thatwendigo said:
And I've shown that, at least least in the last revision, Apple took a serious jump from their previous line and moved into parity or surpassing the PC line once more. This goes for everything in the system [...]
i have to seriously question whether you're reading or blindly replying. i myself said already what you just said. apple
just made a big jump. that is
why another big jump isn't likely in the very next revision.
thatwendigo said:
Whether or not your intention was to introduce some kind of "realism" to the discussion, your tone is explicitly negative and confrontational. I responded with a post that cut the floor out from under your objections. End of story.
if my tone is confrontational, it is because yours is. you may deny it, but excerpts such as the above embody it fairly well. as to whether you "cut the floor" out from under me, and whether the "story" is over, that is your opinion alone.
thatwendigo said:
As I've already stated, Apple has lead the market or been an early adopter in more than once, and I see no reason to believe that they can't do it again. You're not paying attention to something that really matters - Apple has a positive cash balance they could use to cut deals. You're also sadly behind if you think that these technologies aren't about to become standard in other machines, even if it's held at the high end.
that's what?
about to become standard? not
are standard, but
about to become. meaning not here yet.
what deals are those? just because there's surplus cash doesn't mean they're ready to spend it. the only reason one has cash is because one hasn't spent it already, and it says nothing of one's likeliness to use it. i don't think money is burning a hole in jobs' pocket.
i too believe that they can and will impress again. but it is probable
now? does it make any sense, from a buisnessman's perspective? above all, long term sales are the key to company survival and profit. wow factor is valuable as well, but why not wow them twice or even three times? why waste all your ammo when there's such a long road ahead (in terms of the it market) before the next "big thing", whatever that may be? i say again that it's great if this is the dawn of a new era for product revisions. i agree with you here. hooray, huzzah, and all kinds of merry-making. just don't count on it. don't get yourself worked up about what may be, never considering the alternative, only to be shattered and bitter when less than all of it happens. i've seen it time and time again, people in a tizzy because apple didn't deliver the fancy goods people wanted, and who do they blame? apple. all because they took less-then-credible rumors at face value.
thatwendigo said:
do you realize that none of those urls address what you were trying to address? you went to manufacturers and third party resellers and compiled a list of parts and bto systems, many of them quite costly, and for nought.
what i said was, you can't hop over to dell or gateway and buy a machine with many of these rumored g5 specs, of which i listed some. you seem to pick your fights strangely, because i don't see what was so offensive about this statement.
thatwendigo said:
Your quibbling over SATA aside, I disagree with nearly everything you had to say. Apple moves up a RAM speed in their towers and it's "not a big deal" (after people have complained about this at length in the past that you like to bring up [what now? you lost me here. who are you talking about?]). The SuperDrive is made standard without negatively effecting the the price and that's not a big deal, either. Moving to an industry standard on graphics is a minor point, but it's measurable improvement.
Interesting that you have nothing to say about the rest of it. Apple revamped the towers from the ground up, and you sit there and belittle it. That's fine, but don't expect me to sit here and listen to you call it "reason."
is a small ram speed bump a big deal in light of the jump from standard sdram to ddr in the g4s, the previous major ram-related revision? is incorporating the 9800, a card available for purchase elsewhere, a big deal compared to incorporating a workstation-class 16x graphics chipset that has never been available for the mac to date? what about doubling the hard drive and optical drive bays to four and two, respectively? is revamping the tower's form factor
again to make room for the extra components not impressive?
i'm not belittling the current g5s. i'm comparing them to the rumored specs to illustrate how close they are in terms of significance. this is all i said to start with, and if you've read this and understood it, how can you not concede that such a new machine would be at least in the same ballpark as the g5's introduction? i find it interesting that you've completely avoided this point. you choose to argue semantics instead of addressing the source, being my first post in this thread.
thatwendigo said:
I think that Jobs is arrogant and makes mistakes sometimes, but the man isn't stupid and he has to realize what going back on that announcement would mean in terms of ship-jumpers.
what announcement? last i checked, this was a rumor from a french mac site. don't tell me you've been arguing all this time with the wrong idea because you misread something.
thatwendigo said:
I just dropped quite a lot of material on you that you're apparently ignorant of. Imagine that.
what material? the urls that have little relevance?
thatwendigo said:
If you don't want to talk about it, then don't, but leave those of us who do want to alone. To paraphrase the late, great Thomas Jefferson, "It bothers me not what another man believes. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
oh, but it does pick your pocket so to speak, at the very least. it bothers you enough that you're willing to sit and reply repeatedly, making quotes and fetching links. how long did it take to assemble that list? no matter that it didn't relate to the discussion -- all you've proven is that various products are available for purchase
somewhere, not that one "whole widget" type manufacturer offers all of them standard -- you've got to include the text anyway, because we all know the more text you paste and the more quotes you quote the more awe-inspiring your case will appear. and links! i am mesmerized by your liney clickable blue characters and i submit.
also, i noticed that you took great care to list every single change that you could think of between the g4 and g5 systems, even going so far as to list sata controllers separate from sata drives. please. they go together. you don't have one without the other, now do you. in my earlier posts i mentioned the "revamped motherboard" as i put it, which covers all these bases; bus speed hand in hand with memory speed, expansion, and so on.
but you don't want to sacrifice any detail, no matter how small, that could make your argument look better. whatever it is that you're arguing about at this point, because it certainly doesn't involve computers. this fight has become personal for you. it's not about apple, it's not about the rumor at the top of the thread, it's about making the other guy admit defeat and give up. you don't care why you're debating, it just feels good to debate. no, for you there's no giving up, no limit to how long you'll go or what you'll say, no stop to blatantly provoking your opponent, but what you fail to realize is that for you there's no real point anymore.
my very first post on ths topic was a devil's advocate's view. pessimistic? absolutely! i feel that every argument should have all parties brought to the stand and represented equally, ragardless of plausability. my point was quite plausible indeed, i thought, because it reflects conservative and resourceful buisness practice. throughout my tenure here, the conservative view in regards to rumors has always been one that is under-represented due to the boisterous nature of the crowd.
so it seems that the roles have reversed: by continuing to debate, you support the statement from the french mac site as near-factual at the least. by continuing, you're saying that you'd rather support unverified speculations -- they're on page two for a reason, folks -- instead of using repeated history as a reference point. i believe that makes
you the devil's advocate. was that your intention to start with?
