:-) Isn't it interesting how someone suddenly becomes a saint or a prophet, simply by dying or otherwise disappearing?
I seem to remember that one of the things Moki advocated most clearly was a future Mac using x86 (or similar) hardware? Having said that, I always listened more to what he said because he was (peace be with him, wherever he is) reticent and not pushing his superiority, as some of the other "I have this source"-panflashes.
G5? To me it seems to smack too much of Pentium... Gentium? I would not be surprised if they did a Steve Martin and skipped it completely, moving directly to G6 - Gix? (g33x?)
[quote]Exactly how long HAVE you been following rumors?<hr></blockquote>
Since about '97.
[quote]NMR / TGB is NOT of the same ilk as MacOS Rumors OR The Register! Sorry I can't discuss something with someone who is that uninformed... Way too much work.<hr></blockquote>
Petty insults aside, my point was to wait until Oct. 15... THEN we can discuss with quite a bit more certainty if this chip is intended for Apple or not.
It's all just rumors... Don't get your panties in a bunch, Dave.
<strong>:-) Isn't it interesting how someone suddenly becomes a saint or a prophet, simply by dying or otherwise disappearing?
I seem to remember that one of the things Moki advocated most clearly was a future Mac using x86 (or similar) hardware? Having said that, I always listened more to what he said because he was (peace be with him, wherever he is) reticent and not pushing his superiority, as some of the other "I have this source"-panflashes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I think what he advocated was that any talk of x86 won't come at the exclusion of PPC. That x86 isn't a migration from PPC, rather a second sales vector.
If Apple thought that they had a kick-ass performance CPU in their pocket, and saw the x86 world struggling to figure out what direction to go in, they'd be stupid to not consider their 'options'.
x86 is the least interesting rumor, though, as it really means nothing than recompiling Mac OS X and deploying on existing hardware.
Petty insults aside, my point was to wait until Oct. 15... THEN we can discuss with quite a bit more certainty if this chip is intended for Apple or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After re-reading your post... the point that came across (to me) by the examples you cited was to put TGB/NMR into the same basket as as MOSR and The Register. After all why else would you start off your post with... 'You mean like the MOSR/Register 8500 that was supposed to debut at MWSF this year?' If you didn't think that NMR/TGB was in the same class.
I was doing my best (yes with a little dig... so sue me) to inform people that they aren't... (in the same class)
[quote]After re-reading your post... the point that came across (to me) by the examples you cited was to put TGB/NMR into the same basket as as MOSR and The Register. After all why else would you start off your post with... 'You mean like the MOSR/Register 8500 that was supposed to debut at MWSF this year?' If you didn't think that NMR/TGB was in the same class.<hr></blockquote>
Dave, I cited one example, and it was as an illustration of how the consensus of this board can swing dramatically towards whatever the latest new rumor is. It wasn't a condemation of any source in particular, just (more or less) an observation on how desparate people here are to glom on to rumors they want to be true, instead of anything based on facts.
Besides, NMR's predictions for this past January were for a <a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20020114.php"; target="_blank">1.4GHz G4</a>. I'd say he was just a wee bit off, wouldn't you? I'll give him one thing though, in his next update, <a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20020313.php"; target="_blank">he had the balls to admit he was wrong</a>, without giving any stupid excuses. That's much more than Meader would do...
Uh, that was a prediction for last January, when Apple hit 1GHz. He was off by 40%, and Macs still haven't matched his prediction for nine months ago. No way to spin it-- he was way off.
Interestingly enough, here's what he had to say in March on the G4 which failed to appear:
[quote] The Blade?s blackout subjectively shortened his wait for the 1.4GHz, RapidIO-licious Power Mac G4 he predicted for February. <hr></blockquote>
"RapidIO-licious"? Sounds like he bought the MOSR/Register tripe, just like the rest of us.
The "Gpul" thing sent up a red flag. Wasn't Moki mentioning something about "Ul" in previous posts? I'm searching for them right now. He was being very secretive about it. If you find it let me know. Post the thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You two are squabling about who got the little details right. It's pointless, really, and it doesn't change this fact: NMR is the most accurate of rumor sources. Next.
<strong>"That x86 isn't a migration from PPC, rather a second sales vector."
Insightful. May help with the 'Switch' thing...not to mention analysts...they seem to love the whole 'x86 and Apple' thing.
We'll see.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of my sources* tells me that keeping Mac OS X for x86 up-to-date is simply a back-up plan if something bad should happen to the PPC. That is, if in the future all desktop PPCs got cancelled (eg if IBM went bankrupt or something), Macs would start using x86 CPUs.
Barto
*I love it when I get a nugget of insider-info which I can repeat without getting into trouble.
Comments
I seem to remember that one of the things Moki advocated most clearly was a future Mac using x86 (or similar) hardware? Having said that, I always listened more to what he said because he was (peace be with him, wherever he is) reticent and not pushing his superiority, as some of the other "I have this source"-panflashes.
G5? To me it seems to smack too much of Pentium... Gentium? I would not be surprised if they did a Steve Martin and skipped it completely, moving directly to G6 - Gix? (g33x?)
engpjp
<strong>Anyways, it's coming. And it's gonna be big.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So that's why they have those big holes on the front of the new PowerMacs.
<strong>
So that's why they have those big holes on the front of the new PowerMacs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Since about '97.
[quote]NMR / TGB is NOT of the same ilk as MacOS Rumors OR The Register! Sorry I can't discuss something with someone who is that uninformed... Way too much work.<hr></blockquote>
Petty insults aside, my point was to wait until Oct. 15... THEN we can discuss with quite a bit more certainty if this chip is intended for Apple or not.
It's all just rumors... Don't get your panties in a bunch, Dave.
<strong>:-) Isn't it interesting how someone suddenly becomes a saint or a prophet, simply by dying or otherwise disappearing?
I seem to remember that one of the things Moki advocated most clearly was a future Mac using x86 (or similar) hardware? Having said that, I always listened more to what he said because he was (peace be with him, wherever he is) reticent and not pushing his superiority, as some of the other "I have this source"-panflashes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I think what he advocated was that any talk of x86 won't come at the exclusion of PPC. That x86 isn't a migration from PPC, rather a second sales vector.
If Apple thought that they had a kick-ass performance CPU in their pocket, and saw the x86 world struggling to figure out what direction to go in, they'd be stupid to not consider their 'options'.
x86 is the least interesting rumor, though, as it really means nothing than recompiling Mac OS X and deploying on existing hardware.
<strong>
Petty insults aside, my point was to wait until Oct. 15... THEN we can discuss with quite a bit more certainty if this chip is intended for Apple or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
After re-reading your post... the point that came across (to me) by the examples you cited was to put TGB/NMR into the same basket as as MOSR and The Register. After all why else would you start off your post with... 'You mean like the MOSR/Register 8500 that was supposed to debut at MWSF this year?' If you didn't think that NMR/TGB was in the same class.
I was doing my best (yes with a little dig... so sue me) to inform people that they aren't... (in the same class)
Dave
[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: DaveGee ]</p>
<strong>Moki you bastard!*
At least now I know what "GPUL" stands for... No thanks to Moki!
Barto
*I love you Moki. I wish I had as much insider info as you did.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Relax, it's just a code name... (then again, so was Jaguar at one point, though)
Dave, I cited one example, and it was as an illustration of how the consensus of this board can swing dramatically towards whatever the latest new rumor is. It wasn't a condemation of any source in particular, just (more or less) an observation on how desparate people here are to glom on to rumors they want to be true, instead of anything based on facts.
Besides, NMR's predictions for this past January were for a <a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20020114.php"; target="_blank">1.4GHz G4</a>. I'd say he was just a wee bit off, wouldn't you? I'll give him one thing though, in his next update, <a href="http://www.macedition.com/nmr/nmr_20020313.php"; target="_blank">he had the balls to admit he was wrong</a>, without giving any stupid excuses. That's much more than Meader would do...
Insightful. May help with the 'Switch' thing...not to mention analysts...they seem to love the whole 'x86 and Apple' thing.
We'll see.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Relax, it's just a code name... (then again, so was Jaguar at one point, though)</strong><hr></blockquote>
So Moki, Is this your verification that this latest rumor from NMR at least got the the codename correct?
Can/would you maybe verify any more of it?
I'd say he was only slightly off. Many would have predicted 130 nano G4's which would have easily hit 1.4ghz.
Interestingly enough, here's what he had to say in March on the G4 which failed to appear:
[quote] The Blade?s blackout subjectively shortened his wait for the 1.4GHz, RapidIO-licious Power Mac G4 he predicted for February. <hr></blockquote>
"RapidIO-licious"? Sounds like he bought the MOSR/Register tripe, just like the rest of us.
IMO he's very realiable.
very.
this is good news.
show me a rumor guy with 100% accuracy...
<strong>Here's the question folks.
The "Gpul" thing sent up a red flag. Wasn't Moki mentioning something about "Ul" in previous posts? I'm searching for them right now. He was being very secretive about it. If you find it let me know. Post the thread.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002118&p=5"; target="_blank">Moki's Previous mention of GP-UL</a>
[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: davidb1 ]</p>
My point, precisely.
Stylewise he ain't no Mole Rat.
[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: Gambit ]</p>
<strong>"That x86 isn't a migration from PPC, rather a second sales vector."
Insightful. May help with the 'Switch' thing...not to mention analysts...they seem to love the whole 'x86 and Apple' thing.
We'll see.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
One of my sources* tells me that keeping Mac OS X for x86 up-to-date is simply a back-up plan if something bad should happen to the PPC. That is, if in the future all desktop PPCs got cancelled (eg if IBM went bankrupt or something), Macs would start using x86 CPUs.
Barto
*I love it when I get a nugget of insider-info which I can repeat without getting into trouble.
[ 09-15-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>