1Ghz G4 = BS
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 ]</p>
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 ]</p>
Comments
<strong>since when does apple make the chip?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Rumor has it that Apple is doing their own chip design in house. Thus the lack of leaks.
ya know?
personally I am still optmistic for a 1.6 ghz g5, and if that doesn't happen I sure hope that there is a DAAAAMN good iMac
867 MHz (neutered chip with no L3 cache)
1 GHz
Dual 933 MHz.
And Steve Jobs will throw a GHz coming out party for all of Apple's employees. The guy actually believes it's a worthwhile event, even though Wintels passed up 1 GHz years ago.
Still, this wouldn't make me "kiss Apple goodbye", at least not right away. But next time I buy a computer, I might be thinking hard about Wintels. If Apple cannot deliver on performance, then OS X will still be a dog, and thus the platform will not be very appealing.
Too bad. Things were looking up for a whlie last year, with the introduction of the Titanium and the iBook, it seemed that Apple finally "got it". The iBook in particular, made me think that Apple finally understood the importance of value.
I'm a truly mac fan, but if the Powermac would not carry drastic improvement such as DDR, faster bus and Clock speed beyond 1.2Ghz, I think that my very next puchase will be an Athlon.
Don't get me wrong I love Apple as much as everyone here, but Apple needs to come up with better machines right now.
The actual specifications are a shame especially with those tag prices.
Far beyong the rumors site they said.. I hope so for their own sake
THE next tagline better be some ****ing amazing shit
*crosses fingers*
One minute we all love Apple, the next we can't stop ourselves from b**ching about how they always f**k up...
This is what they call love, right?
<strong>This would follow Apple's recent upgrade history. The high end CPU becomes the new low end CPU, and we have increments of 66.6 MHz (half the bus speed). I bet we see:
867 MHz (neutered chip with no L3 cache)
1 GHz
Dual 933 MHz.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is my "minimum hope" level. Anything better than this is gravy.
[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>
If Apple cannot deliver on performance, then OS X will still be a dog, and thus the platform will not be very appealing.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Things aren't so bad ... it does look like we'll be getting some improved motherboard specs (266 bus, DDR-RAM?) that might help relieve the horrible bottleneck currently throttling the G4. I'd expect OS X would be pretty quick on these new machines.
1 GHz
Dual 933 MHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is my "minimum hope" level. Anything better than this is gravy.
This is not minimum hope level, this is shame!!!!
Am I the only one that thinks that is unacceptable?
This would follow Apple's recent upgrade history. The high end CPU becomes the new low end CPU, and we have increments of <strong>66.6 MHz (half the bus speed)</strong>. I bet we see:
867 MHz (neutered chip with no L3 cache)
1 GHz
Dual 933 MHz.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
If the new bus was 266, then half the bus would jump to 133. So the specs would go like this:
867 MHz (neutered chip with no L3 cache)
1.13GHz
Dual 1GHz
pretty decent I'd say...
-Paul
no insider info. no "friends" at apple. just my opinion.
<strong>
If the new bus was 266, then half the bus would jump to 133. So the specs would go like this:
867 MHz (neutered chip with no L3 cache)
1.13GHz
Dual 1GHz
pretty decent I'd say...
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah. The effective bus speed would be 266 because it's a double pumped 133. The steps and half steps would still be 66 MHz.
SdC
<strong> 867 MHz (neutered chip with no L3 cache)
1 GHz
Dual 933 MHz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
This is my "minimum hope" level. Anything better than this is gravy.
This is not minimum hope level, this is shame!!!!
Am I the only one that thinks that is unacceptable?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm right there with you. This would be very bit as disappointing as this past MWNY.
<strong>Hopefully they aren't completely delusional about their own hype. A failure to deliver substantially faster machines would, at this point, be a catastrophic failure. They need to do better than a Ghz, and even the CEO who spent 18 months working on Flower Power ought to know that. We'll see, I guess.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just casting my vote ... Intel 2.2GHz, Apple's G4 @ 1.1x? maybe at best 1.2?
We're stuck at half-way there, forever ...