Hmm, didnt think about that... If you take the current low-end powermac (800 mghz which comes with a cd-rw default) and up it to the same hardware as the imac: 80 gig HD, superdrive, GeForce4 MX video, and apple pro speakers, it comes out 59 dollars more than the 17" imac. And the new low-end price will be 100 more... What I need is a sugar-momma!
However, it doesn't change the fact that nobody knows how these computers actually perform, so there is no basis for all of the stupid ****ing angry faces and shaking head faces people are using. It's really irritating to see that shit every time Apple announces new hardware, especially when people type 3 in a row.
It's obvious that these people don't use their Macs for anything more complex than web surfing and Tetris based on the intelligence lacking in their postings, but they like to bitch and complain because their computers have smaller numbers than their Intel-loving friends.
Well, next time your Intel-Butt-Raiding friends throw numbers at you, just say 128-bit data path or 20 gigaflops and watch their eyes glaze over when they realize they have no ****ing clue what you are saying and spew out another witty comeback like, "huh, huh, 3 Ghz Pentium 4 r00lz!"
<strong>guys, it looks like there won't be a new design tomorrow afterall, but I could be wrong. I found this on apple's site. See, the price was bumped up 100 dollars. If you look at the current apple store, they say starting at 1599 as it has always been. Still keep your hopes up, I may be wrong.
From another thread... I saw this same graphic while searching <a href="http://www.mammals.org"; target="_blank">www.mammals.org</a> for the rterm PowerMac. I guess the point is that it shows the old case with the new pricing
SO no DynaCool technology? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
"So, you've just spent $3300 for a 1.2 Ghz Apple computer in 2002 ... here's your shame-bag, we'll let you cut your own holes for your eyes ... and if you ever want to switch back, we'll be right here waiting for you ...
... and you'll get to take off the bag!
Sincerely
Michael Dell,
Bill Gates
Blah blah blah"
Man this is gonna hurt, I just hope this transition phase isn't long.
Wow, six pages of comments and nobody's looked at this upgrade in terms of Moore's Law yet. If you shrink Moore's Law down to the 6 month scale the increase is, well, 25%.
1.0GHz -> 1.25GHz = about 15-20% improvement (ish)
133 FSB -> 166 FSB = about 20-25% improvement
DDR -> 5-10% improvement
Add all that together and you get 45 - 65 % increase in system performance, roughly double Moore's Law. In short, I'd be impressed if this (the dual 1.2 rumour) is what we see tomorrow. The 1.6 rumour is right out.
Edit: Granted, Moore's Law is variously interpreted to mean a) the # of transistors on a chip b) the processor clock cycle or c) overall system performance. The most commonly used, however, is c.
<strong>Wow, six pages of comments and nobody's looked at this upgrade in terms of Moore's Law yet. If you shrink Moore's Law down to the 6 month scale the increase is, well, 25%.
1.0GHz -> 1.25GHz = about 15-20% improvement (ish)
133 FSB -> 166 FSB = about 20-25% improvement
DDR -> 5-10% improvement
Add all that together and you get 45 - 65 % increase in system performance, roughly double Moore's Law. In short, I'd be impressed if this (the dual 1.2 rumour) is what we see tomorrow. The 1.6 rumour is right out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ya, but doesn't moore's law also say that processor speed would double every 18 months? I could be wrong, I don't really know much about the law, I just heard that.
Maybe they're raising prices because they're going to offer dual processor models instead of single processor ones. maybe it's because they're adding a standard Superdrive and an extra 256 MB of RAM to the baseline, who knows? Don't jump to conclusions about Apple raising prices when you know nothing about what's coming.
Comments
Originally posted by O and A:
Hope the low end has a superdrive
damn very underwhelming specs
<hr></blockquote>
Hmm, didnt think about that... If you take the current low-end powermac (800 mghz which comes with a cd-rw default) and up it to the same hardware as the imac: 80 gig HD, superdrive, GeForce4 MX video, and apple pro speakers, it comes out 59 dollars more than the 17" imac. And the new low-end price will be 100 more... What I need is a sugar-momma!
<strong>The homepage (apple.com) isn't loading for me anymore.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Works fine. AppleStore is the same.
11:53PM Eastern.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Analogue bubblebath ]</p>
However, it doesn't change the fact that nobody knows how these computers actually perform, so there is no basis for all of the stupid ****ing angry faces and shaking head faces people are using. It's really irritating to see that shit every time Apple announces new hardware, especially when people type 3 in a row.
It's obvious that these people don't use their Macs for anything more complex than web surfing and Tetris based on the intelligence lacking in their postings, but they like to bitch and complain because their computers have smaller numbers than their Intel-loving friends.
Well, next time your Intel-Butt-Raiding friends throw numbers at you, just say 128-bit data path or 20 gigaflops and watch their eyes glaze over when they realize they have no ****ing clue what you are saying and spew out another witty comeback like, "huh, huh, 3 Ghz Pentium 4 r00lz!"
<strong>guys, it looks like there won't be a new design tomorrow afterall, but I could be wrong. I found this on apple's site.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Bioflavonoid ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
From another thread... I saw this same graphic while searching <a href="http://www.mammals.org"; target="_blank">www.mammals.org</a> for the rterm PowerMac. I guess the point is that it shows the old case with the new pricing
SO no DynaCool technology? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
MSKR
<strong>Thanks about the Yikes info.
So what do you think they will name the new case?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 'Oh God I hope an IBM 8CPU Power7 comes real soon now'.
Or maybe the 'Buhbye Motorola'
Apple's 'official' names have gotten very boring. This would be the 'Aug 2002 PowerMac XXXMHz' or something similar.
It was more interesting with code names like 'Cold Fusion' or 'Tsunami'.
I think I'm gonna cancel my order...
<strong>Ok, here is something to do if your bored, the pdf for the powermac is <a href="http://a272.g.akamai.net/7/272/2041/e1af30a8eaf5ae/www.apple.com/r/store/infoblock/pdf/PowerMacG4DS_2002.pdf"; target="_blank">http://a272.g.akamai.net/7/272/2041/e1af30a8eaf5ae/www.apple.com/r/store/infoblock/pdf/PowerMacG4DS_2002.pdf</a>; Lets see if we can figure out the new name and find the pdf for the new powermacs thats prolly sitting there unlinked...</strong><hr></blockquote>
In all likelyhood it's on a different Akamai server.
"So, you've just spent $3300 for a 1.2 Ghz Apple computer in 2002 ... here's your shame-bag, we'll let you cut your own holes for your eyes ... and if you ever want to switch back, we'll be right here waiting for you ...
... and you'll get to take off the bag!
Sincerely
Michael Dell,
Bill Gates
Blah blah blah"
Man this is gonna hurt, I just hope this transition phase isn't long.
<strong>"Throbbin' Meat Slicer" would be a good name for a future PowerMac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
BWAAHAHAHAHA!
*gasp*
*wipes tear*
1.0GHz -> 1.25GHz = about 15-20% improvement (ish)
133 FSB -> 166 FSB = about 20-25% improvement
DDR -> 5-10% improvement
Add all that together and you get 45 - 65 % increase in system performance, roughly double Moore's Law. In short, I'd be impressed if this (the dual 1.2 rumour) is what we see tomorrow. The 1.6 rumour is right out.
Edit: Granted, Moore's Law is variously interpreted to mean a) the # of transistors on a chip b) the processor clock cycle or c) overall system performance. The most commonly used, however, is c.
Edit: Me spel gud
[ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: JustAGuy ]</p>
Do you think they'll bundle the new towers with a fire extinguisher if we get that case that was possted?
<strong>Wow, six pages of comments and nobody's looked at this upgrade in terms of Moore's Law yet. If you shrink Moore's Law down to the 6 month scale the increase is, well, 25%.
1.0GHz -> 1.25GHz = about 15-20% improvement (ish)
133 FSB -> 166 FSB = about 20-25% improvement
DDR -> 5-10% improvement
Add all that together and you get 45 - 65 % increase in system performance, roughly double Moore's Law. In short, I'd be impressed if this (the dual 1.2 rumour) is what we see tomorrow. The 1.6 rumour is right out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ya, but doesn't moore's law also say that processor speed would double every 18 months? I could be wrong, I don't really know much about the law, I just heard that.