Rumor: Disaster at MWNY... :(

1356714

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 266
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    Your reply proves that you cannot handle being wrong.



    I'm not a "spec freak". My system proves it. In fact I'd be willing to bet that your system is superior to mine in performance.



    So who's the one obsessed with specs again?
  • Reply 42 of 266
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    Hmmm.



    <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5</a>;



    Power PC 7450/7455 G4 1600 16,991,648



    Record id CPU Name MHz OS Client Speed

    8437 Power PC 7450/7455 G4 1600 MacOS X 10.1 2.8016 RC5 16,991,648
  • Reply 42 of 266
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Your reply proves that you cannot handle being wrong.



    I'm not a "spec freak". My system proves it. In fact I'd be willing to bet that your system is superior to mine in performance.



    So who's the one obsessed with specs again?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    How am I wrong? Am I wrong that you are chronic whining twit who has little better to do that cry the "sky is falling"? Am I wrong in claiming you have some weird neurosis about things of which you have no control? Or was I wrong in calling your punk ass out as a punk?



    Ah, well. Rail away at the world, JYD. That gnawing sound in your brain won't go away nomatter how many times you post to FH.



    FWIW, my Athlon would spank your G4, but it doesn't run FCP3 (which I covet), so who has the better system?



    ting5



    [ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: There is no g5 ]</p>
  • Reply 44 of 266
    guaraguara Posts: 1member
    now where in heavens is either moki or



    dorsal?
  • Reply 45 of 266
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    While I don't know what is exactly getting measured here, the 1.6GHz PPC seems to kick a 1.6Ghz Athlon MP all over the place. Hopefully someone here can shead more light.





    AMD Athlon MP

    1610 MHz

    6,100,852 Speed

    <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=0&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">distributed.net Client Speeds- x86</a>





    PowerPC

    7450/7455 G4

    1600 MHz

    16,991,648 Speed (MacOS X 10.1)

    <a href="http://n0cgi.distributed.net/speed/query.cgi?cputype=all&arch=2&contest=rc5"; target="_blank">distributed.net Client Speeds-Power PC</a>



    My question is whether the mobo issues will be resolved.



    [ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: tink ]</p>
  • Reply 46 of 266
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    So you guys don't think that Apple needs to compete with the 2.5 GHZ Pentium 4 systems out there?



    Hell Intel can't even compete with themselves. Itanium 2 will start at about 1GHz.
  • Reply 46 of 266
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Thank you, Busyman. Even if it wasn't yours to begin with, that was the best post I've read in this forum in a long time.



  • Reply 48 of 266
    detahdetah Posts: 57member
    nobody cares about dnet benchmarks. the g4 still licks donkey-nuts at pretty much any meaningful task.
  • Reply 49 of 266
    baumanbauman Posts: 1,248member
    Where did the 1.6GHz G4 come from?
  • Reply 50 of 266
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    I will probably get Sh!t for this but you talk about apple not having to worry about MHz, you say no one should care about MHz. Well this is true, IF you are a graphix pro working with photoshop and movie editing. Not if you are an average user. The g4 is like a motor, it has alot of tork but not too much speed. Things like opening programs or doing simple finder tasks are not done as fast because there arn't as high MHz. I'm not saying other processors are better then the G4, although AMD is my favorite besides the G4. The following i'm not sure about but please correct me if i'm wrong, cuz i might be...but the finder isn't very complicated tasks, and the processor can't handle it well, thats why OS X has a slower feel then 9, even though it can do more thigns its a slower feel, but if you give the graphix card a sustained job...like GRAPHIX, then you sold the problems...and that is what they are doing in 10.2. Why not use the graphix card for graphix all the time, its not like u have multiple screens, well if u do u have my respect. AOL IM = ast3r3x, tell me problems u have what i said or if u just think im an *******. I like apple, just playing devil advocate
  • Reply 50 of 266
    [quote]Originally posted by detah:

    <strong>nobody cares about dnet benchmarks. the g4 still licks donkey-nuts at pretty much any meaningful task.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    TROLL! Get lost. What purpose does it serve to slam the CPU? You're so wrong though. BUS AND MEMORY. SO MANY TIMES I MUST SAY IT! Powermacs are now only limited by....



    SYSTEM BUS AND MEMORY!!!!



    The G4 is vastly superior.
  • Reply 52 of 266
    fishdocfishdoc Posts: 189member
    Here is my problem with Spymac....(besides the iWalk annoyance).



    They spout off an amazing number of rumors - which is fine, that is what you do on a rumor site.



    But what is silly is that they generate tons of rumors, and then when something is right (or, usually, vaguely right), they invariably start their article off with "As we predicted" or similar drivel. It seems so self-congratulatory, and misses the point that they are usually wrong.



    I used to go there just for their links and summaries of other sites on the front page, but those have been outdated recently, so I have quit visiting.



    As for the duals rumor - wow, a dual 1.2, if it had the new rumored mobo, would rock.





    Fish
  • Reply 53 of 266
    first off id like to say, welcome busyman. i wish i had quoted that guy, a brilliant verbal riposte on his part, take a bow sir where ever you are.



    JYD such hostility, im going to guess your here for a fight. good, that's why we come to online forums such as this, is it not. now to get to the intellectual fisticuffs of it.





    you mention benchmarks, where intel P4s blow a G4 out of the water, or something to that effect. oh please give us a link to 'em, especially if your going to base your position on benchmarks. by the way does any one know how many gigaflops P4 does, ive never been able to find that one out, and if you know JYD then please share with us unenlightened old sods.



    the system bus, is the biggest short coming in our beloved macs. whining for 2 GHz G5s on a 133 MHz bus is like wanting to drop a ferrari engine in a steam roller. if you want something to look forward to at MWNY, then make it faster mother boards.



    if your going to compare PC's to macs you have to remember frequency isn't an appropriate benchmark. x86 chips have to run faster because of how they parse data, small chunks. powerPC chips can handle larger chunks of data, that translates into not having to operate as fast to do the same load of work. this has several benefits in other arenas such as power consumption and thermal byproduct.



    if you really were a x86 aficionado id think you would be thumping on the AMD bible, those opteron's will be the chips to watch in my opinion.



    you know i wonder why so many Macrosoft users are always hanging around in mac forums, is it cause they realize that they have been paying good money to be fed sh*t.
  • Reply 54 of 266
    My sincere thanks tink for contributing some real information!
  • Reply 55 of 266
    junkyard dawgjunkyard dawg Posts: 2,801member
    That just points out the sad state of affairs in the Mac community. I bring some bad news, and some of you start calling me a PC user. Whatever. I have no intention of switching to windows, which is why I'd like to see Apple kicking ass instead of dragging their ass like they're doing now.



    And if any of you really believe that the dual gig Powermac is faster than a high end wintel box, well you're in deeper than I thought. Thee's a thing called reality, accept it, please.
  • Reply 56 of 266
    some one does seem to have a size matters complex.
  • Reply 57 of 266
    [quote]Originally posted by Da sinister:

    <strong>first off id like to say, welcome busyman. i wish i had quoted that guy, a brilliant verbal riposte on his part, take a bow sir where ever you are.



    JYD such hostility, im going to guess your here for a fight. good, that's why we come to online forums such as this, is it not. now to get to the intellectual fisticuffs of it.





    you mention benchmarks, where intel P4s blow a G4 out of the water, or something to that effect. oh please give us a link to 'em, especially if your going to base your position on benchmarks. by the way does any one know how many gigaflops P4 does, ive never been able to find that one out, and if you know JYD then please share with us unenlightened old sods.



    the system bus, is the biggest short coming in our beloved macs. whining for 2 GHz G5s on a 133 MHz bus is like wanting to drop a ferrari engine in a steam roller. if you want something to look forward to at MWNY, then make it faster mother boards.



    if your going to compare PC's to macs you have to remember frequency isn't an appropriate benchmark. x86 chips have to run faster because of how they parse data, small chunks. powerPC chips can handle larger chunks of data, that translates into not having to operate as fast to do the same load of work. this has several benefits in other arenas such as power consumption and thermal byproduct.



    if you really were a x86 aficionado id think you would be thumping on the AMD bible, those opteron's will be the chips to watch in my opinion.



    you know i wonder why so many Macrosoft users are always hanging around in mac forums, is it cause they realize that they have been paying good money to be fed sh*t.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    WOW! Thank you Da sinister!!!



    Finally someone willing to agree with me on the Mobo issue--and so exactly too. I like the Ferrari engine steamroller part....pure gold.



    He's right thought. We're sitting on the greatest chip out there right now (see my earlier post on MTOPs performance) but all we're doing is throwing a trickle of instructions at it. Yes, all we should hope for is a drastically improved bus/memory system, which Dorsal M promises in another thread, but what I've been saying is that Apple will do BOTH! Dorsal M also says that the new G4 will scale nicely to 1.5 Ghz by summer. What have I been saying? Hint hint folks.....
  • Reply 58 of 266
    [quote]Originally posted by Bodhi:

    <strong>Don't know how much weight can be thrown at that rumor considering that Spymac says it's not from trusted sources, it's from an anonymous tipster (could be Meader for all we know), and then the other part that is just ridiculous is that they base part of the rumor on the fact that an Apple rep said to do video and graphics work on a dual machine. :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    We need another WorkerBee.
  • Reply 59 of 266
    [quote]Originally posted by There is no g5:

    <strong>sounds good. the important question is whether they break the fsb bottleneck.



    something like:



    2x800

    2x1 Ghz

    2x1.2 Ghz



    would rock.



    ting5</strong><hr></blockquote>

    umm some people dont get it it goes 800mhz 933mhx THEN IT IS 2x1000 mhz which equals 2000 mhz

    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 60 of 266
    macjedaimacjedai Posts: 263member
    Granted, JYD usually comes across pessimistic and all, but here's something I'd like everyone to consider. Apple is a large company, dedicated to making a profit (obvious, huh). Now, if you could sell old, proven H/W technology for a premium cost, high profit margins to a marginally adequate niche group; as opposed to leading edge H/W technology with minimal profit margins to that same niche group (but with "possible" growth potential) ... which would you do (moneywise)? My point is that Apple, like lots of other companies, is controlled by the "Bean Counters". Fast Profit is the name of the game to them (in general). Now, if we, as consumers, are COMPLACENT in our acceptance of old H/W technology (shown by our purchases of said technology, just so Apple can make more of a profit), then wouldn't the "Bean Counters" suggest "milking" the trend as long as possible to make more profits? Given, JYD spouts off alot more often than most about Apple being doomed, it appears he has to, because it appears that it is easier for folks to just accept inaction, than to have the desire for Apple to maintain Research and Development in bettering their product (another side effect is maintaining that marginal niche group segment, percentage wise, and possibly growing it). When you read JYD's posts, yes, accept them as an extreme side of things, but also be wary of the other extreme ... COMPLACENCY! As consumers, we can help Apple realize that the company has to maintain R & D to develop their product (thus keeping Apple around for us to enjoy the product, IT IS A BALANCE). A kick a$$ O/S is useless, unless you have something to run it on, and I'm sure we all want the most bang for our buck (or what ever currency is being charged us).



    Sorry for rambling folks, but it kinda bothered me that people were getting personal and not taking the time to see things from "the other person's" point of view (there isn't enough of that in the world as it is, and Mac IS supposed to be a "Better World"). Me, I'm waiting to get a new Mac, and I hoping that Apple comes up with somthing I wanna buy come MWNY there abouts.



    If you read this, thanks for reading.
Sign In or Register to comment.