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.
MacBidouille Rumors Followup
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Re: hey
Well, not exactly, but I did buy some additional shares of Apple when the music service started to look certain. Thats done me well so far, though many anti-apple analysts, (yes, the PC/Mac rift goes that deep sometimes, for both sides of the fence, think that the high sales are a blip).
All of that to say, MacB has had some ground breaking rumors in the past, I am trully sorry to see them stop publishing rumors. I am also sick of the automatic crapstorm that befalls new rumors these days. I've been comming to this site for a long time, but lately I just read because the discussion is deteriorating so much.
Well, not exactly, but I did buy some additional shares of Apple when the music service started to look certain. Thats done me well so far, though many anti-apple analysts, (yes, the PC/Mac rift goes that deep sometimes, for both sides of the fence, think that the high sales are a blip).
All of that to say, MacB has had some ground breaking rumors in the past, I am trully sorry to see them stop publishing rumors. I am also sick of the automatic crapstorm that befalls new rumors these days. I've been comming to this site for a long time, but lately I just read because the discussion is deteriorating so much.
Bryce 6 slated
from some Jack on corel.graphic_apps.bryce
Unfortunately, Bryce 6 is on hold at the moment. This from a post at Renderosity from someone who works at Corel, and was on the Bryce team, but is no longer.
Got a feeling that version 5 may be the last.
from some Jack on corel.graphic_apps.bryce
Unfortunately, Bryce 6 is on hold at the moment. This from a post at Renderosity from someone who works at Corel, and was on the Bryce team, but is no longer.
Got a feeling that version 5 may be the last.
I think we all need to relax. Everyone seems to really be venting when they find something that disproves the rumor for them. I mean, no one is forcing the rumor on you. Unlike religion. =) Deep breath everybody!
Besides, y'all KNOW that you won't turn your backs on MacBidoodoo - just look at SpyMac, that place is hopping with readers despite the whole iWalk thing... =D
Besides, y'all KNOW that you won't turn your backs on MacBidoodoo - just look at SpyMac, that place is hopping with readers despite the whole iWalk thing... =D
Re: Subterfuges
It was never claimed that they were completely fair side-by-side lab tests. However, what it does mean is that the Bryce comparison is irrelevant. That doesn't mean the 970 Bryce result is wrong but without Bryce 6 numbers for P4 and G4 there isn't much of a useful comparison to be made.
So, yes, I believe the numbers. But, no, the Bryce numbers don't mean much. The other numbers don't mean that much either without full system specs.
Still, it's interesting and has me anticipating the new systems. Which is all that should come out of the rumor....
It was never claimed that they were completely fair side-by-side lab tests. However, what it does mean is that the Bryce comparison is irrelevant. That doesn't mean the 970 Bryce result is wrong but without Bryce 6 numbers for P4 and G4 there isn't much of a useful comparison to be made.
So, yes, I believe the numbers. But, no, the Bryce numbers don't mean much. The other numbers don't mean that much either without full system specs.
Still, it's interesting and has me anticipating the new systems. Which is all that should come out of the rumor....
970 Performance
What kind of performance can we expect to see from the 970's when they come out, and in what speeds? Would they match or surpass PC speeds (not in clockspeed, but actual performance)? And not just on one or two Photoshop filters either...I would love to see something comparable to a 3Ghz P4...OsX would BLAZE on a machine like that...with a nice fast bus....rowr
What kind of performance can we expect to see from the 970's when they come out, and in what speeds? Would they match or surpass PC speeds (not in clockspeed, but actual performance)? And not just on one or two Photoshop filters either...I would love to see something comparable to a 3Ghz P4...OsX would BLAZE on a machine like that...with a nice fast bus....rowr
Re: Re: Language barrier
To my french eyes I agree it is authentic french syntax. The reason why they've been putting english translation, as you have put it, is to catter to the english audience coming from macrumors and others. A couple of weeks ago they were looking for a few bilingual people to help them (on a permanent basis) with english translations of their articles on their sites.
Now, on a different note, the reason why (I believe) they have so many rumours/infos flying around is that Apple Europe have a lot of French people in their ranks (I think 3 or 4 of the top 5 guys are french) and I guess they feel more inclined to give tidbits of info to a french site...
To answer a question I saw earlier, Apple is not BIG in France but I guess it's got 3-5% market share or something and going up (I was in Paris over the weekend and I was amazed by the number of Powerbook ads in the streets) after a few bad years. Of course the US remain the main market for Apple, but it would probably help their international ventures if they made an effort to give international users the same array of features... 'Nuff said.
NicoMan
Originally posted by richie
I see what you mean, but I don't think you're right... the reason they've been doing English translations for the last few stories is more than likely because macrumors has been bringing an English audience to their site - they retain the new viewers far mor easily if their site can actually be read.
As for the French syntax... it's very authentic French, to my (native) eye.
But I agree with the rest of your post about people being too hard on people posting rumours :/
To my french eyes I agree it is authentic french syntax. The reason why they've been putting english translation, as you have put it, is to catter to the english audience coming from macrumors and others. A couple of weeks ago they were looking for a few bilingual people to help them (on a permanent basis) with english translations of their articles on their sites.
Now, on a different note, the reason why (I believe) they have so many rumours/infos flying around is that Apple Europe have a lot of French people in their ranks (I think 3 or 4 of the top 5 guys are french) and I guess they feel more inclined to give tidbits of info to a french site...
To answer a question I saw earlier, Apple is not BIG in France but I guess it's got 3-5% market share or something and going up (I was in Paris over the weekend and I was amazed by the number of Powerbook ads in the streets) after a few bad years. Of course the US remain the main market for Apple, but it would probably help their international ventures if they made an effort to give international users the same array of features... 'Nuff said.
NicoMan
Agreed. They were provided the numbers from Bryce5 by Apple for the existing processors and Bryce6b for the 970 tests.
This doesn't throw all benchmarks in question, nor certainly indicate that the benchmarks are fabricated. It indicates that the compiler of the benchmarking results was just a bit lazy and not as careful as he should have been.
As before, I am more inclined to believe the MacBid numbers because they (1) lie within reason according to IBMs published facts and numbers, and (2) are coupled with other dev facts that make sense.
Re: Re: Language barrier
Thank you both for those comments, it is always nice to see some people thinking twice before acting or writing comments.....
By the way speaking french syntax or not, I will probably go further, I think their source might be english-speaking but not as its native language.... if it is a native english-speaking person then why contacting a french mac-fan site, whereas there are tens of such sites in US??? to avoid to be traced down by Apple or IBM?? benchmarks of the PPC 970 are just the last step of a story which started already few month ago!!! just wait and see, in less than 2 weeks we will know for sure.
BUT if macbidouille turns out to be right I do expect public excuse from those ****** who are commenting sometimes in quite rude language something which is just a rumor....
Originally posted by richie
I see what you mean, but I don't think you're right... the reason they've been doing English translations for the last few stories is more than likely because macrumors has been bringing an English audience to their site - they retain the new viewers far mor easily if their site can actually be read.
As for the French syntax... it's very authentic French, to my (native) eye.
But I agree with the rest of your post about people being too hard on people posting rumours :/
Thank you both for those comments, it is always nice to see some people thinking twice before acting or writing comments.....
By the way speaking french syntax or not, I will probably go further, I think their source might be english-speaking but not as its native language.... if it is a native english-speaking person then why contacting a french mac-fan site, whereas there are tens of such sites in US??? to avoid to be traced down by Apple or IBM?? benchmarks of the PPC 970 are just the last step of a story which started already few month ago!!! just wait and see, in less than 2 weeks we will know for sure.
BUT if macbidouille turns out to be right I do expect public excuse from those ****** who are commenting sometimes in quite rude language something which is just a rumor....
Agree ..There are people here whining and saying that those scores are BS. Yes probably the Bryce scores where fabricated, but they are certainly not BS. It has been mentioned here and in Ars that the 970 will be about twice as fast as the G4 in a per-clock basis. Now, Imagine how a system with two 970 processors at 1.8 GHz and such a wide BUS will perform. Then those numbers are not far from the truth!!!! I remember last year people whining that by the time the 970 is released the PIV where going to be at 4 GHz. Here we are, several months later and they are only at 3.2 GHz. Some people here are not realistic they are pessimistic (BIG DIFERENCE!)
Good to know!...
.."Apple" (who supposedly made the benchmarks) is a frequent visitor to Hotline etc.
However, it still doesn't explain why the test says "Bryce 5" and why the P4/G4 numbers are clearly the exact same as in the Barefeats-Bryce5-Test.
One would think they'd atleast run this hot w4reZ0r-Bryce6 on the Dual 1.42 G4 aswell, wouldn't you?
Also notice the amazingly low SMP-Factor of 1.38 (compared to a supposedly 400MHz SLOWER Power970, mind you!) in Cinema: P970 = Great SMP-Performer, wasn't that their claim? That's interesting, cause i have never seen a SMP-factor so low in C4D, not even with a Dual-Pentium1 (which *really* sucked cause of their shared L2-Cache!), especially not compared to a slower clocked Single-machine!
Oh, and here's another thing that wasn't spotted yet as it seems: The Photoshop-Results!
They're from the SP-Bench-Suite on Barefeats (check the Numbers!), a suite that ONLY uses Single-CPU filters. Oh my, why is the Dual P970 more than twice as fast as the Single (sorry: "Mono"!) P970 in this then?
Summing up: Bryce-Numbers obviously false, Cinema-Numbers obviously false, Photoshop-Numbers obviously false. What's left? Nothing!
Oh, i forgot, it's all the fault of the "language barrier" that kept me from percieving a few simple bargraphs and reading a few numbers. They count kinda silly in France (99 = four times 20, ten and nine), but last i heard the numbers 0-9 still meant the same there as they do here!
Forget it, dudes, this Benchmark is so clearly fake, it bewilders me how they can possibly think we'd buy *this*!
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in this i am actually led to believe it IS real since nobody can be so stupid to fake THAT badly! ;-)
<jedi-handwaving>These are not the benchmarks you are looking for!</jedi-handwaving>
I'm actually glad they play the princess now saying "whine! we won't publish any rumours anymore and keep em to ourselves, so there!" - Good! Great! That's exactly what i want, i don't want another hyping-up through rumours (from one site only, just like back then!) and then "disappointment" when Apple "doesn't deliver" what they never even vaguely promised like with the G5 back then!
P.S.: Remember the G5? Well, there were the exact same "rumours" from very credible "sources" flying around back then! Tony Smith of TheReg could tell you a story about "reliable sources"!
Read here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/22328.html
Or here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23078.html
Or here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/21692.html
..and now all sing Propellerheads: "..just a little bit of history repeating!.."
P.S.2: So they got the Quicksilver case right, okay. But 64-CPU "Xstations"? A f'en Workstation with 64 CPUs? From Apple? Gimme a break! And oh yeah, there is no 6-CPU-Computer on the planet, MacBidouille! It's 2/4/8/16/32/etc only, unless you count SGIs ccNUMA or similar big irons from IBM or Sun, but these are always way beyond 6 CPUs! And that AMD has bigger production capacities than IBM is certainly news to me, especially when IBM has such a big facilities-overhead they are desperately looking for people whose chips they can make (see: IBM aims to rival TSMC, IBM broadens PPC-Licensing: http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/mar2003/lead.html and http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984669.html?tag=fd_top )
.."Apple" (who supposedly made the benchmarks) is a frequent visitor to Hotline etc.
However, it still doesn't explain why the test says "Bryce 5" and why the P4/G4 numbers are clearly the exact same as in the Barefeats-Bryce5-Test.
One would think they'd atleast run this hot w4reZ0r-Bryce6 on the Dual 1.42 G4 aswell, wouldn't you?
Also notice the amazingly low SMP-Factor of 1.38 (compared to a supposedly 400MHz SLOWER Power970, mind you!) in Cinema: P970 = Great SMP-Performer, wasn't that their claim? That's interesting, cause i have never seen a SMP-factor so low in C4D, not even with a Dual-Pentium1 (which *really* sucked cause of their shared L2-Cache!), especially not compared to a slower clocked Single-machine!
Oh, and here's another thing that wasn't spotted yet as it seems: The Photoshop-Results!
They're from the SP-Bench-Suite on Barefeats (check the Numbers!), a suite that ONLY uses Single-CPU filters. Oh my, why is the Dual P970 more than twice as fast as the Single (sorry: "Mono"!) P970 in this then?
Summing up: Bryce-Numbers obviously false, Cinema-Numbers obviously false, Photoshop-Numbers obviously false. What's left? Nothing!
Oh, i forgot, it's all the fault of the "language barrier" that kept me from percieving a few simple bargraphs and reading a few numbers. They count kinda silly in France (99 = four times 20, ten and nine), but last i heard the numbers 0-9 still meant the same there as they do here!
Forget it, dudes, this Benchmark is so clearly fake, it bewilders me how they can possibly think we'd buy *this*!
There are so many inconsistencies and contradictions in this i am actually led to believe it IS real since nobody can be so stupid to fake THAT badly! ;-)
<jedi-handwaving>These are not the benchmarks you are looking for!</jedi-handwaving>
I'm actually glad they play the princess now saying "whine! we won't publish any rumours anymore and keep em to ourselves, so there!" - Good! Great! That's exactly what i want, i don't want another hyping-up through rumours (from one site only, just like back then!) and then "disappointment" when Apple "doesn't deliver" what they never even vaguely promised like with the G5 back then!
P.S.: Remember the G5? Well, there were the exact same "rumours" from very credible "sources" flying around back then! Tony Smith of TheReg could tell you a story about "reliable sources"!
Read here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/22328.html
Or here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/23078.html
Or here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/39/21692.html
..and now all sing Propellerheads: "..just a little bit of history repeating!.."
P.S.2: So they got the Quicksilver case right, okay. But 64-CPU "Xstations"? A f'en Workstation with 64 CPUs? From Apple? Gimme a break! And oh yeah, there is no 6-CPU-Computer on the planet, MacBidouille! It's 2/4/8/16/32/etc only, unless you count SGIs ccNUMA or similar big irons from IBM or Sun, but these are always way beyond 6 CPUs! And that AMD has bigger production capacities than IBM is certainly news to me, especially when IBM has such a big facilities-overhead they are desperately looking for people whose chips they can make (see: IBM aims to rival TSMC, IBM broadens PPC-Licensing: http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/products/powerpc/newsletter/mar2003/lead.html and http://news.com.com/2100-1001-984669.html?tag=fd_top )
In the end these are only rumours. Nothing less, nothing more. I expect that MacB made the graphs, etc, themselves from the data provided by the source, and that the source just didn't include any relevant information.
So I don't think that MacB made up any numbers or anything. However it is possible that their source was less than attentive with the benchmarking (esp. if it was done sneakily inside Apple, and the results jotted down on a piece of paper until the source got somewhere safe to send them).
It would be nice if the results were true, or at least indicative of the overall power of the new PowerMacs. A few tests doesn't show anything though, only a truly comprehensive testing can do that. These will only appear when the machines are released, however.
So I don't think that MacB made up any numbers or anything. However it is possible that their source was less than attentive with the benchmarking (esp. if it was done sneakily inside Apple, and the results jotted down on a piece of paper until the source got somewhere safe to send them).
It would be nice if the results were true, or at least indicative of the overall power of the new PowerMacs. A few tests doesn't show anything though, only a truly comprehensive testing can do that. These will only appear when the machines are released, however.
I just searched hotline very extensively and could find no trace of the elusive Bryce 6 Beta....
I'm not saying the benchmarks were definitely fabricated but it certainly looks like they were.
Regardless, the 970 exists, is smokin' fast, and is almost certainly going to make in appearance in macs sometime this year. That's good enough for me. I'll wait for real, verifiable, benchmarks to worry about performance.
I'm not saying the benchmarks were definitely fabricated but it certainly looks like they were.
Regardless, the 970 exists, is smokin' fast, and is almost certainly going to make in appearance in macs sometime this year. That's good enough for me. I'll wait for real, verifiable, benchmarks to worry about performance.
What happened to courtesy?
I can't speak for others, of course, but I read these forums for personal enjoyment and insights into what may be coming down the road, not to seek out gaffs that I can respond to quickly to feed my ego. When a rumor is posted that doesn't pass my personal reality check, I smile, and move on. If it's a simple error or inconsistency that begs a comment, I'll make that without emotional overtones and move on.
Flaming, denigrating, or otherwise overtly posting something that offends others in an vain attempt to underscore how much more savvy one is than the poster of a rumor is not only rude, but ineffective, especially if the poster was simply passing on the info because he/she was so excited to have come across it, and reduces the likelihood of them ever sharing such morsels again.
It's one thing to respond to someone who has historically posted inaccurate info and note, again unemotionally, that we should be wary of their postings. It's quite another to blatantly call a poster a liar, a faker, a ...whatever, just because you find something wrong with their postings.
Mac people WANT to share because they enjoy using the technology so much. If they screw up now and then, so what? Do we want people to share or not? If they don't, what are we going to talk about on these boards, the latest bug in Word? Who would care?
MacBidouille's postings over the past year have been pretty good, which is probably why so many have gotten involved in this thread. I know that's why I was so interested.
They clearly have access to some insiders, and I, for one, would sorely hate for them to not share in the future.
I can't speak for others, of course, but I read these forums for personal enjoyment and insights into what may be coming down the road, not to seek out gaffs that I can respond to quickly to feed my ego. When a rumor is posted that doesn't pass my personal reality check, I smile, and move on. If it's a simple error or inconsistency that begs a comment, I'll make that without emotional overtones and move on.
Flaming, denigrating, or otherwise overtly posting something that offends others in an vain attempt to underscore how much more savvy one is than the poster of a rumor is not only rude, but ineffective, especially if the poster was simply passing on the info because he/she was so excited to have come across it, and reduces the likelihood of them ever sharing such morsels again.
It's one thing to respond to someone who has historically posted inaccurate info and note, again unemotionally, that we should be wary of their postings. It's quite another to blatantly call a poster a liar, a faker, a ...whatever, just because you find something wrong with their postings.
Mac people WANT to share because they enjoy using the technology so much. If they screw up now and then, so what? Do we want people to share or not? If they don't, what are we going to talk about on these boards, the latest bug in Word? Who would care?
MacBidouille's postings over the past year have been pretty good, which is probably why so many have gotten involved in this thread. I know that's why I was so interested.
They clearly have access to some insiders, and I, for one, would sorely hate for them to not share in the future.
As for the "MB just published what they got"
Well - if that's the case, they would need a serious lesson in technical background!
I don't wanna come off as arrogant (too late, eh? ;-)), but writing for a Mac-Magazine myself i would check and doublecheck Benchmark-numbers of supposed future Apple hardware atleast 4 times and apply a good can of logic derived from a certain technical background (Bryce != Dual-CPU is a pretty well known fact f.ex, as is the Barefeats-Photoshop-SP-Suite being Single-CPU only! Also average C4D-SMP-Factors should be common knowledge if you're publishing technical articles like this!) if some "reliable source" sent these results to me!
That's a very important (if not THE most important!) part of the whole journo-biz: You just don't publish anything just because someone sends it to you claiming he/she's a "reliable source"!
And for those saying "it's just a rumour, it doesn't mean anything, calm down": Did you see what a dive Apples stockprice took when the G5 wasn't presented in Jan02, cause loads and loads of sites all linked either directly or indirectly to Tony Smith's stories on TheReg where he told us just how amazing the G5 will be, Benchmarks and all, and that it certainly will be released in January? Do you remember just how disappointed the whole community was? And because of what? Apple never promised anything, in fact they even gave us a hint through saying "there's much life left in the G4", but back then we were all too excited about what good old Tony told us on TheReg to listen!
Just realize the impact one single source can have on the whole community, Apples stockprice and the public's perception of Apple!
Well, Apples stockprice is on the rise again finally, due to good news from the iTunes-Store-Front, and i don't know about you, but I for my part certainly don't want to see the whole story repeat when the P970 is not released on/after WWDC!
(It seems the whole G5-thing wasn't completely false because as we all know now Moto canned the G5 midway, so Tony shouldn't take all the blame, actually Moto is the main culprit! Still, he should've chosen a more careful wording when writing his articles and should've constantly pointed out that this is all just a possibility! Apple itself certainly isn't to blame for the disaster, nevertheless they got all the FLAK for it! And you really wonder why Apple has a grudge against the rumour-sites? Well, look at the nose-dive their shares took after the G5 didn't come and just imagine how many hundreds of millions a "simple" rumour cost them! Btw: A close third after Moto and Tony are we, the whole community that just bought the rumours without questioning! That's why we should've learned our lesson and i for my part am extra-suspicious about rumours for future Apple-CPUs now!)
Well - if that's the case, they would need a serious lesson in technical background!
I don't wanna come off as arrogant (too late, eh? ;-)), but writing for a Mac-Magazine myself i would check and doublecheck Benchmark-numbers of supposed future Apple hardware atleast 4 times and apply a good can of logic derived from a certain technical background (Bryce != Dual-CPU is a pretty well known fact f.ex, as is the Barefeats-Photoshop-SP-Suite being Single-CPU only! Also average C4D-SMP-Factors should be common knowledge if you're publishing technical articles like this!) if some "reliable source" sent these results to me!
That's a very important (if not THE most important!) part of the whole journo-biz: You just don't publish anything just because someone sends it to you claiming he/she's a "reliable source"!
And for those saying "it's just a rumour, it doesn't mean anything, calm down": Did you see what a dive Apples stockprice took when the G5 wasn't presented in Jan02, cause loads and loads of sites all linked either directly or indirectly to Tony Smith's stories on TheReg where he told us just how amazing the G5 will be, Benchmarks and all, and that it certainly will be released in January? Do you remember just how disappointed the whole community was? And because of what? Apple never promised anything, in fact they even gave us a hint through saying "there's much life left in the G4", but back then we were all too excited about what good old Tony told us on TheReg to listen!
Just realize the impact one single source can have on the whole community, Apples stockprice and the public's perception of Apple!
Well, Apples stockprice is on the rise again finally, due to good news from the iTunes-Store-Front, and i don't know about you, but I for my part certainly don't want to see the whole story repeat when the P970 is not released on/after WWDC!
(It seems the whole G5-thing wasn't completely false because as we all know now Moto canned the G5 midway, so Tony shouldn't take all the blame, actually Moto is the main culprit! Still, he should've chosen a more careful wording when writing his articles and should've constantly pointed out that this is all just a possibility! Apple itself certainly isn't to blame for the disaster, nevertheless they got all the FLAK for it! And you really wonder why Apple has a grudge against the rumour-sites? Well, look at the nose-dive their shares took after the G5 didn't come and just imagine how many hundreds of millions a "simple" rumour cost them! Btw: A close third after Moto and Tony are we, the whole community that just bought the rumours without questioning! That's why we should've learned our lesson and i for my part am extra-suspicious about rumours for future Apple-CPUs now!)
Re: Good to know!...
Then why do you even read rumor sites? If every rumor site that ever got someting wrong stopped publishing rumors, there wouldn't be any sites left! Let's remember, part of the fun or 'rumoring' is discussing whether we think they're true or false. If everyone's rumors turned out to be true, these boards would be pretty boring.
I personally don't think MacB's benchmarks were malicious or meant to deceive. I think they simply passed on some info from a source that they've trusted in the past. If the benchmarks turn out to be bogus (and I think it's pretty clear that they are), the most we can ask is that they not be so quick to trust this source in the future. I hope they continue to post rumors that they think are reliable.
Then why do you even read rumor sites? If every rumor site that ever got someting wrong stopped publishing rumors, there wouldn't be any sites left! Let's remember, part of the fun or 'rumoring' is discussing whether we think they're true or false. If everyone's rumors turned out to be true, these boards would be pretty boring.
I personally don't think MacB's benchmarks were malicious or meant to deceive. I think they simply passed on some info from a source that they've trusted in the past. If the benchmarks turn out to be bogus (and I think it's pretty clear that they are), the most we can ask is that they not be so quick to trust this source in the future. I hope they continue to post rumors that they think are reliable.
It's actually worse than that.
As Kai also points out, the numbers on the Photoshop tests clearly show that the benchmarker is using the "SP actions" Photoshop file from BareFeats. This means that this benchmark DOES NOT benefit from multiple processors. Yet the DP 970 is more than twice as fast as the SP 970 in this benchmark! So clearly the Photoshop results are faked as well.
There are only two possible explanations:
(1) The benchmarks are completely faked.
(2) There were tests run on the 970, but these tests were COMPLETELY different from the ones that are posted on the BareFeats site. Thus the 970 results are cannot be compared in any meaningful way to the G4/P4 results. It would be like saying that a Mac Plus is faster than a G4 because the Mac Plus can scroll though a 2 page Word document faster than the G4 can calculate pi to 6 million significant digits - you're not even running the same task on both machines.
The likelihood of (1) being true is substantially higher, which unfortunately means that most of MacBd's rumors from this "source" are probably false. But either way, these benchmarks are worthless and should be ignored.
Some other thoughts on the MacB rumors
June-July 2003: PPC 970 PowerMac and Xserve, PowerBooks with G4 @ 1.25 GHz.
This is the big one, on top of all the previous hardware and software announcements of this year.
August-September 2003: iMacs with 1.25 and 1.4GHz G4 processors.
Just two months later, these speed bumps for the iMac. I'm guessing they'll also get a 167 Mhz bus.
November 2003: iBook still equiped with G3 processors, but Apple will now use the Gobi version of the processor at 1 and 1.2 GHz.
Again, just two months later. This is an interesting one because it will mean that the iBook will get a next generation processor _before_ the iMac or the PowerBook. Unless of course, they announce a 15" PPC 970 PowerBook before then. And what will the bus speed be for the Gobi G3? 200 Mhz?
Of course, these are rumors and it's anyone's guess what will really happen. But it sure looks like a busy year for Apple.
June-July 2003: PPC 970 PowerMac and Xserve, PowerBooks with G4 @ 1.25 GHz.
This is the big one, on top of all the previous hardware and software announcements of this year.
August-September 2003: iMacs with 1.25 and 1.4GHz G4 processors.
Just two months later, these speed bumps for the iMac. I'm guessing they'll also get a 167 Mhz bus.
November 2003: iBook still equiped with G3 processors, but Apple will now use the Gobi version of the processor at 1 and 1.2 GHz.
Again, just two months later. This is an interesting one because it will mean that the iBook will get a next generation processor _before_ the iMac or the PowerBook. Unless of course, they announce a 15" PPC 970 PowerBook before then. And what will the bus speed be for the Gobi G3? 200 Mhz?
Of course, these are rumors and it's anyone's guess what will really happen. But it sure looks like a busy year for Apple.
Re: Courtesy
I actually have NO problem with people posting their misgivings with the validity of posted rumors. It's the TONE of their comments that I'm addressing.
Just because one can be anonymous on these boards if one chooses, doesn't justify such rudeness.
If MacBidouille's posting makes no sense to you, simply say so, and why, as you have.
However, some on these boards are actively attacking them, accusing them of creating false data to mislead, while presenting no evidence to support such an accusation with the current rumor, or history of such malfeasance. That's my gripe.
I actually have NO problem with people posting their misgivings with the validity of posted rumors. It's the TONE of their comments that I'm addressing.
Just because one can be anonymous on these boards if one chooses, doesn't justify such rudeness.
If MacBidouille's posting makes no sense to you, simply say so, and why, as you have.
However, some on these boards are actively attacking them, accusing them of creating false data to mislead, while presenting no evidence to support such an accusation with the current rumor, or history of such malfeasance. That's my gripe.
Re: What happened to courtesy?
Well put, Dave. It astounds me the vehemence that some people use when calling, not just the original poster of a rumor, but also those that say that there could be some credibility to a rumor, stupid, gullible, drunk, high, or what-have-you. Such personal attacks are, as you said, rude and counter productive.
These rumors are here as entertainment, and to provide some level of information. But they are still rumors, and as such, all should be taken with varying sizes of grains of salt. (Some my take a grain of salt the size of the moon, but that's another issue, and I certainly don't think that this rumor is one that needs that big a grain.
)
Well put, Dave. It astounds me the vehemence that some people use when calling, not just the original poster of a rumor, but also those that say that there could be some credibility to a rumor, stupid, gullible, drunk, high, or what-have-you. Such personal attacks are, as you said, rude and counter productive.
These rumors are here as entertainment, and to provide some level of information. But they are still rumors, and as such, all should be taken with varying sizes of grains of salt. (Some my take a grain of salt the size of the moon, but that's another issue, and I certainly don't think that this rumor is one that needs that big a grain.
)Rumours:
Rumours are great. I love em. I love discussing them. But, and here comes the important bit: If something is so obviously fake as this one (believe me: Barefeats was the first page i surfed to for comparison as i know that Photoshop/Bryce/C4D is their usual test-suite!) it simply angers me if the person publishing the "rumour" doesn't even apply the most basic common knowledge to verify the numbers before publishing!
If i get some "rumour" i check it thoroughly before publishing it, and i choose very careful wording in my article. Or if it's all over the newspages already i write about it and debunk it in the same article.
There are good fakes and bad fakes. I would never blame anyone for falling for a really well crafted fake, like e.g. the iWalk back then! However, this is a bad fake, and MB should've seen it themselves before publishing it!
I just hate it when such a bad fake gets such exposure as this one currently does! Oh look, it seems it's gone from Slashdot now! ;-) Good, finally someone took action against it!
Rumours are great. I love em. I love discussing them. But, and here comes the important bit: If something is so obviously fake as this one (believe me: Barefeats was the first page i surfed to for comparison as i know that Photoshop/Bryce/C4D is their usual test-suite!) it simply angers me if the person publishing the "rumour" doesn't even apply the most basic common knowledge to verify the numbers before publishing!
If i get some "rumour" i check it thoroughly before publishing it, and i choose very careful wording in my article. Or if it's all over the newspages already i write about it and debunk it in the same article.
There are good fakes and bad fakes. I would never blame anyone for falling for a really well crafted fake, like e.g. the iWalk back then! However, this is a bad fake, and MB should've seen it themselves before publishing it!
I just hate it when such a bad fake gets such exposure as this one currently does! Oh look, it seems it's gone from Slashdot now! ;-) Good, finally someone took action against it!
Re: Some other thoughts on the MacB rumors
I really don't see the latter part of this happening. I just don't see how they can put a 1.25GHz G4 into a PowerBook. They're just too hot. At least the 7455 are. So, are we talking about the 7457? In that case, I'd say that it's just as much a mythical (at this point) processor as the 970, with one big difference. The 970 is being made by IBM (someone that we have some reasonable confidence in), whereas the 7457 is being made by Moto (who we have little or no confidence in). My bet is on seeing a 970 based PowerBook over a 1.25GHz G4 PowerBook. I just hope that we see such before next year, as the 1GHz G4 PowerBook is already getting long in the tooth...
I really don't see the latter part of this happening. I just don't see how they can put a 1.25GHz G4 into a PowerBook. They're just too hot. At least the 7455 are. So, are we talking about the 7457? In that case, I'd say that it's just as much a mythical (at this point) processor as the 970, with one big difference. The 970 is being made by IBM (someone that we have some reasonable confidence in), whereas the 7457 is being made by Moto (who we have little or no confidence in). My bet is on seeing a 970 based PowerBook over a 1.25GHz G4 PowerBook. I just hope that we see such before next year, as the 1GHz G4 PowerBook is already getting long in the tooth...