New Powermacs Aug 13th? (thinksecret)

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 90
    gizwaldgizwald Posts: 39member
    [quote]Originally posted by canyon24:

    <strong>Ok boys,



    I know that the thought of new PowerMacs is exciting, but the reason that the rumors are so contradictory, and diverse is because that is what Steve wants. There WILL be new powermacs, at the show. Announced on Wednesday, by Steve. Here is the catch...



    The new powermacs will be G4 (1Ghz, 1.2Ghz, and 1.4Ghz, with the 867Mhz available for education cheap.) ALL will be available build to order DUAL processors. There have been some changes to the motherboard, including the bus(es). And of course the new case, as I have describe in another forum.



    But the real exciting part: the new powermacs will be a MINOR announcement on Wednesday. Steve will be talking about something HUGE, really really BIG.



    This will literally revolutionize computers, and the way we use them. (no not a new keyboard or a mouse).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Good one. You almost guessed it.
  • Reply 82 of 90
    eddivelyeddively Posts: 74member
    [quote]Originally posted by Gizwald:

    <strong>



    Good one. You almost guessed it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    care to break out anything else for us there Gizwald?
  • Reply 83 of 90
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] I find the idea of going to a single vendor for support on my workstation, my OS and my applications to be a VERY desirable thing indeed... <hr></blockquote>



    I find this particular idea terrifying. Can you say "Quantel"...



    From a business point of view, having all the apples (sic) in the same barrel is asking for trouble. Apple Computer Inc. has had terrible troubles in focussing on any one market segment for any length of time since the beginning. Do you remember when Apple were trying to be a corporate PC supplier, and the creative market was left to go hang (1995-98 or so). This resulted in bright spark decisions such as the one to cut PCI slots to three, with the result that Avid could no longer cost-effectively build their edititng systems. Result - Avid moved wholescale to NT, with the result that their Win2k systems are now noticably better than their Mac offerings.



    I could go on, but Apple have consistantly had a corporate upheaval every three years or so since the late-1980s. The idea of staking my facility's future on a such a company, well I won't be signing up, put it that way.



    And to get this post back on topic, the lack of any significant improvements in processing power coming from Apple is a huge burden for them if they want to sell to me. Okay, what if they build a Power4 variant? Well, I've kind of got used to spending a maximum of £10000 on a pc based workststation, the idea of paying SGI-like prices in the £15-20000 range, computer alone, no peripherals such as Video i/o or storage, leads me to think that I'd rather buy the Octane 2. If they get a Power4 machine for less than £7500, then it becomes a whole new ballgame...



    [quote] As for working on Onyxes (Onyxii?), I preferred to WORK on them, not IN them... <hr></blockquote>

    I do that as well, I drive flame as well as fix them. As far Irix, it may not be pretty or gimmick-laden, but it is efficient, powerful and not that unintuitive. Saying that, the discreet products have their own interface so Irix becomes effectively invisible.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that DCC and film and video production should move wholesale back to SGI. What I am saying is that we need the most powerful possible systems, which SGI does offer for certain market areas (commercials post production being the main one), and that Apple currently does not offer. Wintel PCs at the moment split the difference in performance, and Win2k and XP are reasonable operating systems for DCC production, despite any zealot-like opinions to the contrary. I used and liked Macs for broadcast graphics for nearly ten years. Using Win2k or XP is not the heinous experience some people like to portray it as, nor do they crash anything like as much as Os's 5 thru 9 did. OsX I'm witholding judgement on until it's out of beta...

    [quote] shannyla, unless im mistaken apple has only killed the windows version of products its purchased. so one might draw the conclusion that if apple bought Maya, the only platform not to survive the cut would again be Windows<hr></blockquote>

    As I said, the only platform that I can renew our Shake licenses on is Linux. Not Sgi or Win2k. They will not sell me those licenses. As for Rayz, I don't believe you can buy if for any platform, RFX (Ray Feeney's company, the founder of Silicon Grail) is handling support for Chalice and Rayz. Emagic now only offer Logic on Mac. Would Maya be any different? I doubt it.
  • Reply 84 of 90
    jrcjrc Posts: 817member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eupfhoria:

    <strong>



    I am aware of the lack of emphasis in these boards, but I am incredibly tired of people assuming that teenagers are automatically slack-jawed bottom-feeders. People automatically assume that we are all pimply faced idiots who just get stoned and cause havoc in civilised peoples lives. People assume that we have no real use to society. I don't know about anyone else on this board, but I do a couple hundred hours of community service a year, all volunteer just cause I think it's right to make other peoples lives better. If anyone asks me for help, and I can, I will. I always try look at both sides of an issue before I make my decision. I am not without my faults, however, I am 17. I am tired of taking sh!t.



    (This really wasn't pointed towards you MacRonin, it's just I finally got really tired of it when I was reading your post. I realize that you are referring to a select group of teenagers. I also respect alot of what you have to say, most of it is well written and thoughtful.)



    [ 07-21-2002: Message edited by: Eupfhoria ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Do you have any proof to the contrary?



  • Reply 85 of 90
    tabootaboo Posts: 128member
    [quote] From a business point of view, having all the apples (sic) in the same barrel is asking for trouble. <hr></blockquote>



    Yep. We're in total agreement. But, at the same time, you're telling us that you've almost totally standardized on NT. This strikes me as not very rational in light of the new licencing structures coming from M$. Yes, you work in an industry that can afford it, but why would you if you don't have to? "Not moving to linux anytime soon". Again, why not?



    [quote] Apple Computer Inc. has had terrible troubles in focussing on any one market segment for any length of time since the beginning. <hr></blockquote>



    Hmmm. Don't know if we're in agreement on this one. Apple seemed to do quite well in focussing for quite some time, just not for a few years.



    [quote] Do you remember when Apple were trying to be a corporate PC supplier, and the creative market was left to go hang (1995-98 or so). <hr></blockquote>



    Yes. The six-slot 9600 was discontinued March 17, 1998. I actually own, and still use, one of the last ones. They were going after the corporate market for a while before that, but they had specific machines intended for it (eg PM4400 DOS).



    [quote] This resulted in bright spark decisions such as the one to cut PCI slots to three, with the result that Avid could no longer cost-effectively build their edititng systems. Result - Avid moved wholescale to NT, with the result that their Win2k systems are now noticably better than their Mac offerings. <hr></blockquote>



    No. Avid had effectively stopped supporting the Mac quite some time before this (at least a year, but I think it was more like 2-3...95 maybe). And, for quite some time prior to that, their Mac support was sh*t. That's one of the reasons that their Mac sales were so poor. Well, that, and there was this new upstart company called Media100 that was kicking their *ss all over the marketplace. Cheaper (by far), and, in many ways, far superior.



    [quote] I could go on, but Apple have consistantly had a corporate upheaval every three years or so since the late-1980s. The idea of staking my facility's future on a such a company, well I won't be signing up, put it that way. <hr></blockquote>



    Yep. Corporate upheaval is what happens when you change CEO's. Each time usually leads to "restructuring" and a "change of focus". Personally, I would be willing to stake it all on whoever has the best current offerings at the price when I upgrade. That would mean not discounting anyone, including Apple. At the moment I would think that's SGI, not M$, but what do I know?



    [quote] And to get this post back on topic, the lack of any significant improvements in processing power coming from Apple is a huge burden for them if they want to sell to me. <hr></blockquote>



    Yep. I think everybody here (and Apple, for that matter) would agree with you that the current crop of PowerMacs don't have the oomph required for the software they've been buying. Unfortunately, the development of the G4 is not in Apple's hands, and that's caused them a fair bit of grief. I would suspect, however, that the purchases mean there is something far better in the works. I would also suspect it means that they have alternatives available, so as not to be caught in this position again.



    [quote] Okay, what if they build a Power4 variant? Well, I've kind of got used to spending a maximum of £10000 on a pc based workststation, the idea of paying SGI-like prices in the £15-20000 range, computer alone, no peripherals such as Video i/o or storage, leads me to think that I'd rather buy the Octane 2. If they get a Power4 machine for less than £7500, then it becomes a whole new ballgame... <hr></blockquote>



    What if it was in the £5000-£7500 range (yes, I think this unlikely....knowing Apple, it would be more like £7500-£10000....but it IS possible at current Power4 prices)? Here's a quote for ya from IBM's server section.....



    [quote] An additional Power4 processor for the first of two CPU/memory cards in the pSeries 630 chassis costs $5,000; a whole two-way card costs $11,000 <hr></blockquote>



    If IBM can offer a second CPU for that kinda price, then it's quite feasable for Apple to use the Power4 in the £5000-£10000 range. Mind you, I do agree with programmer, in that, I suspect we'll see a brand new chip based on Power tech, rather than an actual Power4. Are you telling us that you wouldn't consider Apple's machines if they were on par, and faster, than that PC workstation? Now, I AM offended.



    I would suggest, rather than just complaining about the purchases and current hardware, give Apple the benefit of the doubt, and wait and see what's coming. They've turned around most of their software purchases within a year. Also, it looks like they've got a fair bit of graphic hardware development in the works (some of it quite intriguing, if I understand it properly).

    Aren't you the least bit curious what they're up to (instead of just being bitter about it)?



    PS Still wondering what you think about the M$ OpenGL mess.....



    PPS My apologies to everyone else for the length of this post. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />



    [ 07-21-2002: Message edited by: taboo ]</p>
  • Reply 86 of 90
    eupfhoriaeupfhoria Posts: 257member
    [quote]Originally posted by JRC:

    <strong>



    Do you have any proof to the contrary?



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    meh?

    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

    Contrary to what?
  • Reply 87 of 90
    shannylashannyla Posts: 58member
    [quote] PS Still wondering what you think about the M$ OpenGL mess..... <hr></blockquote>



    Haven't looked into it as 3d isn't my speciality, at least not so much that I've been bothered to look into this issue in the depth that I probably should have. I'll take a closer look this week and get back to you. If you have any objective info, I'd be interested if you want to post it.



    [quote]Well, that, and there was this new upstart company called Media100 that was kicking their *ss all over the marketplace. Cheaper (by far), and, in many ways, far superior. <hr></blockquote>



    Cheaper maybe, better picture quality than ABVB is a subjective, but it failed as a professional editing system for the same reasons that Final Cut Pro fails in that the media management was a joke. That, and the fact that the company passed through many iterations of what they wanted to be, much like Apple... Saying that, 844X looks interesting and well suited to what became Media 100's main market, which was broadcast design. I have plenty of issues with Avid, but I have always been sure what the company was about.



    [quote] Yep. We're in total agreement. But, at the same time, you're telling us that you've almost totally standardized on NT. This strikes me as not very rational in light of the new licencing structures coming from M$. Yes, you work in an industry that can afford it, but why would you if you don't have to? <hr></blockquote>



    We've standardized on NT (or more accurately Windows 2000, I consider NT to be as unpleasant as its deserved reputation and it simply wasn't an OS for any creative endeavours) for our systems that aren't client facing, except for Avids which we are in the process of switching from Mac to Win2k. For the Avids the main reason for this is to have them sit on our network infrastructure better, mainly to do with tedious issues involving Active Directory which is superb as a network management tool for our needs. I'm sure it fails for many server tasks but not for ours. On a side note, I'm pleased that OsX allows for user verification and rights issues under Active Directory. From my perspective, a very grown-up decision from Apple, even if it uses tools built into BSD.



    For the other machines, I get the best price/performance ratio from WinTel boxes (and I mean Intel, and more specifically Xeon. My experiences with AMD have not been the best, but another story). I don't have the same issues with Microsoft that most mac people do. I don't care if they are Big Brother, and we don't have enough machines to be particuarly concerned with the new licensing structures (we are under 100 machines). Were we the size of ILM or PDI, it might be more of a problem.



    SGI machines we only use in our Discreet systems, which are client-attended machines and have to throw video around swiftly. But they can't count so quick anymore, so they are useless for 3d (relatively compared to Win2k) and a bit too expensive for backroom compositing and graphics However Discreet's new architecture could be on Linux, so we'll wait and see what happens.



    [quote] "Not moving to linux anytime soon". Again, why not? <hr></blockquote>



    Because it's clunky and the apps and hardware aren't there. Our standard PC setup runs either a 3d or a compositing package, appropriate plug-ins, Adobe apps and a DPS Reality video i/o system, only the first part of that setup could be done on Linux. But see above about Discreet, although that will be a turnkey system, not a build-your-own.



    [quote] Aren't you the least bit curious what they're up to (instead of just being bitter about it)? <hr></blockquote>



    I wouldn't say bitter, as at the end of each day I go home and forget about the abstractions of work. I do hate hypocrisy however, even though I cna't spell it right now, and if Microsoft had done with Adobe or Quark what Apple have done recently then the howls of indignation would be long and deep, and rightly so. If Apple hadn't been so petty over Win2k support, then I would be happy for them to own Nothing Real, Emagic et al. As it is, I now have to waste time looking for a replacement package for Shake, and Apple's actions mean they have lost my goodwill as a customer, regardless of what they may do in the future.



    Saying that, I am curious to see what they do with all their booty.
  • Reply 88 of 90
    crayzcrayz Posts: 73member
    Good one. You almost guessed it.



    ROTFL
  • Reply 89 of 90
    gizwaldgizwald Posts: 39member
    [quote]Originally posted by eddively:

    <strong>



    care to break out anything else for us there Gizwald?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sorry, I just find it kind of funny when someone feels so sure about something, but then they are proven an idiot. It's less funny when it happens to me though, and that's why I usually keep my mouth shut about such matters.
  • Reply 90 of 90
    [quote]Originally posted by shannyla:

    <strong>Can you say "Quantel"...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> Speak not of such things! You will only frighten the children, and some things are best unremebered.
Sign In or Register to comment.