early? I think there is too much time between now and then to count on this information even if it did come from a credable source.
<strong>Think Secret has ways of making you think they are right. That's all.
Damn, they implemented their own RDF!?!?
<strong>Think Secret has ways of making you think they are right. That's all.
When they say things like, "Among the changes include no keynote address from Apple CEO Steve Jobs on the opening day..", I believe them. Steve's keynotes are typically on the second day. Nit-picking, but they probably got some 'insider info' and it was just to test them. Rumor sites suck! Rumor forums are where it's at!
Check out this recent article that counterbalances some of what Hannibal's latest X86-64 article mentions.
Amorph and Programmer: any comments?
Dave usually accepts e-mail to discuss any issues.
<a href="http://www.igeek.com/articles/Opinion/x86-64.txt"; target="_blank">x86-64. Corrections to Ars-Technica By: David K. Every</a>
[email protected]
--
Ed M.
<strong>
Check out this recent article that counterbalances some of what Hannibal's latest X86-64 article mentions.
Amorph and Programmer: any comments?
Dave usually accepts e-mail to discuss any issues.
<a href="http://www.igeek.com/articles/Opinion/x86-64.txt"; target="_blank">x86-64. Corrections to Ars-Technica By: David K. Every</a>
[email protected]
--
Ed M.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ahhh St. David, I like him, he's a great guy, helped me a few times in email with a few programming issues a while back ...
Anyway, while I agree with David that Hannibal didn't give Apple or the 970 the credit it deserved, I certainly don't think this was intentional, over-all, I think Hannibal does a great job explaining things ... it's just that, this time, he thought, "Oh well, they're practically 64bit as it is, so for them - from the purely technical standpoint compared to x86 - what's the big deal?" and left it at that ... which in hindsight, may not have been the best POV to run with ... oh well, Hannibal, if you're listening, love your stuff, please keep doing it.
Now, onto another interesting issue that David brought up which has special resonance with discussions that where going on in this board a while back.
Anybody remember the Red Box "Windows" emulator talk that was a-runnin' wild 'round these parts a couple of weeks ago?
The general consensus was, it's probably not a great idea for Apple to write a Windows emulator in OSX, since that will just encourage many developers to write once for Windows, and tell Mac heads to run in emulation.
Well, if you where a software developer, and somebody came along, with a chip, that has their own special proprietary 64bit x86 code, that also happpened to be backward compatible with 32bit code - which also happens to be the type of code that can run on the vast majority of machines out there: which would you pick, the small, specialized 64bit market, or the vast and general 32bit market, and just have your code run in combatibility mode on those 64bit chips?
Guys, if what I've said above is even half right, it looks like Wintel has quite a problem on their hands.
Look, Hannibal's quote is:
[quote]Should Apple move from 32-bit PPC to 64-bit PPC, Mac users should not expect the same kinds of performance gains that x86 software sees from the jump to x86-64. 64-bit PPC gives you larger integers and more memory, and that's about it. There are no extra registers, no cleaned up addressing scheme, etc.<hr></blockquote>
Specifically, you won't see a huge change in performance when switching from 32-bit mode to 64-bit mode on the 970. The bit-iness doesn't make that big a difference to the 970. The PPC was done right the first time. Now, is there anyone who doesn't think that's obvious from the quote?
Evidently. Apparently the proper way of stating it (from the DKE article) is
[quote]Since the PowerPC does not have an ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) designed in the 70s and 80's, and does not have register limitations that the x86 does, it already sees those potential performance gains. Even with the release of x86-64 the PPC will still have more registers and a cleaner and more advanced ISA.<hr></blockquote>
Now, which of the two sounds like a technical article and which sounds like market-speak. *Sheesh* Ars Technica is not aimed at the technologically illiterate...
The rest of DKE's article points out that the Mac world has less inertia than the Wintel world and will adopt 64-bit computing faster.
While I think it is possible, I'm not certain it's a good idea. Why? Because Apple has very limited developer resources. A 64-bit OSX will mean something useful to a very limited number of users. It will also mean that something that could be useful to a lot more users will not get developed.
The only reason to go 64-bit is to enable Apple to attack a particular (and lucrative) niche. (I'm thinking video editing myself.) It will need to get the app makers in that niche behind it quickly (which probably means throwing money at the app makers rather than spending it somewhere else), and apple then better market the final result to that niche heavily (which means less marketing to the rest of us).
Without that solid approach with defined goals, the effort is essentially wasted. Apple has a history of neat ideas that go nowhere (OpenDoc, anyone?)
Of course, Apple also has a history of being a technological leader. SCSI, USB, FireWire were all led to the mainstream on Macs.
Of course, for the most part, the PC world patiently waited until they were available on Windows and then hailed them as wonderful rather considered switching, but that's a different rant :-).
"64-bitness itself is no freaking panacea. The transfer will fix some problems in x86-land, but since the ppc doesn't have those problems -> they won't be fixed."
I don't see that as trashing the ppc.