So here's a thought: if ApplePI was related to a RIO implementation, and if it was supposedly ApplePI that Apple requested be incorporated into the G5 offerings of the chip competitors (when they were at least IBM, Motorola, and whomever), then why did Motorola refuse to incorporate it?
The only logical conclusion I come up with, is that ApplePI doesn't use RIO or MPX, because Motorola uses those techs.
I'm not sure, but doesn't HyperTransport's initial throughput numbers start in the 6.4 GB/s range, and isn't it coincidental that this new GPUL has throughput of 6.4 GB/s.
Maybe ApplePI is based on HT. Apple is one of the founding members, as it AMD, NVidia, ATI.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One plausible explanation is that Apple modeled a new bus around existing protocols. Neither IBM nor Motorola have stated any intensions of incorporating Hyper transport into their silicon. But they have made it clear that RapidIO is their working technology. In fact Motorola currently has 2 processors that use this protocol. RapidIO provides up to 8GBps bandwith in a 16bit configuration at high operating frequency (1GHz for 8GBps). It may be an option to have a processor with 2 16bit RapidIO buses running at say 500MHz each to acheive about 8GBps but IBM stated the processor would have 6.4GBps bandwidth. You would have to run the RIO bus at about 800MHz to aproach that kind of bandwidth. Not too shabby. ApplePi could be no more than a 16bit RIO interface running at 600-800MHz to the memory controller.
One plausible explanation is that Apple modeled a new bus around existing protocols. Neither IBM nor Motorola have stated any intensions of incorporating Hyper transport into their silicon. But they have made it clear that RapidIO is their working technology. In fact Motorola currently has 2 processors that use this protocol. RapidIO provides up to 8GBps bandwith in a 16bit configuration at high operating frequency (1GHz for 8GBps). It may be an option to have a processor with 2 16bit RapidIO buses running at say 500MHz each to acheive about 8GBps but IBM stated the processor would have 6.4GBps bandwidth. You would have to run the RIO bus at about 800MHz to aproach that kind of bandwidth. Not too shabby. ApplePi could be no more than a 16bit RIO interface running at 600-800MHz to the memory controller.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the specs. I always got them mixed up, because it seemed like they were constantly being improved (the numbers constantly changing). If Apple PI was based on RIO, why would Moto refuse to incorporate it then (assuming that PI was what Apple requested to be built into the chip)? I do remember the 6.4 GB/s being associated with HT, but also remember higher numbers, like in the 12 GB/s range. Got any info on HT?
<strong>I think Apple creates its own FUD by its secrecy. Intel announces years in advance its roadmap with specific dates and speeds. Apple is so fearful that people will put off their purchases that they keep everthing quiet. You can still make an iMac in secret but when your customers have no idea what the future of the PowerPC platform is, it does [ not? ] inspire confidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Totally agree on the FUD. There's more FUD slung hereabouts than in all of Redmond. It's hard to stay calm when you don't know what's happening.
Disagree on the second point: Apple doesn't play it close for fear of putting off buyers.
As has been said before (often by me), despite their bank balance, besides the legendary Apple braintrust, despite the presence of one of the great visionaries & best CEOs in the tech sector, Apple cannot win if they play the big boys' game.
Remember 'mammals.org'? The advantages of the dinosaurs are size (where does the gorilla slepp?), weaponry (such diverse elements as fear, uncertainty, doubt, and mmphmmphmm...), and ubiquity (ie, they're everywhere); the advantages of the mammals are size (smaller = harder to kill), speed (ie, smaller = quicker), adaptability (hard to predict, hard to keep up with), and intelligence (the ability to use your advantages to your advantage).
So, if Apple can't win playing a size-&-numbers game, they have to play their own game. They must use their advantages to their advantage; they must adapt, plan, create, innovate; they must be quick and daring in their moves.
If everyone knows what you're doing, then the dinosaurs win: by not concealing your plans and intentions, you've as much as told the big boys what to step on & when. "Game over", indeed.
Thus Apple's secrecy. It's not US they're trying to keep secrets from, but we are the biggest threat to that secrecy because we want to know EVERYTHING! NOW!
That's why Steve hates the rumour sites, and why he's ambivalent about the user base: we bug the hell out of him, he won't tell us anything, and we get mad & try even harder to ferret out Apple's secrets. Microsoft - to this very day - announces major changes in direction close on Apple's heels; one serious slip in security and Microsoft would land on it with all 8 tentacles. Ballmer & Gates would not fail to take full advantage of it.
Ok, as per JYD it's pretty obvious by now that the 7500 (desktop Motorola G5) was cancelled.
Moki, you are the wind beneath our collective wings.
6.4GB/s doesn't refer to the front side bus. It refers to the throughput. Now, the G4 1.25GHz theoretically has over 22.656GB/s of throughput. How do I get that? (L3 Cache (16 bytes * 312.5MHz * 2 (DDR) + MPX (8 bytes * 166MHz)) * 2 (Upstream and Downstream).
The Power4 has a DDR200, L3 and a GX (system) bus. We'll have to wait until the 15th to know more about this new chip.
HyperTransport runs from 100MB/s to 6.5GB/s.
Until October the 15th, everying (except Moki) is just guessing (educated guessing in the case of Programmer).
I think it's stupid for any Mac to use a 85xx chip. They stink. Once GPUL arrives. It will be safe to put Dual G4s in an iMac. This will keep it competitive with consumer PCs, and would not reduce PowerMac sales. One GPUL die has two cores remember. PowerMacs will still be DP, maybe even 4P for $$$.
Couldn't ApplePI be a bridge chip that is HyperTransport on one side (disks, firewire, communications, PCI, etc.) and RIO (CPUs) on the other. Kind of like what's in the xServe and PowerMac? That would explain why Apple went to this setup now.
I don't know where the memory would be in this setup (off the CPUs or ?). Any mention of a memory controller in the GP-UL? I'm a software guy so I'm out of my league here.
<strong>I thought that DDR 400 would be required for 6.8 mb/s bandwidth, whens that coming, end of 2003?</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR 400 will never be a mainstream memory standard: too many hassles. I think there's a good DDR roadmap on the Inquirer front page. It looks like we'll have to wait for DDR-II to have a decent 400 MHz memory implementation. But--goddammit--DDR-II is not exactly going to show up in the "near future". It all depends on when the next GPUL-based workstations (they might retain the PowerMac brand, especially if the Cube comeback rumor is true, but I don't think they'll be priced/targeted as mainstream desktop systems) will show up: by the time they'll do DDR-II will probably already be a reality.
<strong>I think it's stupid for any Mac to use a 85xx chip. They stink. Once GPUL arrives. It will be safe to put Dual G4s in an iMac. This will keep it competitive with consumer PCs, and would not reduce PowerMac sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A dual G4 in an iMac? Well, apart from the fact that we'd probably have still to deal with the oh-so-awful-for-a-DP-system MPX bus, it might be true if those lazy bastards at Moto will start fabbing a new G4 rev at 0.09µ. Can you otherwise imagine the temperature an iMac like that would reach?
Totally agree on the FUD. There's more FUD slung hereabouts than in all of Redmond. It's hard to stay calm when you don't know what's happening.
Disagree on the second point: Apple doesn't play it close for fear of putting off buyers.
As has been said before (often by me), despite their bank balance, besides the legendary Apple braintrust, despite the presence of one of the great visionaries & best CEOs in the tech sector, Apple cannot win if they play the big boys' game.
Remember 'mammals.org'? The advantages of the dinosaurs are size (where does the gorilla slepp?), weaponry (such diverse elements as fear, uncertainty, doubt, and mmphmmphmm...), and ubiquity (ie, they're everywhere); the advantages of the mammals are size (smaller = harder to kill), speed (ie, smaller = quicker), adaptability (hard to predict, hard to keep up with), and intelligence (the ability to use your advantages to your advantage).
So, if Apple can't win playing a size-&-numbers game, they have to play their own game. They must use their advantages to their advantage; they must adapt, plan, create, innovate; they must be quick and daring in their moves.
If everyone knows what you're doing, then the dinosaurs win: by not concealing your plans and intentions, you've as much as told the big boys what to step on & when. "Game over", indeed.
Thus Apple's secrecy. It's not US they're trying to keep secrets from, but we are the biggest threat to that secrecy because we want to know EVERYTHING! NOW!
That's why Steve hates the rumour sites, and why he's ambivalent about the user base: we bug the hell out of him, he won't tell us anything, and we get mad & try even harder to ferret out Apple's secrets. Microsoft - to this very day - announces major changes in direction close on Apple's heels; one serious slip in security and Microsoft would land on it with all 8 tentacles. Ballmer & Gates would not fail to take full advantage of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that Apple is not going to announce their digital hub strategy, next iApp, or what the next iMac is going to look like. Nor do I think they should. The one thing Steve has is a vision of where he wants the computer to go and that is valuable information. They can however announce what their chip strategy is beyond "the PowerPC roadmap looks promising right now" or whatever the quote was. They can, in cooperation with IBM and Motorola, say that the G4 will reach speeds of X.X GHz by XXXX and will have a new bus by XXXX. They can also say that they will be using a new chip from IBM when it becomes available.
This would not affect what Intel or Microsoft are going to do because for the most part they don't care. Neither company sees Apple or the PowerPC as much of a threat. It would give customers and prospective switch customers a feeling that Apple has a good future. I am a long time Mac user and until the recent IBM announcements I began to wonder. I bet a lot of people switched to Windows because they believed that Apple would eventually die and they better start swapping over rather than investing anymore in Apple.
<strong>I bet a lot of people switched to Windows because they believed that Apple would eventually die and they better start swapping over rather than investing anymore in Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A couple of years ago, in the stuck-forever-at-500MHz era, I actually convinced a friend of mine who wanted to buy a Mac to get instead a PC. My fault? Nah, I don't blame myself. And I don't care if somebody does. Blame Steve instead, and some Mot dogs for that...
They surely paid dearly for their past wrong decisions...
The Power4 has 6.4 GByte/s memory controller embedded in the backside L3 cache. It's essentially 2 64 bit buses operating at 400 MHz. This is in all likelihood the 6.4 GB/s memory bandwidth that this GPUL processor is to have. The Power4 I/O bus (to which PCI, AGP, ATA, etc. would be bridged) is called the GX bus and is also capable of multi-GB/s bandwidth.
The hypothetical Apple processor interconnect probably just bridges various I/O if the GPUL and a hypothetical Moto G5 already have separate memory buses. It doesn't need to be fast. Only about 2.1 GB/s for AGP 8x. Now this means Apple will have to go NUMA, which it can, for multi-processor boxes.
Apple's alive, no doubt about it. But if you call the present HW and SW situation "well" (and please, don't give me no crap about how cool the iApps are--I want a decent file-naming scheme, a journaling FS and live queries)... Well, some people settle for less, some for more--it's all about quality standards.
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
I consider my defenition of well to be profitable in a part of the industry where companies are losing million, if not billions of dollars. The only reason someone would could consider apple not doing well is the ones who are jealous of the hardware windows works on. Forget the fact that our machine ARE fast, theyre not as fast as a 1092836 THZ Intel so we're gonna cry about it. Im more productive at home on my Powermac running X then i EVER will be with XP at work on the new 2.4 ghz P4's they bought. And btw, who cares if apple attached i's to all their apps. Naming schemes are nothing to me, but the fact that these apps ARE great, productive apps, can be ignored cause theyre considered "iApps"? Youve got to have a better argument than this for apple not being "well".
BTW, closing the other thread was unneccessary. This thread is to long, you guys really need to put a cap on the posts allowed. $0.02
A dual G4 in an iMac? Well, apart from the fact that we'd probably have still to deal with the oh-so-awful-for-a-DP-system MPX bus, it might be true if those lazy bastards at Moto will start fabbing a new G4 rev at 0.09µ. Can you otherwise imagine the temperature an iMac like that would reach?
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
DP would give the iMac a nice boost, and Apple should go this route even if 1.6GHz G4s become available. Something has to differentiate the iMac from the eMac other than a flat panel.
<strong>And btw, who cares if apple attached i's to all their apps. Naming schemes are nothing to me, but the fact that these apps ARE great, productive apps, can be ignored cause theyre considered "iApps"? Youve got to have a better argument than this for apple not being "well".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really think this is what I was referring to when I talked about (now, read my lips) file-naming scheme???
Try thinking about apposing suffixes to file names to differentiate their format and the application to open them with... Sounds like DOS? Quite remarkably indeed. Sadly it's true--and it's the reccomendewd way by Apple--on OS X too.
Do you really think this is what I was referring to when I talked about (now, read my lips) file-naming scheme???
Try thinking about apposing suffixes to file names to differentiate their format and the application to open them with... Sounds like DOS? Quite remarkably indeed. Sadly it's true--and it's the reccomendewd way by Apple--on OS X too.
PS: if a thread gets locked it's not really wise to bring over the same discussion to another one...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow forgive me if i misread your post. But funny you focus on that part of my post and not the thing i was really trying to say which was about your reasoning for apple not being in a good position right now. Of course you can get a giggle out of putting some smiley faces on your post and trying to lower other people's self esteem, but its much more mature and respectable to be serious and not act like jerkoff. My $0.02
When you choose to be one of the holdout 5%, sometimes you have to bend like a willow in the wind. The dreaded .3 filenames are a requirement because the internet has become so pervasive as an information and file-sharing medium. What do MORE than 95% of all the electronic files on the planet use for differentiation? The dreaded .3 notation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least they did it the UNIX way, by allowing any number of suffixes of any length. That supports the .3 suffix as a subset, but if you want to call something My Letter To Mom.myspiffywordprocessor, you can. And if you compress it it can be My Letter To Mom.myspiffywordprocessor.sit, so you can tell at a glance that it's a letter to Mom in Spiffy Word Processor file format, compressed with Stuffit.
However, I think the migration to file-suffix-as-metadata (and a file suffix is metadata, it's just not very robust or reliable) is a way of clearing the decks for better things.
Not that this has anything to do with GPUL, or whether or how Apple will make use of it.
Comments
RapidIO=ApplePi(?)
Apple has a knack for renaming things. This could be one of those times.
<strong>
So here's a thought: if ApplePI was related to a RIO implementation, and if it was supposedly ApplePI that Apple requested be incorporated into the G5 offerings of the chip competitors (when they were at least IBM, Motorola, and whomever), then why did Motorola refuse to incorporate it?
The only logical conclusion I come up with, is that ApplePI doesn't use RIO or MPX, because Motorola uses those techs.
I'm not sure, but doesn't HyperTransport's initial throughput numbers start in the 6.4 GB/s range, and isn't it coincidental that this new GPUL has throughput of 6.4 GB/s.
Maybe ApplePI is based on HT. Apple is one of the founding members, as it AMD, NVidia, ATI.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One plausible explanation is that Apple modeled a new bus around existing protocols. Neither IBM nor Motorola have stated any intensions of incorporating Hyper transport into their silicon. But they have made it clear that RapidIO is their working technology. In fact Motorola currently has 2 processors that use this protocol. RapidIO provides up to 8GBps bandwith in a 16bit configuration at high operating frequency (1GHz for 8GBps). It may be an option to have a processor with 2 16bit RapidIO buses running at say 500MHz each to acheive about 8GBps but IBM stated the processor would have 6.4GBps bandwidth. You would have to run the RIO bus at about 800MHz to aproach that kind of bandwidth. Not too shabby. ApplePi could be no more than a 16bit RIO interface running at 600-800MHz to the memory controller.
<strong>
One plausible explanation is that Apple modeled a new bus around existing protocols. Neither IBM nor Motorola have stated any intensions of incorporating Hyper transport into their silicon. But they have made it clear that RapidIO is their working technology. In fact Motorola currently has 2 processors that use this protocol. RapidIO provides up to 8GBps bandwith in a 16bit configuration at high operating frequency (1GHz for 8GBps). It may be an option to have a processor with 2 16bit RapidIO buses running at say 500MHz each to acheive about 8GBps but IBM stated the processor would have 6.4GBps bandwidth. You would have to run the RIO bus at about 800MHz to aproach that kind of bandwidth. Not too shabby. ApplePi could be no more than a 16bit RIO interface running at 600-800MHz to the memory controller.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the specs. I always got them mixed up, because it seemed like they were constantly being improved (the numbers constantly changing). If Apple PI was based on RIO, why would Moto refuse to incorporate it then (assuming that PI was what Apple requested to be built into the chip)? I do remember the 6.4 GB/s being associated with HT, but also remember higher numbers, like in the 12 GB/s range. Got any info on HT?
<strong>I think Apple creates its own FUD by its secrecy. Intel announces years in advance its roadmap with specific dates and speeds. Apple is so fearful that people will put off their purchases that they keep everthing quiet. You can still make an iMac in secret but when your customers have no idea what the future of the PowerPC platform is, it does [ not? ] inspire confidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Totally agree on the FUD. There's more FUD slung hereabouts than in all of Redmond. It's hard to stay calm when you don't know what's happening.
Disagree on the second point: Apple doesn't play it close for fear of putting off buyers.
As has been said before (often by me), despite their bank balance, besides the legendary Apple braintrust, despite the presence of one of the great visionaries & best CEOs in the tech sector, Apple cannot win if they play the big boys' game.
Remember 'mammals.org'? The advantages of the dinosaurs are size (where does the gorilla slepp?), weaponry (such diverse elements as fear, uncertainty, doubt, and mmphmmphmm...), and ubiquity (ie, they're everywhere); the advantages of the mammals are size (smaller = harder to kill), speed (ie, smaller = quicker), adaptability (hard to predict, hard to keep up with), and intelligence (the ability to use your advantages to your advantage).
So, if Apple can't win playing a size-&-numbers game, they have to play their own game. They must use their advantages to their advantage; they must adapt, plan, create, innovate; they must be quick and daring in their moves.
If everyone knows what you're doing, then the dinosaurs win: by not concealing your plans and intentions, you've as much as told the big boys what to step on & when. "Game over", indeed.
Thus Apple's secrecy. It's not US they're trying to keep secrets from, but we are the biggest threat to that secrecy because we want to know EVERYTHING! NOW!
That's why Steve hates the rumour sites, and why he's ambivalent about the user base: we bug the hell out of him, he won't tell us anything, and we get mad & try even harder to ferret out Apple's secrets. Microsoft - to this very day - announces major changes in direction close on Apple's heels; one serious slip in security and Microsoft would land on it with all 8 tentacles. Ballmer & Gates would not fail to take full advantage of it.
Moki, you are the wind beneath our collective wings.
6.4GB/s doesn't refer to the front side bus. It refers to the throughput. Now, the G4 1.25GHz theoretically has over 22.656GB/s of throughput. How do I get that? (L3 Cache (16 bytes * 312.5MHz * 2 (DDR) + MPX (8 bytes * 166MHz)) * 2 (Upstream and Downstream).
The Power4 has a DDR200, L3 and a GX (system) bus. We'll have to wait until the 15th to know more about this new chip.
HyperTransport runs from 100MB/s to 6.5GB/s.
Until October the 15th, everying (except Moki) is just guessing (educated guessing in the case of Programmer).
Barto
I don't know where the memory would be in this setup (off the CPUs or ?). Any mention of a memory controller in the GP-UL? I'm a software guy so I'm out of my league here.
[ 09-20-2002: Message edited by: CodeWarrior ]</p>
<strong>I thought that DDR 400 would be required for 6.8 mb/s bandwidth, whens that coming, end of 2003?</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR 400 will never be a mainstream memory standard: too many hassles. I think there's a good DDR roadmap on the Inquirer front page. It looks like we'll have to wait for DDR-II to have a decent 400 MHz memory implementation. But--goddammit--DDR-II is not exactly going to show up in the "near future". It all depends on when the next GPUL-based workstations (they might retain the PowerMac brand, especially if the Cube comeback rumor is true, but I don't think they'll be priced/targeted as mainstream desktop systems) will show up: by the time they'll do DDR-II will probably already be a reality.
ZoSo
<strong>I think it's stupid for any Mac to use a 85xx chip. They stink. Once GPUL arrives. It will be safe to put Dual G4s in an iMac. This will keep it competitive with consumer PCs, and would not reduce PowerMac sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A dual G4 in an iMac? Well, apart from the fact that we'd probably have still to deal with the oh-so-awful-for-a-DP-system MPX bus, it might be true if those lazy bastards at Moto will start fabbing a new G4 rev at 0.09µ. Can you otherwise imagine the temperature an iMac like that would reach?
ZoSo
<strong>
Totally agree on the FUD. There's more FUD slung hereabouts than in all of Redmond. It's hard to stay calm when you don't know what's happening.
Disagree on the second point: Apple doesn't play it close for fear of putting off buyers.
As has been said before (often by me), despite their bank balance, besides the legendary Apple braintrust, despite the presence of one of the great visionaries & best CEOs in the tech sector, Apple cannot win if they play the big boys' game.
Remember 'mammals.org'? The advantages of the dinosaurs are size (where does the gorilla slepp?), weaponry (such diverse elements as fear, uncertainty, doubt, and mmphmmphmm...), and ubiquity (ie, they're everywhere); the advantages of the mammals are size (smaller = harder to kill), speed (ie, smaller = quicker), adaptability (hard to predict, hard to keep up with), and intelligence (the ability to use your advantages to your advantage).
So, if Apple can't win playing a size-&-numbers game, they have to play their own game. They must use their advantages to their advantage; they must adapt, plan, create, innovate; they must be quick and daring in their moves.
If everyone knows what you're doing, then the dinosaurs win: by not concealing your plans and intentions, you've as much as told the big boys what to step on & when. "Game over", indeed.
Thus Apple's secrecy. It's not US they're trying to keep secrets from, but we are the biggest threat to that secrecy because we want to know EVERYTHING! NOW!
That's why Steve hates the rumour sites, and why he's ambivalent about the user base: we bug the hell out of him, he won't tell us anything, and we get mad & try even harder to ferret out Apple's secrets. Microsoft - to this very day - announces major changes in direction close on Apple's heels; one serious slip in security and Microsoft would land on it with all 8 tentacles. Ballmer & Gates would not fail to take full advantage of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that Apple is not going to announce their digital hub strategy, next iApp, or what the next iMac is going to look like. Nor do I think they should. The one thing Steve has is a vision of where he wants the computer to go and that is valuable information. They can however announce what their chip strategy is beyond "the PowerPC roadmap looks promising right now" or whatever the quote was. They can, in cooperation with IBM and Motorola, say that the G4 will reach speeds of X.X GHz by XXXX and will have a new bus by XXXX. They can also say that they will be using a new chip from IBM when it becomes available.
This would not affect what Intel or Microsoft are going to do because for the most part they don't care. Neither company sees Apple or the PowerPC as much of a threat. It would give customers and prospective switch customers a feeling that Apple has a good future. I am a long time Mac user and until the recent IBM announcements I began to wonder. I bet a lot of people switched to Windows because they believed that Apple would eventually die and they better start swapping over rather than investing anymore in Apple.
<strong>I bet a lot of people switched to Windows because they believed that Apple would eventually die and they better start swapping over rather than investing anymore in Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
A couple of years ago, in the stuck-forever-at-500MHz era, I actually convinced a friend of mine who wanted to buy a Mac to get instead a PC. My fault? Nah, I don't blame myself. And I don't care if somebody does. Blame Steve instead, and some Mot dogs for that...
They surely paid dearly for their past wrong decisions...
ZoSo
The hypothetical Apple processor interconnect probably just bridges various I/O if the GPUL and a hypothetical Moto G5 already have separate memory buses. It doesn't need to be fast. Only about 2.1 GB/s for AGP 8x. Now this means Apple will have to go NUMA, which it can, for multi-processor boxes.
<strong>
Apple's alive, no doubt about it. But if you call the present HW and SW situation "well" (and please, don't give me no crap about how cool the iApps are--I want a decent file-naming scheme, a journaling FS and live queries)... Well, some people settle for less, some for more--it's all about quality standards.
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
I consider my defenition of well to be profitable in a part of the industry where companies are losing million, if not billions of dollars. The only reason someone would could consider apple not doing well is the ones who are jealous of the hardware windows works on. Forget the fact that our machine ARE fast, theyre not as fast as a 1092836 THZ Intel so we're gonna cry about it. Im more productive at home on my Powermac running X then i EVER will be with XP at work on the new 2.4 ghz P4's they bought. And btw, who cares if apple attached i's to all their apps. Naming schemes are nothing to me, but the fact that these apps ARE great, productive apps, can be ignored cause theyre considered "iApps"? Youve got to have a better argument than this for apple not being "well".
BTW, closing the other thread was unneccessary. This thread is to long, you guys really need to put a cap on the posts allowed. $0.02
<strong>
A dual G4 in an iMac? Well, apart from the fact that we'd probably have still to deal with the oh-so-awful-for-a-DP-system MPX bus, it might be true if those lazy bastards at Moto will start fabbing a new G4 rev at 0.09µ. Can you otherwise imagine the temperature an iMac like that would reach?
ZoSo</strong><hr></blockquote>
DP would give the iMac a nice boost, and Apple should go this route even if 1.6GHz G4s become available. Something has to differentiate the iMac from the eMac other than a flat panel.
<strong>And btw, who cares if apple attached i's to all their apps. Naming schemes are nothing to me, but the fact that these apps ARE great, productive apps, can be ignored cause theyre considered "iApps"? Youve got to have a better argument than this for apple not being "well".</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you really think this is what I was referring to when I talked about (now, read my lips) file-naming scheme???
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Try thinking about apposing suffixes to file names to differentiate their format and the application to open them with... Sounds like DOS? Quite remarkably indeed. Sadly it's true--and it's the reccomendewd way by Apple--on OS X too.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
ZoSo
PS: if a thread gets locked it's not really wise to bring over the same discussion to another one...
<strong>
Do you really think this is what I was referring to when I talked about (now, read my lips) file-naming scheme???
Try thinking about apposing suffixes to file names to differentiate their format and the application to open them with... Sounds like DOS? Quite remarkably indeed. Sadly it's true--and it's the reccomendewd way by Apple--on OS X too.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
ZoSo
PS: if a thread gets locked it's not really wise to bring over the same discussion to another one...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow forgive me if i misread your post. But funny you focus on that part of my post and not the thing i was really trying to say which was about your reasoning for apple not being in a good position right now. Of course you can get a giggle out of putting some smiley faces on your post and trying to lower other people's self esteem, but its much more mature and respectable to be serious and not act like jerkoff. My $0.02
<strong>Something has to differentiate the iMac from the eMac other than a flat panel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about the words "Education Only"? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>
When you choose to be one of the holdout 5%, sometimes you have to bend like a willow in the wind. The dreaded .3 filenames are a requirement because the internet has become so pervasive as an information and file-sharing medium. What do MORE than 95% of all the electronic files on the planet use for differentiation? The dreaded .3 notation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
At least they did it the UNIX way, by allowing any number of suffixes of any length. That supports the .3 suffix as a subset, but if you want to call something My Letter To Mom.myspiffywordprocessor, you can. And if you compress it it can be My Letter To Mom.myspiffywordprocessor.sit, so you can tell at a glance that it's a letter to Mom in Spiffy Word Processor file format, compressed with Stuffit.
However, I think the migration to file-suffix-as-metadata (and a file suffix is metadata, it's just not very robust or reliable) is a way of clearing the decks for better things.
Not that this has anything to do with GPUL, or whether or how Apple will make use of it.