actually ATX is the size of the motherboard. an ATX case is one that is designed for an ATX mobo.
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.
G4 --------->>> G5
- Thread starter Ensign Paris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
G4 2ghz
Apple astonish (Spelt Wrong, probably)
Thats how they work, they either totally let us down or totally blow our minds (Only half of my brain cells are still intact after the release of QuickSilver)
Apple may do, COME ON APPLE!!
Guy
Apple astonish (Spelt Wrong, probably)
Thats how they work, they either totally let us down or totally blow our minds (Only half of my brain cells are still intact after the release of QuickSilver)
Apple may do, COME ON APPLE!!
Guy
one or the other
it's one step forward, one step back
why do you think their stock sits at the same real dollar value as when it went public?
when the imac went public, i saw it at a college bookstore and i thought, "This thing is going to carry Apple for the next ten years!"
...now most posters here think that this machine is outdated...wow, how times fly in this business
ensign, i mean sir,
do you think it's about time for a G5 and an LCD imac?
[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-08-2001 at 05:51 PM]
it's one step forward, one step back
why do you think their stock sits at the same real dollar value as when it went public?
when the imac went public, i saw it at a college bookstore and i thought, "This thing is going to carry Apple for the next ten years!"
...now most posters here think that this machine is outdated...wow, how times fly in this business
ensign, i mean sir,
do you think it's about time for a G5 and an LCD imac?
[Edited by jefhatfield on 11-08-2001 at 05:51 PM]
Re: one or the other
I think an LCD iMac, maybe possibly a ShortNeck CRT one and G5 100ghz (No Chance) ok, maybe 2ghz ish
Sir Wickenden of Macintosh
I think an LCD iMac, maybe possibly a ShortNeck CRT one and G5 100ghz (No Chance) ok, maybe 2ghz ish
Sir Wickenden of Macintosh
hmmm LCD iMac seems a bit pricey. i would think we see a flatscreen iMac with maybe a DVD-burner first hopefully. More people would buy that machine. PLUS it truly would get DVD-burning into the average everyday machine, which would further accentuate Apple being head and shoulders above any sort of "competition" in hardware AND software to implement its uses. then you would also get rid of the "well i can burn cd's but i wanna be able to watch DVD's too" and just bypass the combo drive completely. please please pretty f*cking please.
the one thing to remember about the superdrive is that processor makes a difference...
a g4 is just able process the information to burn them at 2x
a g3 would take so much time to burn it, that you would buy a g4 and burn the dvd on the g4 in the time it takes to burn on the g3
(much exaggerated, but you get the point)
a g4 is just able process the information to burn them at 2x
a g3 would take so much time to burn it, that you would buy a g4 and burn the dvd on the g4 in the time it takes to burn on the g3
(much exaggerated, but you get the point)
That last post was so utterly exagerated. In all reality, IBM has had G3s at 1+Ghz for about a year or two, but Apple never wanted to have their low-end computers with larger numbers than those of their high-end computers. A good stragegy if you can convince the public that the other billion PCs out there that are doing tons more sucessful than the macs are just hoxes. Apple cares about quality and keeping peoples minds in a set perspective (never selling old models for long so people are forced into new technology). Dell and the like are worried more about sales minipulation of buyers' minds.
Ok, I went on a huge tangent there. Anyway, did you know that the G3s actually perform better than same Mhz G4s on almost any type of process when the G3 is put on a similar system configuration (Same graphics cards, bus speeds, ram speeds, etc...) Only in vector processing do G4s actually beat the G3s (no surprise considering it is doing 4x the work per cycle). With the release of the G5, there would truely be an overall advantage of the high end system to the low-end one. The G5 would do about twice the work per-cycle Mhz for Mhz. The G4's vector processing would no longer hold much of an incentive, so the G4 would probably be booted with the G3s taking much larger leaps in speed for each update. Apple is not dumb enough, though, to do this all of the sudden. They would have way too much left-over inventory of G4 chips. I would almost expect to see some quad-processor models w/G4s for a while until they can systematically eliminate them (current generation G4s exempted b/c they can only work in sets of two b/c of an archetecture flaw). That or they may do a quad processor G3 to get rid of the slow chips they have had to store. A 4x G3 @ 500Mhz would be an ideal server, for servers do not require much processing of vectors. I still want to see someone do a 32 processor G3 system (home-made with exposed parts of course). This would be the ultimate OSX BadAss! Even better, use the previous generation G4 (the 450 and 500Mhz ones) because they ARE able to work in more than pairs and OS X is disigned to more effectively utilize the 128bit vector processing unit. OS X can support up to 32 processors simultaniously (as anyone who knows much about the insides of OS X's would already know). OSX would basically give each open program its own processor to use, unless the person is disorganized enough to have over 31 active applications.
Well, I am just sort of rambling, so I will leave you to your now bloodshot eyes and fried brains. Sorry for any unorganized use of subject changes.
Adeú. Adeú.
Ok, I went on a huge tangent there. Anyway, did you know that the G3s actually perform better than same Mhz G4s on almost any type of process when the G3 is put on a similar system configuration (Same graphics cards, bus speeds, ram speeds, etc...) Only in vector processing do G4s actually beat the G3s (no surprise considering it is doing 4x the work per cycle). With the release of the G5, there would truely be an overall advantage of the high end system to the low-end one. The G5 would do about twice the work per-cycle Mhz for Mhz. The G4's vector processing would no longer hold much of an incentive, so the G4 would probably be booted with the G3s taking much larger leaps in speed for each update. Apple is not dumb enough, though, to do this all of the sudden. They would have way too much left-over inventory of G4 chips. I would almost expect to see some quad-processor models w/G4s for a while until they can systematically eliminate them (current generation G4s exempted b/c they can only work in sets of two b/c of an archetecture flaw). That or they may do a quad processor G3 to get rid of the slow chips they have had to store. A 4x G3 @ 500Mhz would be an ideal server, for servers do not require much processing of vectors. I still want to see someone do a 32 processor G3 system (home-made with exposed parts of course). This would be the ultimate OSX BadAss! Even better, use the previous generation G4 (the 450 and 500Mhz ones) because they ARE able to work in more than pairs and OS X is disigned to more effectively utilize the 128bit vector processing unit. OS X can support up to 32 processors simultaniously (as anyone who knows much about the insides of OS X's would already know). OSX would basically give each open program its own processor to use, unless the person is disorganized enough to have over 31 active applications.
Well, I am just sort of rambling, so I will leave you to your now bloodshot eyes and fried brains. Sorry for any unorganized use of subject changes.
Adeú. Adeú.