Well, that puts a nail in it does it not! 933 mhx to what I wonder. With DDR ram this might not be that bad. Now only if Apple would drop the price on there displays all would be perfect in the world.
Hell, it took damn near 2 years to go from 500 to 867MHZ
</strong><hr></blockquote>
well That could easily be shaken off as a bug, on Motos part, I don't know how moto held up back in the beige ages, but I don't recall any year+ setbacks of products.
Perhaps after that fiasco, Jobs' sad to moto "get your act together, or I'm out"
and they said(for some reason unknown to man)"yes mr.jobs sir" and then they hauled ass to produce faster better harder stronger processors, triple checking them to make sure they wouldn't have another scaling problem.
also the g5 would be a totally different processor, which means different fab processes and all that, which means its a different scenario than that of the 500 mhz g4s
or at least partially different.
its possible.
at any rate I'm optimistic about the g5, though a REALLY fast g4 would be welcome as well.
however an apollo g4 sold as a g5 would be unacceptable.
<strong>Why go with the Apollo for just one more run when it's about topped out. This Jan show for G4s would be the definate last G4 in a tower. So if G4s show up in towers in Jan, then it's the end of the line and G5s will debut in June.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually the G4 could get at least 2 more revisions even assuming the chip can't be scaled anymore.
You could have 867MHz, 1GHz, 1.133GHz at MWSF (dual 1GHz being the top) then 1.133, 1.267 and 1.4GHz in the revision following.
I don't believe that is what will occur but it definitely can. There is also still room for the G4s to scale.
I concur it is really a matter of when the G5 will be ready for release as to when they are released. Personally I would expect MWNY.
Personally, I question the implementation of hypertransport in the next G4 revision, but it would defenitely be a great upgrade.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The one thing about that article is that they say the test boxes will be collected from Apple in Feb.
This means 2 things then-
1) This is BS because Apple is doing all testing inhouse as I read somewhere.
2) It's true, they did send out test machines. If so, doesn't then connect to the VueScan G5 compatabilty thing?
Still can't say one way or the other. The one optimist thing I can think of, Is that the Apollo is for the iMac and is being tested outside Apple and the G5 is in house and kept under wraps. That's why the confliciting G4/G5 reports. Hopefully
I've heard (from someone that would have no reason to lie to me) that a 'Major Software' developer hasn't gotten test/pre-productions boxes from Apple in quite some time... So that tends to confirm that Apple is only doing 'in house' testing or for whatever reason just that one 'Major Software' developer isn't being sent eval units and I would find that pretty strange.
Then again sitting in front of a computer every day looking for clues / hints / rumors about a yet unreleased products and knowing full well that anything short of a hidden video of Steve Jobs spilling all the beans early will be cut to ribbons by some group of people is pretty strange as well...
So then the Archintosh article is BS about the test machines being returned in Feb. Unless Apple is testing with non-developers which doesn't make much sence.
<strong>So then the Archintosh article is BS about the test machines being returned in Feb. Unless Apple is testing with non-developers which doesn't make much sence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After reading your comment something just clicked and **could** explain why Apple isn't/hasn't been sending out test boxes to (many/most/all?) developers.
OS X! When developers wrote Apps for Mac OS 9 they could play pretty fast and loose with 'apples recommended way to write code' - Apple always wanted developers to use the toolbox calls for doing anything with hardware. Well with OS 9 and below apple couldn't really stop folks from doing pretty much whatever they wanted. Thus the need to send out any new boxes to make sure developers stuff wouldn't break.
Now with OS X I think (I'm not a developer so I'm only going by what I've read other write) many things have changed and Apple doesn't have to worry about folks writing code that does any sorta OS sneak-around.
Maybe some developers could chime in on this... Now if this is true (and just to CONFIRM I am only guessing) then Apple can keep their hardware inhouse alot longer and only release it to folks for other testing reasons... Graphic and or PCI card developers etc.
This sure would explain why some people (software developers) are saying that Apple hasn't sent them new boxes and yet other sources are saying they have seen new boxes...
That would fall in line with another thread where a post said a major developer hasn't received a test box in some time. Myave Adobe? Anyways, if a major developer isn't get test boxes, then why would anyone get test boxes? I think this is the reason we don't have many leads to go on. That being said, I think there's still a chance for the G5. How can anyone say no, when know one knows anything?
1) This is BS because Apple is doing all testing inhouse as I read somewhere.
[...]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're saying that one source you read on the internet is better than another source you read on the internet?
Sir, I submit to you that it's all balderdash! Speculate if you must, but please remember the tagline: "This has not been confirmed independently" applies to both the internet and that other world we occasionally hear about.
Let me mix metaphors and non-sequiturs: My kingdom for a pillar of salt!
1) This is BS because Apple is doing all testing inhouse as I read somewhere.
2) It's true, they did send out test machines. If so, doesn't then connect to the VueScan G5 compatabilty thing?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sending out test machines would be a very bad move. There are a number of people who need these machines, especially when there are such major changes as are supposed to come with the G5, a new processor, memory system, mother board, peripheral connections, these need to be tested with as wide a range of hardware and software as possible so that any errors or problems will show up, Apple simply don't have in-house the capacity to test this thoroughly. Apple really don't want to introduce nice new machines with a lot of ballyhoo, only to have to recall them late on because of some flaw in the design. The greater the differences in the new machines, the more people they will want to test it.
On top of this certain software developers will have been given machines so that they can produce optimised, stable, code for the new systems, if Steve is going to demo these machines, he wants code which is not going to crash and which fully shows off the capabilities of the machine, my guess might be a move away from Photoshop for this, especially if there isn't a OSX version ready for MWSF, and to something light Maya. Alias|Wavefront would, I think, be high on the list of people Apple would want to have test machines.
I wish AMD would replace Moto. Could it be a good sign that Moto might be folding shop and on the market to be possibly bought out? Maybe Steve will get nervous and have AMD continue with it's chip production.
The PC whineies wouldn't be able to say the Athlon kicks the Macs ass cause we'd have G5athlons too!!
mmm, amd, mmm They (AMD) could realistically do our chips right?
Not if you're talking about using Athlons in the PowerMac. No way EVER this would happen. Let me just say it again: NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. But!, if you mean that AMD would take over manufacturing for the PowerPC 8500 and 7460, then yes, there is a chance this could happen and it could be very well likely.
I spoke to a geek last week who had installed OS X on 5 PC's. He could get it to run on only one of them without the GUI. He was just mucking about with Darwin.
He says that the Linux community is very excited about OS X.
Comments
<strong>
Hell, it took damn near 2 years to go from 500 to 867MHZ
well That could easily be shaken off as a bug, on Motos part, I don't know how moto held up back in the beige ages, but I don't recall any year+ setbacks of products.
Perhaps after that fiasco, Jobs' sad to moto "get your act together, or I'm out"
and they said(for some reason unknown to man)"yes mr.jobs sir" and then they hauled ass to produce faster better harder stronger processors, triple checking them to make sure they wouldn't have another scaling problem.
also the g5 would be a totally different processor, which means different fab processes and all that, which means its a different scenario than that of the 500 mhz g4s
or at least partially different.
its possible.
at any rate I'm optimistic about the g5, though a REALLY fast g4 would be welcome as well.
however an apollo g4 sold as a g5 would be unacceptable.
<strong>Why go with the Apollo for just one more run when it's about topped out. This Jan show for G4s would be the definate last G4 in a tower. So if G4s show up in towers in Jan, then it's the end of the line and G5s will debut in June.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually the G4 could get at least 2 more revisions even assuming the chip can't be scaled anymore.
You could have 867MHz, 1GHz, 1.133GHz at MWSF (dual 1GHz being the top) then 1.133, 1.267 and 1.4GHz in the revision following.
I don't believe that is what will occur but it definitely can. There is also still room for the G4s to scale.
I concur it is really a matter of when the G5 will be ready for release as to when they are released. Personally I would expect MWNY.
<strong>I don't know if any one has posted a link to Architosh , but they have a revised version of their previous article.
Maybe sanity is coming back to the rumors.
<a href="http://www.architosh.com/news/2001-12/2001c-1215-g4g5.phtml"; target="_blank">http://www.architosh.com/news/2001-12/2001c-1215-g4g5.phtml</a>;
Personally, I question the implementation of hypertransport in the next G4 revision, but it would defenitely be a great upgrade.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The one thing about that article is that they say the test boxes will be collected from Apple in Feb.
This means 2 things then-
1) This is BS because Apple is doing all testing inhouse as I read somewhere.
2) It's true, they did send out test machines. If so, doesn't then connect to the VueScan G5 compatabilty thing?
Still can't say one way or the other. The one optimist thing I can think of, Is that the Apollo is for the iMac and is being tested outside Apple and the G5 is in house and kept under wraps. That's why the confliciting G4/G5 reports. Hopefully
Then again sitting in front of a computer every day looking for clues / hints / rumors about a yet unreleased products and knowing full well that anything short of a hidden video of Steve Jobs spilling all the beans early will be cut to ribbons by some group of people is pretty strange as well...
Dave
<strong>So then the Archintosh article is BS about the test machines being returned in Feb. Unless Apple is testing with non-developers which doesn't make much sence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After reading your comment something just clicked and **could** explain why Apple isn't/hasn't been sending out test boxes to (many/most/all?) developers.
OS X! When developers wrote Apps for Mac OS 9 they could play pretty fast and loose with 'apples recommended way to write code' - Apple always wanted developers to use the toolbox calls for doing anything with hardware. Well with OS 9 and below apple couldn't really stop folks from doing pretty much whatever they wanted. Thus the need to send out any new boxes to make sure developers stuff wouldn't break.
Now with OS X I think (I'm not a developer so I'm only going by what I've read other write) many things have changed and Apple doesn't have to worry about folks writing code that does any sorta OS sneak-around.
Maybe some developers could chime in on this... Now if this is true (and just to CONFIRM I am only guessing) then Apple can keep their hardware inhouse alot longer and only release it to folks for other testing reasons... Graphic and or PCI card developers etc.
This sure would explain why some people (software developers) are saying that Apple hasn't sent them new boxes and yet other sources are saying they have seen new boxes...
Dave
<strong>
[...]
1) This is BS because Apple is doing all testing inhouse as I read somewhere.
[...]
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're saying that one source you read on the internet is better than another source you read on the internet?
Sir, I submit to you that it's all balderdash! Speculate if you must, but please remember the tagline: "This has not been confirmed independently" applies to both the internet and that other world we occasionally hear about.
Let me mix metaphors and non-sequiturs: My kingdom for a pillar of salt!
<strong>
This means 2 things then-
1) This is BS because Apple is doing all testing inhouse as I read somewhere.
2) It's true, they did send out test machines. If so, doesn't then connect to the VueScan G5 compatabilty thing?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sending out test machines would be a very bad move. There are a number of people who need these machines, especially when there are such major changes as are supposed to come with the G5, a new processor, memory system, mother board, peripheral connections, these need to be tested with as wide a range of hardware and software as possible so that any errors or problems will show up, Apple simply don't have in-house the capacity to test this thoroughly. Apple really don't want to introduce nice new machines with a lot of ballyhoo, only to have to recall them late on because of some flaw in the design. The greater the differences in the new machines, the more people they will want to test it.
On top of this certain software developers will have been given machines so that they can produce optimised, stable, code for the new systems, if Steve is going to demo these machines, he wants code which is not going to crash and which fully shows off the capabilities of the machine, my guess might be a move away from Photoshop for this, especially if there isn't a OSX version ready for MWSF, and to something light Maya. Alias|Wavefront would, I think, be high on the list of people Apple would want to have test machines.
Michael
<a href="http://www.postforum.com/forums/read.php?f=6&i=26730&t=26730"; target="_blank">http://www.postforum.com/forums/read.php?f=6&i=26730&t=26730</a>;
Me personally, I like one of the posters response that the new alliance will be IBM, Apple, AMD. NO G5, but Athlon. :eek:
The PC whineies wouldn't be able to say the Athlon kicks the Macs ass cause we'd have G5athlons too!!
mmm, amd, mmm They (AMD) could realistically do our chips right?
He says that the Linux community is very excited about OS X.
I can offer you SIMBANK and Gateway GSM/UMTS where you can work with SIM local and
Gateway whereever in the world. You can also have a look on http://voipsolutionreview.com/ more
info.
Regards
jimbos
Worst. Bump. Ever.