thatwendigo said:
[...] it seems that you want to try to draw me into a flamewar by picking and choosing what of my reply you'd like to respond to. [...] My point is that you came in here and started attacking people for supposedly having false beliefs about what Apple would do for the update of the G5 [...] What you don't seem to grasp is that I am merely engaging in a practice known as speculation and research, where I show off what might be there and then talk about what it could mean if it is.
pick and choose? i replied directly under your previous posts.
i attacked no-one. i too am speculating, so would you please not behead me for it? allow me to paste in my initial post:
"any one of these things would be great, but all of them at once? there's a new proc model AND the 3ghz landmark AND high-definition audio AND pci express AND mac-compatible fire gl cards AND dual layer dvd writing.
if these specs are alleged fact then i would doubt the accuracy of their source, and if it's just wild speculation then it's exactly that, wild and excessive. i hope i'm wrong."
now, i said this because the specs are so extreme. it looks as if whoever posted them added every cutting edge piece of hardware they could muster; it's a beast! what else is left to add? maybe quad procs, integrated fibre channel, or standard hardware raid 0+1/10. in short, it's suspicious and worthy of scrutiny.
and then, the first reply to this (syndicatex's) began,
"Argh! Some of you are so nieve and pessemistic!"
isn't that worthy of question? namely, why such ferocity? and, get this now, if you, wendigo, are not speaking in reference to my above quoted first post, then you are
no longer talking about the same thing that i am talking about.
---
and to clarify the rest...
thatwendigo said:
[*] You cannot buy machines at Dell or Gateway that do these things because Dell and Gateway are not bleeding-edge companies [...]
i never said they were. what i'm pointing out is that you
could buy hardware like this (if specs are true) from apple at less than bleeding edge prices. nobody else offers these things in the consumer price range, which is indeed the market i'm talking about. such a thing would be
significant *.
thatwendigo said:
[*] You continuously sidestep my main points and commit the same kind of semantic quibbling that you accuse me of. [...] To repeatedly point out the Radeon 9800 as sub-par (i did not, read again) [...] Also, if you're going to be knocking on Apple for the 16x graphics chipset (that's not what i said at all, you interpreted my comparison backwards), you need to attack PC OEMs, since nobody has PCI-Express yet, and there has never been a card for it in any computer (significant *).
you're the one who picked apart my wording and hardware list. you replied to me first, not vice versa. i continue to address semantics because you continue to quote me and misinterpret and misread my posts (as marked).
thatwendigo said:
[*] Changing form factor would be impressive, and I never denied it. You make allegations over things that I've never said, and in fact, which I wouldn't say.
and i never said nor implied that you stated the contrary. they are my words, not yours. sorry for any confusion (the heck?).
thatwendigo said:
[*] The URLs that I put up are all illustrative of the fact that these technologies you decry are all in machines that are currently for sale, or coming to the market in the next month. [...] workstations [...] $4000-$5000 computer with pro-graphics, pro-audio, dual Opterons, and most of what you said Apple wouldn't do.
i never mentioned any timeframe, i said available now. it was you who said "in the next month". also, i said in anything less than expensive workstation-class machines, since apple's pro line will no doubt be priced lower than 4 to 5k. such cheap pricing would be
significant *. also also, i never said apple wouldn't, i said it's not probable. we went over this.
thatwendigo said:
In short, I read your post, understood it perfectly (this has been brought into question) [...] I reply at length because detail and precision are important (i agree!) [...] you have yet to do anything other than attack and attempt to provoke. [...] This whole thread is about what might be seen, and that means that it ought to cover everything within reason [...]
nice of you to reply in a logical place.
you no longer seem to be on the same page. detail and precision should not be so painstakingly followed at the expense of the big picture or the root topic. it's very aggrivating to debate with someone who cannot stay on one thread (literally! look where you replied) and is so easily swept off course by details. if you are not going to address my main point, then do not reply to me, do not quote me, and do not refer to the content in my posts.
aye, speculation should encompass everything within reason, which i explained was my motivation for posting in this thread the first time. my point therein was reasonable because it showed in a concise (and obvious) fashion how the alleged specs may (may)
not be reasonable. but apparently one's opinion is not reasonable if you personally don't deem it so.
as for my tone, you're not one to point fingers. i like the way you try to shut down the other person. implying i haven't read your posts (after which i returned the favor), proclaiming "end of story", "i am ending it", "we're done here", and many instances of tactless sarcasm designed to get a rise. mm hmm, not provocative at all. no sir.
to tie the semantics to the main topic,
* significant points (some of them yours - thanks for contributing to my cause) have been marked that illustrate what an event the release of such a beast of a machine would be. it's significant enough in fact to warrant scrutiny and investigation of the speculations we all started out discussing. (see my initial post, quoted near the top of this one, for more details)
