Don't blame motorola!

Discussion in 'Hardware Rumors' started by Rockridge, May 3, 2002.

  1. Rockridge macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2002
    #1
    Blame Jobs... he could do more than he's doing.

    He's counting on sheep to do his bidding... DON'T!

    The new Mac's aren't THAT great... NO computer is...

    Do you use a computer for what it can do, or is it just a conversation piece?
     
  2. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #2
    Motorola has been sitting on their @sses with the processors...

    why shouldn't we have a beef with them?! :rolleyes: :confused:
     
  3. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #3
    Re: Don't blame motorola!

    Oh, my God, when will the madness end? It is mass hysteria, dogs, sleeping with cats....

    Look, you know the responses you are going to get when you insult our fearless leader don't you. :mad:

    Hope you have suited up...

    Actually...
    Having looked over all of your posts, it is obvious that you are just a troll.
     
  4. AlphaTech macrumors 601

    AlphaTech

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2001
    Location:
    Natick, MA
    #4
    Re: Don't blame motorola!

    I have one word that describes those statements... newbies... sheeeeesh.

    Blaming Jobs would be like blaming IBM that intel hasn't shipped a 3GHz processor, or a new chip that is still in the R&D stages. GET REAL!

    What do you think eye... single can, six-pack, case or keg????
     
  5. spuncan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2001
    Location:
    Detroit
    #5
    Ugh don't insult the mighty Jobs. If I ever find u, u will barraged with pies, then u will be smacked by a very very large trout. Yes I understand that computers could be much better right now but that won't happen anytime soon. So leave us u dribling x86 wanabe. So there, Ha
     
  6. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #6
    Re: Re: Don't blame motorola!

    I think you should ignore the post, its obviously done to get the masses in a tizzy. Responding with force only gives him satisfaction that he's gotten to us.
     
  7. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #7
    Re: Re: Don't blame motorola!

    Vat.:D

    Try the pump-truck whoopass........
     
  8. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #8
    Re: Re: Re: Don't blame motorola!

    Now you're playing with him. He probably won't come back and reappear another day to taunt us somemore.
     
  9. Kid Red macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    #9
    Re: Don't blame motorola!

    Is it jealousy that feeds envy? Or stupidity that feeds M$'s pockets?
     
  10. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #10
    We already know what the pockets of M$ are full of...and if you don't, you do not want to find out. :)

    And, again, I am taking sides, saying that Motorola seems to have too many lounge chairs, an outdoor BQ, a spa, and a bunch of !!!! that is keeping Apple behind!

    But, you do have to admit, Apple is/was/will be the first company to sell Supercomputers on a daily basis since 1999, with the introduction of the Power Mac G4 and something called a gigaflop.

    That is one upside...
    __________________

    Any time is a great time for iPod. Call me KC.
     
  11. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #11
    Re: Re: Don't blame motorola!

    he he he....I just hijacked a beer truck... :D :eek: :p
     
  12. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    VA
    #12
    Why don't you just get one of those planes they use for forest fires, load it up with the beer truck contents, and dump it?

    I'm telling you it will be a long shot if he comes back to defend his statement. He's arleady ducking and running, to surface again another day with an equally silly statement. You'll just end up wasting your shots.
     
  13. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #13
    Actually, that would have been Cray, sometime in the 1970s... :)

    Alex
     
  14. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #14
    i don't blame jobs for motorola being slow at all if that is what is being implied by anyone

    i think jobs is the best marketing genius the high tech field has ever seen

    i also think jobs is the worst businessman/manager in the history of high tech

    to me, that is what makes him so mecurial and fascinating to read about

    the guy hits a home run, then he strikes out, then he hits a big one, then he strikes out, etc.....:D
     
  15. eyelikeart Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
  16. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #16
    Wow. So there was a supercomputer in the 1970s? Could it go 15 Gigaflop and cost only $3000, integrate video, compress audio into mp3 in under a minute, or work in GHz processors? And what use would a supercomputer be for back then? :)

    It is interesting to see how today's technology has improved.
    __________________

    Any time is a great time for iPod.
     
  17. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #17
    well back in the 70s, i'm prettys sure there weren't mp3s. so that answers that portion of your query.

    alex's comment about cray was just a very general one, not putting all these requirements on it. i think it's safe to say the supercomputers he mentioned are not very comparable to today's mac.
     
  18. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #18
    in the 70s, one meg of ram cost over three million dollars and included a building and highly trained staff, so supercomputer is a shifting definition

    my old ibook is still cool, but slow at 300 mhz and 160 MB of ram
     
  19. PCUser macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    #19
    According to the history page on Cray's website (http://www.cray.com/company/history.html), the Cray-I was released in 1976. It performed 160 megaflops and had 8MB of main memory. The first was installed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory for $8.8 million.
     
  20. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #20
    Didn't alex_ant say that the first Supercomputer was invented in the 70s? I thought a Supercomputer could perform 1000 Megaflops (1 Gigaflop). Was there another model that made 1 gigaflop? Because that would have made the final product a Supercomputer. And according to the website, that didn't happen until the 80s.

    Did I miss something?
    __________________

    Any time is a great time for iPod.
     
  21. PCUser macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2002
    #21
    Actually, as far as I'm aware, there is no static defintion of "super computer". I believe the term reflects the most powerful computers of an era (which the PowerMac is not... today's top performers perform several teraflops).

    Also, I believe the first "super computer" was the CDC 6600 released in 1966 that performed 3 megaflops (http://csep1.phy.ornl.gov/ov/node16.html).
     
  22. King Cobra macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2002
    #22
    So if the Macs aren't (and of course not the PCs aren't) Supercomputers, you must have one giant wallet and a mug to find the money to buy it.

    Besides, Apple defines its computers as "super" since they can perform over a Gigaflop. I can use that "fact" to make people at class jealous, since they obviously use PCs.

    How much would something like that Cray cost nowadays? Probably not much, right?
    __________________

    Any time is a great time for iPod.
     
  23. alex_ant macrumors 68020

    alex_ant

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2002
    Location:
    All up in your bidness
    #23
    The U.S. Government defines a supercomputer - or at least USED to define a supercomputer, as they may have updated their criteria recently - as a computer capable of performing one gigaflops (that is the correct singular usage of the word, isn't it?). A computer capable of that cost millions twenty years ago, but nowadays such a computer could be obtained for <$1000. So the government's definition is meaningless nowadays.

    There was an auction for an early '80s Cray on eBay a couple years back if I remember correctly. It fetched a few thousand dollars. They're not much use today as they have special power & air conditioning requirements (you can't just plug one into an AC outlet), they break down all the time, parts are no longer available, they are compatible with very little software, and they have either no or very limited graphics capabilities.

    In my opinion, a good definition of a supercomputer is a computer that is at least 1,000 times faster than the fastest desktop computer... although "supercomputer" will always be kind of a vague term.

    Alex
     

Share This Page