Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1ghz G3 from IBM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Its not that there wasnt hierarchy back then, its that it didnt matter as much then. because there were less consumers that new a thing or 2 about computers.
People are looking at specs more than in 1997, thats why instead of just buying a packard bell they are buying a PC with what they think is a good cpu. This is also shown by the fact that there are alot more quality components, back then cpu heatsinks&fans were all pretty standard in comparison but nowadays you can get allsorts of them right from sh*tty orbs to thermaltakes.
People are looking at specs more than in 1997, thats why instead of just buying a packard bell they are buying a PC with what they think is a good cpu. This is also shown by the fact that there are alot more quality components, back then cpu heatsinks&fans were all pretty standard in comparison but nowadays you can get allsorts of them right from sh*tty orbs to thermaltakes.
dumb people in 1997?
Are you kidding me?
People paid *way* more attention to specs in 1997. The computer consumer of 1997 was *way* more geeky than the AOL-bred consumer (no offense to anyone reading this forum, of course) of today.
The Web, which introduced the masses to personal computing, was just taking off in 1997.
Not to mention that in 1997, software was much more demanding on the hardware that was available. Therefore, processor and memory speed made all the difference.
This was especially true for the graphic design (aka Macintosh) market, where the software really pushed the limits of the hardware.
Today, the majority of software doesn't push those limits as much. That's one of the major reason's we've seen such a slowdown in the purchase of PCs. There isn't as much of a need to go faster, because most of the software coming out runs just fine on the existing hardware.
Are you kidding me?
People paid *way* more attention to specs in 1997. The computer consumer of 1997 was *way* more geeky than the AOL-bred consumer (no offense to anyone reading this forum, of course) of today.
The Web, which introduced the masses to personal computing, was just taking off in 1997.
Not to mention that in 1997, software was much more demanding on the hardware that was available. Therefore, processor and memory speed made all the difference.
This was especially true for the graphic design (aka Macintosh) market, where the software really pushed the limits of the hardware.
Today, the majority of software doesn't push those limits as much. That's one of the major reason's we've seen such a slowdown in the purchase of PCs. There isn't as much of a need to go faster, because most of the software coming out runs just fine on the existing hardware.
jefhatfield
Retired
i just heard abc news say the same thing about why the computer market dried up...not much need to ge faster on many apps most people use
jefhatfield
Retired
also
also,the computer hardware companies did too good of a job and now that most users feel good about the speed of their machines...the huge record layoffs are happening in my neck of the woods (silicon valley) and it is scary
i saw many of the programmers get dumped in the 90s and now i see hardware engineers getting dumped (which was unheard of just a few years ago) for the first time in my working life...but there have been hardware slowdowns throughout the 60s and 70s in the valley which were almost as bad
i didn't think i would see compaq get sold off to hp, see cisco disappear from the headlines of business success, or even see apple's stock and investor confidence hit a 24 year low
apple would be toast if it were not for the rest of the industry being bad, but when the valley recovers, so will apple as well as many other companies and i would like to see apple with its original 10-11 percent share of the market on desktops and laptops, its stock living well at over 80 dollars a share, and cash reserves and market capitilization (adjsuted gross surplus; real dollars) in the 20+ billion arena
it would also be nice to see, let's say an lcd imac, list at between #1 to #5 in desktops at http://www.pcdata.com (like the original imac did in 1999)
we could again have america's number 1 selling desktop... go apple, inc.
also,the computer hardware companies did too good of a job and now that most users feel good about the speed of their machines...the huge record layoffs are happening in my neck of the woods (silicon valley) and it is scary
i saw many of the programmers get dumped in the 90s and now i see hardware engineers getting dumped (which was unheard of just a few years ago) for the first time in my working life...but there have been hardware slowdowns throughout the 60s and 70s in the valley which were almost as bad
i didn't think i would see compaq get sold off to hp, see cisco disappear from the headlines of business success, or even see apple's stock and investor confidence hit a 24 year low
apple would be toast if it were not for the rest of the industry being bad, but when the valley recovers, so will apple as well as many other companies and i would like to see apple with its original 10-11 percent share of the market on desktops and laptops, its stock living well at over 80 dollars a share, and cash reserves and market capitilization (adjsuted gross surplus; real dollars) in the 20+ billion arena
it would also be nice to see, let's say an lcd imac, list at between #1 to #5 in desktops at http://www.pcdata.com (like the original imac did in 1999)
we could again have america's number 1 selling desktop... go apple, inc.
killer app
We need a processor-intensive killer app to get the PC market kick-started again.
Hmmm.... maybe a video compression codec breakthrough that can stream video at unprecedented compression ratios, and requires some really kick-ass hardware to run it.
That could dislodge the cable television monopoly as well as kick start the PC market. Now wouldn't that be a nice side-benefit? 🙂
We need a processor-intensive killer app to get the PC market kick-started again.
Hmmm.... maybe a video compression codec breakthrough that can stream video at unprecedented compression ratios, and requires some really kick-ass hardware to run it.
That could dislodge the cable television monopoly as well as kick start the PC market. Now wouldn't that be a nice side-benefit? 🙂
Coming out already?
Ok, this is probably rambling, but I just ordered a new iBook this morning and there is a 10 day delay on shipping the thing. With the iPod shipping this weekend and this news of a new G3 chip, I'm wondering if maybe I'll get hooked up with a faster machine. Any thoughts?
Ok, this is probably rambling, but I just ordered a new iBook this morning and there is a 10 day delay on shipping the thing. With the iPod shipping this weekend and this news of a new G3 chip, I'm wondering if maybe I'll get hooked up with a faster machine. Any thoughts?
Being very hopeful.
I doubt a 1Ghz G3 will be out till the G5 is. And then i think a rush of good products will come.
I doubt a 1Ghz G3 will be out till the G5 is. And then i think a rush of good products will come.
jefhatfield
Retired
getting there slowly. I use a mix of quality and quantity (like im showing in this post........)
