"Ok, someone answer me this. When the first G4 was announced at Seybold back in '99, when diid Motorola "pre-announce" the production of this chip (or did they?)"
I don't remember Motorola pre-announcing the chip. I even remember an Apple employee saying it wouldnt see the light of day in PowerMacs until summer 2000. This was due to a NDA between Apple and Motorola and the same day the PowerMac G4 was released, Motorola officially released the G4 CPU.
The same thing could easily happen with the G5. I don't know why everyone is all of a sudden assuming the Apollo will be used in the PowerMacs just because Motorola announced that it is finished. (...well, it could be for maybe low end PowerMacs... this could be a new idea)
I wouldn't necessarily take this as a sign there will be no G5 at MWSF.
When the rumors turn out to be a bunch of BS, we blame Apple/Moto/IBM for not doing enough rather than blame the rumor site for being full of sh*t and jerking us around.
Could someone explain the loser psychology that motivates this behavior, please? You'll probably win a Nobel Prize in Psychology if you do.
Tarbash I believe it means the g5 won't come out becaseu I believe apple had something to do with the announcement. Now it may very well be to quite things down for a big surprise but to me it is more likely just to bring us back to reality and tell us the g5 won't be here. But as in my previous post. It is possible and I will always have ope until the words come out of Steve's mouth.
This article doesn't mean that much. The stuff about the G5 not being ready for the desktop market is commentary. You guys really have to look at what your reading. I look at this rumor thing as a seasaw....in this case the seasaw tipped a little towards the "no G5" side....but didn't hit the ground either.
1) I don't trust the fab numbers for the Apollo chip. That doesn't sound right.
2) They(Mot) didn't deny a G5
3) None of this means shit if the Apollo is meant for the PB.
I'm not convinced that "no G5's for January" is a fact. Though, I think that high mhz iMacs with G3's in them as AI says tends to lean that seasaw even more to the "no G5 side"....we'll see.
YOUR DAILY MAC just posted that thier source says no g5. And they speculate it may be due to 10.2 not coming out. I don't know about 10.2 but I guess January won't be as exciting and monstorous as expected. At lesat we won't get our hopes up.
When the rumors turn out to be a bunch of BS, we blame Apple/Moto/IBM for not doing enough rather than blame the rumor site for being full of sh*t and jerking us around.
Could someone explain the loser psychology that motivates this behavior, please? You'll probably win a Nobel Prize in Psychology if you do.
If all of the rumor sites were eliminated, there would still be this board with people proclaiming/predicting what's to come.
As far as "loser psychology", we are in the minority. It is a real possibility that WINTEL could run Apple out of business (note the proposed anti-trust settlement!). If the Mhz gap becomes a real performance gap, and then keeps expanding, we may actually lose our treasure. So people are worried that Apple/Motorolla/IBM will fail.
Comments
"Ok, someone answer me this. When the first G4 was announced at Seybold back in '99, when diid Motorola "pre-announce" the production of this chip (or did they?)"
I don't remember Motorola pre-announcing the chip. I even remember an Apple employee saying it wouldnt see the light of day in PowerMacs until summer 2000. This was due to a NDA between Apple and Motorola and the same day the PowerMac G4 was released, Motorola officially released the G4 CPU.
The same thing could easily happen with the G5. I don't know why everyone is all of a sudden assuming the Apollo will be used in the PowerMacs just because Motorola announced that it is finished. (...well, it could be for maybe low end PowerMacs... this could be a new idea)
I wouldn't necessarily take this as a sign there will be no G5 at MWSF.
When the rumors turn out to be a bunch of BS, we blame Apple/Moto/IBM for not doing enough rather than blame the rumor site for being full of sh*t and jerking us around.
Could someone explain the loser psychology that motivates this behavior, please? You'll probably win a Nobel Prize in Psychology if you do.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</p>
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: Tarbash ]</p>
There is no proof that Apple had anything to do with it, and there is no proof that we will see a PowerMac G5 in January.
Just remember that feeling you had when the G4s came at Seybold.... yeah... you know what I mean.
1) I don't trust the fab numbers for the Apollo chip. That doesn't sound right.
2) They(Mot) didn't deny a G5
3) None of this means shit if the Apollo is meant for the PB.
I'm not convinced that "no G5's for January" is a fact. Though, I think that high mhz iMacs with G3's in them as AI says tends to lean that seasaw even more to the "no G5 side"....we'll see.
<strong>
The G4's announced at MWSF '02 will top out at 1.2 ghz according to my "source".</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's fine and dandy but what about system bus and DDR ?
<strong>
That's fine and dandy but what about system bus and DDR ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry....don't know that.
<strong>You know what's really funny?
When the rumors turn out to be a bunch of BS, we blame Apple/Moto/IBM for not doing enough rather than blame the rumor site for being full of sh*t and jerking us around.
Could someone explain the loser psychology that motivates this behavior, please? You'll probably win a Nobel Prize in Psychology if you do.
[ 12-04-2001: Message edited by: NeoMac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If all of the rumor sites were eliminated, there would still be this board with people proclaiming/predicting what's to come.
As far as "loser psychology", we are in the minority. It is a real possibility that WINTEL could run Apple out of business (note the proposed anti-trust settlement!). If the Mhz gap becomes a real performance gap, and then keeps expanding, we may actually lose our treasure. So people are worried that Apple/Motorolla/IBM will fail.