MOSR and Future Harware Accuracy
This applies mainly to hardware predictions, but I'm sure software and other predictions will come into play.
The topic is: How accurate has MOSR been in general since it has been around? It seems that despite some truly embarrasing hoaxes....MOSR is not the whore we say it is. That being said, MOSR needs to be taken with a grain of salt...(16" PB screen WTF?). They frequently come up with some truly stupid things.....
So, what have they been right about? Also, I can't stand the phrase they use "although the grapevine has been largely mum on the issue"......and the like.
The topic is: How accurate has MOSR been in general since it has been around? It seems that despite some truly embarrasing hoaxes....MOSR is not the whore we say it is. That being said, MOSR needs to be taken with a grain of salt...(16" PB screen WTF?). They frequently come up with some truly stupid things.....
So, what have they been right about? Also, I can't stand the phrase they use "although the grapevine has been largely mum on the issue"......and the like.
Comments
That being said, MOSR is right more often than AI, but MOSR also is wrong more often than AI. Not sure how they compare as far as % of stories that are correct.
I think they do this, too.
But they are dead-on sometimes, so they must get good info once in awhile. They nailed the cube before anyone else did, if I recall right.
Here are two direct quotes from the front page story.
[quote]The G5 went into volume production as of last thursday. It is being produced in 1.2, 1.4, and 1.6Ghz versions. The chips that are testing at 1Ghz are being set aside, in case there are not enough 1.6Ghz chips to release that machine. If yield are good enough, Cisco has committed to buying them for a new upcoming high-end router.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]The G5 machines will have DDR ram, Gigawire, and a much faster bus. Because of the high cost of the G5 processor, only the mid and high end machines will sport superdrivers.<hr></blockquote>
Does anyone see anything wrong with this. There are three possibilities here. The source quoted works at Apple or the source quoted works at Motorola or the source works for neither of these two companies.
If option one is true than how would someone working at a chip manufacture possible know the detailed specs of a G5 mac, including the fact that only the top models will have super drives. What does Motorola care about the product line up of apple and their detailed pricing matrix.
If option two is true how the hell would someone from Apple (probably some kind of hardware engineer) know that Cisco would be buying G5 chips from Motorola. Does that make any sense at all?
If option three is true than how would he know anything? If it was some third party advertising guy, website person, observer, or anything else how would then know details beyond what they see?
Bottom line: unless MOSR's source is Steve Jobs and the head of Motorola sitting together writing this message there is no way this source is creditable.
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Dogcow ]</p>
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Dogcow ]</p>
That info could be based on reports from more than one mole. MOSR could have just gleaned that info from sources at both Apple and Motorola.
I doubt he did, but it's possible. I'm just saying that the rumor itself does not contain lapses in logic about whether sources could know the information or not.
Damn, it would be great if this rumor was right! G5 chips already in production--that would mean it's a sure thing for MWSF. But MOSR doesn't have good sources for chips speeds, I remember he was totally off on his predictions for the 7450 G4 introduction.
Not sure of any rumor site but everyone seems to be on the same page of one thing - we will have new power macs and they will be fast at MWSF.
<strong>Dogcow, I share your skepticism of MOSR, but you forgot another possibility:
That info could be based on reports from more than one mole. MOSR could have just gleaned that info from sources at both Apple and Motorola.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I dont think so. Take a look at MOSR right now. it's a quoted message clearly from one source.
If MOSR is right about this I'll start having some real respect for that website!
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/powermacg5.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/features/powermacg5.html</a>;
<strong>I can't say much for MOSR, but Think Secret has an interesting story about the G5 not coming yet.
<a href="http://www.thinksecret.com/features/powermacg5.html"; target="_blank">http://www.thinksecret.com/features/powermacg5.html</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Yea, and Architosh has an article about the G5 coming out in Jan.
<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2001-12/2001c-1201-g5moto-info.phtml"; target="_blank">read here</a>
iMac will come in glow-in-the-dark colors(1998)
iBook will have a hand crank(1999)
G4 will not come until MWSF(1999)
1GHz G4 by MWSF 2001(2000)
G4 Cube will be 12"x12"x12" box(2000)
CubeBook(2000)
$20,000 Macs powered by fantistically fast POWER4 processors(2001)
Dual processor PowerBooks(2001)
And of course, who can ever resist the one about the iBook having a touch screen, weighing 3lbs, costing $999, and powered by a MacOS/Newton OS hybrid?
[ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Codename ]</p>
Remember their "Dream Machines"? Those were the best part of the site.
That really made me laugh
THE TALIBAN HAS MORE CREDIBILITY THAN MOSR!