CONFORMED: There are many pieces of a new computer model that require updated software compatibility to work. I'd say the CPU is the least likely candidate at this point.
<strong>And of course, since ALL new Macs are not booting Mac OS 9, there must be new CPU's for thr iMac, eMac, Powerbook, and even iBook! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no? And if there will be new computers (across the line hopfully would just be so damn sexy!) do you know how awesome it would be to have an Apple running OS X fast, I mean faster then OS 9 runs on the new high end PM's?! I don't care if I lose classic to get this!
-Apple normally does this so tell me what you think but wouldn't new processors mean new cases? (iMac is fairly new design, along with the new PM's...doesn't apple normally change this to seperate it from previous models?)
CONFIRMED: Some People Are Really fvcking Obtuse sometimes.
No OS 9 on new systems in 2003 = G5's at MWSF? REALLY??
What about a 1.4 GHz G4 with a revised (or similar to the current) archictecture at MWSF? Or WWDC? Is that impossible?
What about NOTHING new until MWNY? Is that impossible?
What about a dozen other Power Mac scenarios that are all equally probable as "G5 at MWSF"? Are they "CONFIRMED" too?
Threads like this are what make this forum a laughing stock at Ars and elsewhere. It would be SO much better if people just used their friggin brains and realized that short of an *actual* product announcement, NOTHING is confirmed. EVAR.
All this means for sure is, we'll see some new hardware during the 2003 calendar year that won't boot OS 9. Gee, that was hard to predict anyway...
Steve Jobs: "And so all the new models of Macs that we introduce, including faster versions of the current models, after Jan 1st will only boot into Mac OS X."
Man, you must really have wanted that mod spot. haha.
Just in case, I'll throw in a nice IBL (In Before Lock) there, I said it, In Before Lock. WOO-HOO, though they really aren't the same thing -- this thread and the other.
Why do people get off on acting like the mods? The mods are doing a great job, they do not need people telling them what to lock, I am pretty sure they can handle it. If they could not I am sure they would just get another Mod, it seems like the guy above would take the job in a heart beat, prolly quit his current one to make sure no two threads that are remotely similar will be allowed on the same board.
Just a heads up, I saw a post talking about the 10 gig iPod in future hardware, we better go get em, and tell the mods to send them to the Digital Hub room STAT!
<strong>Why do people get off on acting like the mods? The mods are doing a great job, they do not need people telling them what to lock, I am pretty sure they can handle it. If they could not I am sure they would just get another Mod, it seems like the guy above would take the job in a heart beat, prolly quit his current one to make sure no two threads that are remotely similar will be allowed on the same board.
Just a heads up, I saw a post talking about the 10 gig iPod in future hardware, we better go get em, and tell the mods to send them to the Digital Hub room STAT!</strong><hr></blockquote>
CONFIRMED: This guy takes himself way too seriously.
Anyone else find it just a little funny that some threads that are remotely similar are locked within minutes and yet two nearly identical threads have been allowed to live on for so long? Grow up gordon. I'm not "trying to do the job of the mods." I just love to point out hypocrisy when I find it.
[quote] Correct me if I'm wrong, but a new processor that runs only X would probably be a vast amount faster or else Apple wouldn't be switching, no? <hr></blockquote>
Not necessarily. Apple could simply switch to a new processor simply because it shows promise of scaling faster than the G4 can...
It doesn't matter how/why the 2003 machines will be unable to boot into OS9 -- the point is to tell hardware and software vendors to get their act together about providing software and driver updates that work in X, so they can be ready by that time.
Then in January 03, once all the new programs and drivers are ready, and the vendors are breathing a sigh of relief and saying "Whew, just made it in time," Apple can come out and say "Just kidding... you can still boot into 9 if you want, but now you don't have any reason to."
OMG guys I just discovered something so indicative of what's to come!!@ Steve said 2003 is OS X only... well, add up 2+0+0+3 and you get 5! That is a multiple of 10! 10=X! AND the 5 signifies that we will also be getting a G5! If you take the 5 and add it to January 1, you get January 6.... the first day of MWSF!!!
<strong>OMG guys I just discovered something so indicative of what's to come!!@ Steve said 2003 is OS X only... well, add up 2+0+0+3 and you get 5! That is a multiple of 10! 10=X! AND the 5 signifies that we will also be getting a G5! If you take the 5 and add it to January 1, you get January 6.... the first day of MWSF!!!
THIS IS AN OMEN!!! w0000000000t!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
IF thats not confirmation I don't know what is. Nice reasoning. oooboy, savin my moola now.
Comments
<strong>And of course, since ALL new Macs are not booting Mac OS 9, there must be new CPU's for thr iMac, eMac, Powerbook, and even iBook!
Exactly!
-Apple normally does this so tell me what you think but wouldn't new processors mean new cases? (iMac is fairly new design, along with the new PM's...doesn't apple normally change this to seperate it from previous models?)
No OS 9 on new systems in 2003 = G5's at MWSF? REALLY??
What about a 1.4 GHz G4 with a revised (or similar to the current) archictecture at MWSF? Or WWDC? Is that impossible?
What about NOTHING new until MWNY? Is that impossible?
What about a dozen other Power Mac scenarios that are all equally probable as "G5 at MWSF"? Are they "CONFIRMED" too?
Threads like this are what make this forum a laughing stock at Ars and elsewhere. It would be SO much better if people just used their friggin brains and realized that short of an *actual* product announcement, NOTHING is confirmed. EVAR.
All this means for sure is, we'll see some new hardware during the 2003 calendar year that won't boot OS 9. Gee, that was hard to predict anyway...
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Well the new PM case is just too damn ugly.
<a href="http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/09/20020910191324.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/09/20020910191324.shtml</a>;
arn
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002450"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002450</a>;
LOCK!!!
Just in case, I'll throw in a nice IBL (In Before Lock) there, I said it, In Before Lock. WOO-HOO, though they really aren't the same thing -- this thread and the other.
Just a heads up, I saw a post talking about the 10 gig iPod in future hardware, we better go get em, and tell the mods to send them to the Digital Hub room STAT!
<strong>Why do people get off on acting like the mods? The mods are doing a great job, they do not need people telling them what to lock, I am pretty sure they can handle it. If they could not I am sure they would just get another Mod, it seems like the guy above would take the job in a heart beat, prolly quit his current one to make sure no two threads that are remotely similar will be allowed on the same board.
Just a heads up, I saw a post talking about the 10 gig iPod in future hardware, we better go get em, and tell the mods to send them to the Digital Hub room STAT!</strong><hr></blockquote>
CONFIRMED: This guy takes himself way too seriously.
Anyone else find it just a little funny that some threads that are remotely similar are locked within minutes and yet two nearly identical threads have been allowed to live on for so long? Grow up gordon. I'm not "trying to do the job of the mods." I just love to point out hypocrisy when I find it.
Not necessarily. Apple could simply switch to a new processor simply because it shows promise of scaling faster than the G4 can...
Then in January 03, once all the new programs and drivers are ready, and the vendors are breathing a sigh of relief and saying "Whew, just made it in time," Apple can come out and say "Just kidding... you can still boot into 9 if you want, but now you don't have any reason to."
THIS IS AN OMEN!!! w0000000000t!!!!
<strong>OMG guys I just discovered something so indicative of what's to come!!@ Steve said 2003 is OS X only... well, add up 2+0+0+3 and you get 5! That is a multiple of 10! 10=X! AND the 5 signifies that we will also be getting a G5! If you take the 5 and add it to January 1, you get January 6.... the first day of MWSF!!!
THIS IS AN OMEN!!! w0000000000t!!!!</strong><hr></blockquote>
IF thats not confirmation I don't know what is. Nice reasoning. oooboy, savin my moola now.