I think that all this hype is linked to the Iwalk stuff, I think that this device is real it has even been pulled from spymac by legal request.
I think that something is wrong with Apple.
Sure the PDA will be cool, but as a computer manufacturing company instead of making this Iwalk, don't you think that they'd better come up with decent hardware with decent price?
I'm pretty sure that the new Mobo will still use this fuxkxxg old 133 ram. This motherboard even can't compete with the cheapest Pc available out there.
Of course some would argue that the current slowness of the G4 is Motorola fault, but what about the rest of the computer?
They spent millions in R&D for the future PDA and the Ipod and Nothing for their Pro line!
Just to show you how we are far behind in therm of megahertz, the Celeron ( the cheapest Intel CPU) runs at 1.3 ghz with a 0.13 micron process.
Even the future Apollo still uses a 1.8 micron process.
Of course we all love Apple and Mac OS X is the coolest OS on earth, but this CAN'T go on forever!!
This situation is unbearable, the new PIV running at 2.2 Ghtz have just been overclocked at 3ghz without major problem
I've read some people on this thread saying that if we are not satisfied with the current offer we'd better go buy a PC and shut up, this is not an answer!!!
Those guys are the worst enemies of the mac Platform. We have to be more critic and let Apple hear what we truly think about their hardware in order to push them.
<strong>Everyone... take a depth breath. If you are on this board, you have a passion for Apple and the Mac. Despite what happens on Monday. 99.99999% will continue to use Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'll stick with the Macs I have. But I won't buy a new Mac. For Apple, that's just as bad as me buying a pc. They don't get a sale either way.
It's not like we're all going to jump platform right of the bat. But it's about longer term planning than buying just one machine.
i thinks it's clear that Apple is centering the show on a new device that is not related to simply a new chip....such as the Appollo, or G5. they are clearly trying to keep the attention away from that subject. all of their quotes on their site are geared towards something we haven't seen before. but i don't think they are doing this to avoid having to go way past the 1ghz with their powermac line....i think they're trying to create hype around another product....so that when we last expect it...they'll pull out a G5 running well beyond even 1.4ghz....it will all be at the show. i know it. i've go that feeling.
How boooooooooring, this Apple SHOULD, MUST, HAS TO DO THIS bullshite.
Do you really think Apple will give us less then they CAN on Monday?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The question is not what they wanted to do but what they can do.
IF apple is not able to stay competitive he will die : it's quite simple. It's always the same story in industry. So if i write Apple has to do something, that's mean Apple need to do something.
People won't continue to buy Apple's computer just because Apple can not do better. They will buy Apple's computer if they think it's the best choice. The beige and B&W G3 machines where great, nobody complains at the time (except the B&W keyboard) for buying them. Now, things are different paying nearly 3000 $ for a 867 mhz is not a good choice if for the same prize you have an athlon XP 1900 running at 1600 mhz with a geforce 3 500 TI , DDR ram and a 19 inch screen and a DVD burner.
So let's expect something great next week, in order that Apple stay competitive.
And do not say to me that if i am not happy go buy a PC , because that's perhaps i will do
Using Macs didn't means that i am a member of a sect, using macs means that i use to think it was the best choice, but i can change my mind, i will see what's happens next week.
People have made much of OS X being slow; sure, it is a little slower than OS 9, but I find it quite usable in terms of speed. Apple's upcoming machines will also make some of the speed issues become non-issues, for a variety of reasons.
If you'll accept that as a given for the moment (and if you've used a dual 800 G4 running OS X, it isn't much of a strech to see that future machines will run OS X more than well enough), I'd like to ask what you really need more speed for?
Yes, some intensive applications such as Maya can always benefit from more speed -- and high-end gaming (which is a small part of the gaming market) is always good for the churn cycle that keeps hardware manufacturers happy.
However, there is a real crisis in the PC industry (both Mac and Wintel), and that crisis has nothing to do with any mhz gap. It has to do with trying to convince people that they actually need faster machines.
For what most people do with there computers, buying any modern machine (Mac, PC, whatever) gets folks more horsepower than they know what to do with. I really do think that the PC industry needs to move into refinement and user experience -- what people actually get out of using their machines -- rather than relying simply the "faster" crutch to sell their machines.
This makes perceived MHz gaps slightly less relevent than many folks think. Apple is well positioned to deliver refinement and real-world benefits to people, which is what computers are all about. Many vendors in the PC market are having problems with this transition; simply selling faster commodity PCs isn't cutting it anymore. Most people are using ridiculously overpowered computers to check eMail and surf the web.
Yes, true computer enthusiasts -- just like car lovers -- will always be interested faster, drool-worthy machines. Meanwhile they'll probably drive their Accord or Saturn to work, and not think there's any connection between the two.
<strong>However, there is a real crisis in the PC industry (both Mac and Wintel), and that crisis has nothing to do with any mhz gap. It has to do with trying to convince people that they actually need faster machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that´s exactly the point, more and more people refuse to buy into this whole GHz hype.
That´s why I think all the slogans on the Apple page had absolutely nothing to do with processors and MHz.
<strong>There's no way Apple can't go better than that.
If this really is the best Apple can do many of us (including myself) will kiss Apple goodbye.
1Ghz G4 is hardly an 'impact', 'future'.....
What about this: The 1Ghz G4 is a real. But its for the low-end PowerMac. People may not know is that there are other higher models with faster cpus coming along with it.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't u just abandon the Mac platform and go fcuk ur self. If you don't like Apple's products then don't buy them, and quit ur whinin, ur like a little kid that can't get what they want. Apple will never be up there with the Wintel machines, and nor do I want them to be. STFU and wait and see what MWSF '02 brings.
And if Apple did bring out a 2Ghz G5, would u be in the runnings to buy it? I think not. Half of u lot are pining for hardware u probably can't afford/won't bother buying.
Why don't u just abandon the Mac platform and go fcuk ur self. If you don't like Apple's products then don't buy them, and quit ur whinin, ur like a little kid that can't get what they want. Apple will never be up there with the Wintel machines, and nor do I want them to be. STFU and wait and see what MWSF '02 brings.
And if Apple did bring out a 2Ghz G5, would u be in the runnings to buy it? I think not. Half of u lot are pining for hardware u probably can't afford/won't bother buying.
I have a question about processors. If a processor that runs at high frequencies (such as a P4 2.2 Ghz) creates alot of heat and draws alot of electricity, doesn't it make sense that CISC processors will reach a point where they create so much heat and draw so much power that they will no longer be feasible?
<strong>People have made much of OS X being slow; sure, it is a little slower than OS 9, but I find it quite usable in terms of speed. Apple's upcoming machines will also make some of the speed issues become non-issues, for a variety of reasons.
If you'll accept that as a given for the moment (and if you've used a dual 800 G4 running OS X, it isn't much of a strech to see that future machines will run OS X more than well enough), I'd like to ask what you really need more speed for?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I have a dual 800 and I have absolutely no complaints with the performance of OS X. I don't believe Apple's current hype has anything to do with the Power Macs. Believe me, a dual 933 would be just fine, but I kind of expect a dual 1GHz and a 1.2GHz single this time around. Getting the motherboard updated is far more important than a few MHz anyway.
<strong>Yes, true computer enthusiasts -- just like car lovers -- will always be interested faster, drool-worthy machines. Meanwhile they'll probably drive their Accord or Saturn to work, and not think there's any connection between the two. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Drove both my Porsche and Honda 100MPH+ on the way to work, and that was before I moved to Germany.
Bought a GHz Duron, now I'm pining for a faster Athlon XP. The 550 TiBook I bought my girlfriend is faster than my current G4, and it bugs me.
SPEED THRILLS!!!
Come on over to the Garden of Autobahn Delights, and we'll cruise at 160MPH for a while.
IMO, Ghz+ cpus are not worthy of this amount of hype. Id say that they are, and have been, expected. I am very confident that Apple will pass the Ghz mark and not make a big thing about it.
The hype has got to be about more than cpu speed. They've put themselves out on a limb with all of these mesages and hoopla, if they dont deliver it will be a long fall.
How fast do you guys think a dual 1 Ghz G4 machine with Rapid I/O and a new motherboard infastructure would be? A quad G4? Lets what and see. People here, and I mean Apple loving people - would rather have a 2.5 Ghz machine that is actually slower than a 2 Ghz P4 than have a 1 Ghz machine that is faster. Why? How big is you Penxs?
<strong>I have a question about processors. If a processor that runs at high frequencies (such as a P4 2.2 Ghz) creates alot of heat and draws alot of electricity, doesn't it make sense that CISC processors will reach a point where they create so much heat and draw so much power that they will no longer be feasible?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The power dissipation density on CPUs is approching that for a cooker ring. Thermal management is definitely a high priority for designers now, and a number of techniques are being developed.
It is wrong to think that speed is the only limiting factor in power dissipation, look at Intel's 2GHz P4 and 800MHz Itanium, the latter dissipates close to twice the power of the former, mainly because it has a lot more transistors.
It is also wrong to think of modern x86 processors as CISC chips, they are RISC(y) chips with a lot of translation of old CISC instructions bolted on the front. (Obviously creating extra power dissipation, but that's a different matter).
<strong>Agreed, but this is the same man that went on record saying that the Segway HT would change the way we build cities... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Can you say "proof of concept"? If you looked over any of the patents issued to Kamen (& leaked in the last year or two), you know he was trying to protect an entire range of self-stabilising mixed-terrain vehicles.
Since he 'went on record', as you say, long before anything was introduced, you don't know that he was targeting "the Segway HT" in his remarks. He clearly was referring to something Kamen was developing (the full scope of which we do not know), but we do NOT know that the 2-wheeled gyro-scooter shown on GMA was specifically what he was talking about.
For the record, if Kamen can expand the concept to cover other types of vehicles(trucks, buses), and if he has a better power source up his sleeve than batteries, then it really could change the was cities grow.
Whether that's a good thing, I dunno - I'm just sayin'.
I have read several claims that the G4 is hobbled by the slow bus in current Macs.If that is the case how come a 533 MHz G4 with the current 133 MHz bus not that much faster than a 500 MHz G4 in a old beige G3 with 66 MHz bus or even a old PCI PPC with a 50 MHz bus? If the bottleneck is slow bus a doubling in performance should yield a substantial speed boost should it not? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
I think that something is wrong with Apple.
Sure the PDA will be cool, but as a computer manufacturing company instead of making this Iwalk, don't you think that they'd better come up with decent hardware with decent price?
I'm pretty sure that the new Mobo will still use this fuxkxxg old 133 ram. This motherboard even can't compete with the cheapest Pc available out there.
Of course some would argue that the current slowness of the G4 is Motorola fault, but what about the rest of the computer?
They spent millions in R&D for the future PDA and the Ipod and Nothing for their Pro line!
Just to show you how we are far behind in therm of megahertz, the Celeron ( the cheapest Intel CPU) runs at 1.3 ghz with a 0.13 micron process.
Even the future Apollo still uses a 1.8 micron process.
Of course we all love Apple and Mac OS X is the coolest OS on earth, but this CAN'T go on forever!!
This situation is unbearable, the new PIV running at 2.2 Ghtz have just been overclocked at 3ghz without major problem
I've read some people on this thread saying that if we are not satisfied with the current offer we'd better go buy a PC and shut up, this is not an answer!!!
Those guys are the worst enemies of the mac Platform. We have to be more critic and let Apple hear what we truly think about their hardware in order to push them.
P.S sorry for my poor English
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Toofeu ]</p>
<strong>
Apple as to do something in order to stay competitive, or they will going to loose customers, me included.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
How boooooooooring, this Apple SHOULD, MUST, HAS TO DO THIS bullshite.
Do you really think Apple will give us less then they CAN on Monday?
<strong>Everyone... take a depth breath. If you are on this board, you have a passion for Apple and the Mac. Despite what happens on Monday. 99.99999% will continue to use Macs.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I'll stick with the Macs I have. But I won't buy a new Mac. For Apple, that's just as bad as me buying a pc. They don't get a sale either way.
It's not like we're all going to jump platform right of the bat. But it's about longer term planning than buying just one machine.
<strong>
How boooooooooring, this Apple SHOULD, MUST, HAS TO DO THIS bullshite.
Do you really think Apple will give us less then they CAN on Monday?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The question is not what they wanted to do but what they can do.
IF apple is not able to stay competitive he will die : it's quite simple. It's always the same story in industry. So if i write Apple has to do something, that's mean Apple need to do something.
People won't continue to buy Apple's computer just because Apple can not do better. They will buy Apple's computer if they think it's the best choice. The beige and B&W G3 machines where great, nobody complains at the time (except the B&W keyboard) for buying them. Now, things are different paying nearly 3000 $ for a 867 mhz is not a good choice if for the same prize you have an athlon XP 1900 running at 1600 mhz with a geforce 3 500 TI , DDR ram and a 19 inch screen and a DVD burner.
So let's expect something great next week, in order that Apple stay competitive.
And do not say to me that if i am not happy go buy a PC , because that's perhaps i will do
Using Macs didn't means that i am a member of a sect, using macs means that i use to think it was the best choice, but i can change my mind, i will see what's happens next week.
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
Just to piss you guys off.
If you'll accept that as a given for the moment (and if you've used a dual 800 G4 running OS X, it isn't much of a strech to see that future machines will run OS X more than well enough), I'd like to ask what you really need more speed for?
Yes, some intensive applications such as Maya can always benefit from more speed -- and high-end gaming (which is a small part of the gaming market) is always good for the churn cycle that keeps hardware manufacturers happy.
However, there is a real crisis in the PC industry (both Mac and Wintel), and that crisis has nothing to do with any mhz gap. It has to do with trying to convince people that they actually need faster machines.
For what most people do with there computers, buying any modern machine (Mac, PC, whatever) gets folks more horsepower than they know what to do with. I really do think that the PC industry needs to move into refinement and user experience -- what people actually get out of using their machines -- rather than relying simply the "faster" crutch to sell their machines.
This makes perceived MHz gaps slightly less relevent than many folks think. Apple is well positioned to deliver refinement and real-world benefits to people, which is what computers are all about. Many vendors in the PC market are having problems with this transition; simply selling faster commodity PCs isn't cutting it anymore. Most people are using ridiculously overpowered computers to check eMail and surf the web.
Yes, true computer enthusiasts -- just like car lovers -- will always be interested faster, drool-worthy machines. Meanwhile they'll probably drive their Accord or Saturn to work, and not think there's any connection between the two.
<strong>However, there is a real crisis in the PC industry (both Mac and Wintel), and that crisis has nothing to do with any mhz gap. It has to do with trying to convince people that they actually need faster machines.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that´s exactly the point, more and more people refuse to buy into this whole GHz hype.
That´s why I think all the slogans on the Apple page had absolutely nothing to do with processors and MHz.
They´re up to something completely different.
bye.
<strong>There's no way Apple can't go better than that.
If this really is the best Apple can do many of us (including myself) will kiss Apple goodbye.
1Ghz G4 is hardly an 'impact', 'future'.....
What about this: The 1Ghz G4 is a real. But its for the low-end PowerMac. People may not know is that there are other higher models with faster cpus coming along with it.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why don't u just abandon the Mac platform and go fcuk ur self. If you don't like Apple's products then don't buy them, and quit ur whinin, ur like a little kid that can't get what they want. Apple will never be up there with the Wintel machines, and nor do I want them to be. STFU and wait and see what MWSF '02 brings.
And if Apple did bring out a 2Ghz G5, would u be in the runnings to buy it? I think not. Half of u lot are pining for hardware u probably can't afford/won't bother buying.
And if Apple did bring out a 2Ghz G5, would u be in the runnings to buy it? I think not. Half of u lot are pining for hardware u probably can't afford/won't bother buying.
Evil Ed your post is pathetic
just think about that <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
(edit caused by my bad english)
[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Notar ]</p>
<strong>People have made much of OS X being slow; sure, it is a little slower than OS 9, but I find it quite usable in terms of speed. Apple's upcoming machines will also make some of the speed issues become non-issues, for a variety of reasons.
If you'll accept that as a given for the moment (and if you've used a dual 800 G4 running OS X, it isn't much of a strech to see that future machines will run OS X more than well enough), I'd like to ask what you really need more speed for?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I have a dual 800 and I have absolutely no complaints with the performance of OS X. I don't believe Apple's current hype has anything to do with the Power Macs. Believe me, a dual 933 would be just fine, but I kind of expect a dual 1GHz and a 1.2GHz single this time around. Getting the motherboard updated is far more important than a few MHz anyway.
<strong>Yes, true computer enthusiasts -- just like car lovers -- will always be interested faster, drool-worthy machines. Meanwhile they'll probably drive their Accord or Saturn to work, and not think there's any connection between the two.
Drove both my Porsche and Honda 100MPH+ on the way to work, and that was before I moved to Germany.
Bought a GHz Duron, now I'm pining for a faster Athlon XP. The 550 TiBook I bought my girlfriend is faster than my current G4, and it bugs me.
SPEED THRILLS!!!
Come on over to the Garden of Autobahn Delights, and we'll cruise at 160MPH for a while.
The hype has got to be about more than cpu speed. They've put themselves out on a limb with all of these mesages and hoopla, if they dont deliver it will be a long fall.
<strong>I have a question about processors. If a processor that runs at high frequencies (such as a P4 2.2 Ghz) creates alot of heat and draws alot of electricity, doesn't it make sense that CISC processors will reach a point where they create so much heat and draw so much power that they will no longer be feasible?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The power dissipation density on CPUs is approching that for a cooker ring. Thermal management is definitely a high priority for designers now, and a number of techniques are being developed.
It is wrong to think that speed is the only limiting factor in power dissipation, look at Intel's 2GHz P4 and 800MHz Itanium, the latter dissipates close to twice the power of the former, mainly because it has a lot more transistors.
It is also wrong to think of modern x86 processors as CISC chips, they are RISC(y) chips with a lot of translation of old CISC instructions bolted on the front. (Obviously creating extra power dissipation, but that's a different matter).
Michael
<strong>Agreed, but this is the same man that went on record saying that the Segway HT would change the way we build cities...
Can you say "proof of concept"? If you looked over any of the patents issued to Kamen (& leaked in the last year or two), you know he was trying to protect an entire range of self-stabilising mixed-terrain vehicles.
Since he 'went on record', as you say, long before anything was introduced, you don't know that he was targeting "the Segway HT" in his remarks. He clearly was referring to something Kamen was developing (the full scope of which we do not know), but we do NOT know that the 2-wheeled gyro-scooter shown on GMA was specifically what he was talking about.
For the record, if Kamen can expand the concept to cover other types of vehicles(trucks, buses), and if he has a better power source up his sleeve than batteries, then it really could change the was cities grow.
Whether that's a good thing, I dunno - I'm just sayin'.