And Apple would scr*w its developers? When would they teach them the benefit of 64bits computing, how to use the new tools, which libraries to link against?
Developers are part of Apples future, Apple needs to take care of them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Motorola 7457 in Q4 2003
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Developers are part of Apples future, Apple needs to take care of them.
If a 64-bit OS X is under development, Apple has already been screwing with them by not giving them advance tools. Surprising the developers with a shipping 64-bit system in June is absurd.
When other companies rolled out 64-bit systems, the equivalent of the ADC had the 64-bit tools available long before any working hardware.
MSDN has had 64-bit tools and 64-bit previews at least a year before Itanium.
Apple's "cult of secrecy" is self-destructive. Let the developers onboard early, and let the customers plan their purchases.
Re: Re: Hey, lighten up guys & gals 
Yes, the "average consumer" does buy a PC. Why, because they're cheaper. And because the average computer store clerk doesn't know a Mac from a hole in the ground. The "far more apps" argument is ignorant saleman speak. What apps used by the average person are not available on the Mac? I can't think of any. And I do some pretty far-out stuff. Games, true, there are more on the PC. Most of them are just clones of each other though. How many hundred first-person shooters does the average human need? As for not caring about user interface, I disagree. A few of my computer shopping acquaintances who were lucky enough to see my flat-panel iMac in action were quite impressed by the user interface, both in appearance and ease of use. Sure, they don't care if it's UNIX based or not. I do, but I certainly don't want to have to learn UNIX. That's why I run OS X instead of Linux. Most of the people I know who have any knowledge of Macs, and who bought a PC anyways, did it for only 1 reason: price. And maybe because some ignorant salesperson told them "Oh, don't buy a Mac, there's no software for them.".
While I agree with you that a 1,000$ PC will handle most modern games quite well, I disagree that a low-end Mac (albeit more expensive) will struggle with them. My 700 MHz G4 iMac has no trouble with any of the games that I or my kids play (I have about 20 to 30 on my machines). No, I don't own Quake. Not my style. But I have a few pretty demanding ones, like X-Plane and Summoner. The iMac has no trouble with them at all, even if it's slower than the current low-end machines. Even my 5-year-old 350 MHz G3 does pretty good with them.
It's true that consumer's usually will want the fastest machine they can afford. Actually, they don't really want the fastest machine, they want the one with the most GHz. They wouldn't buy a PPC 970 PowerMac either because it only has 1.8 GHz, and it's 3,000$. Man, those Apple dudes are NUTS if they think I'm going to pay 3,000$ for a 1.8 GHz computer. Not much Apple can do about that, unless they want to start selling Intel/AMD-based machines, and begin shouting "GigaHertz!". Those types of buyer's are lost causes. Forget them. But some people just want a computer that works, and is easy & fun to use. They don't care if it's a H67+A processor in there or a KJ7-21. Show them something that works, is affordable & fun, and they'll buy it. Apple's doing pretty good in the base consumer market, IMHO. They only need to get their prices a bit lower. More in line with low-end PCs.
The high-end/server/pro markets, now those are really suffering right now. The educated buyer doesn't care about GHz, but they do care about benchmarks. PPC 970 saves the day... Oh, and while I agree with you that a server OS doesn't have to be pretty, I don't think it's a bad thing. Actually, those IT types probably love it, but would never admit it in front of witnesses... hehe It does have to be well designed, easy-to-use and efficient though. And from what I've heard, OS X Server has it all, including pretty.
Yes, the "average consumer" does buy a PC. Why, because they're cheaper. And because the average computer store clerk doesn't know a Mac from a hole in the ground. The "far more apps" argument is ignorant saleman speak. What apps used by the average person are not available on the Mac? I can't think of any. And I do some pretty far-out stuff. Games, true, there are more on the PC. Most of them are just clones of each other though. How many hundred first-person shooters does the average human need? As for not caring about user interface, I disagree. A few of my computer shopping acquaintances who were lucky enough to see my flat-panel iMac in action were quite impressed by the user interface, both in appearance and ease of use. Sure, they don't care if it's UNIX based or not. I do, but I certainly don't want to have to learn UNIX. That's why I run OS X instead of Linux. Most of the people I know who have any knowledge of Macs, and who bought a PC anyways, did it for only 1 reason: price. And maybe because some ignorant salesperson told them "Oh, don't buy a Mac, there's no software for them.".
While I agree with you that a 1,000$ PC will handle most modern games quite well, I disagree that a low-end Mac (albeit more expensive) will struggle with them. My 700 MHz G4 iMac has no trouble with any of the games that I or my kids play (I have about 20 to 30 on my machines). No, I don't own Quake. Not my style.
But I have a few pretty demanding ones, like X-Plane and Summoner. The iMac has no trouble with them at all, even if it's slower than the current low-end machines. Even my 5-year-old 350 MHz G3 does pretty good with them.It's true that consumer's usually will want the fastest machine they can afford. Actually, they don't really want the fastest machine, they want the one with the most GHz.
They wouldn't buy a PPC 970 PowerMac either because it only has 1.8 GHz, and it's 3,000$. Man, those Apple dudes are NUTS if they think I'm going to pay 3,000$ for a 1.8 GHz computer. Not much Apple can do about that, unless they want to start selling Intel/AMD-based machines, and begin shouting "GigaHertz!". Those types of buyer's are lost causes. Forget them. But some people just want a computer that works, and is easy & fun to use. They don't care if it's a H67+A processor in there or a KJ7-21. Show them something that works, is affordable & fun, and they'll buy it. Apple's doing pretty good in the base consumer market, IMHO. They only need to get their prices a bit lower. More in line with low-end PCs.The high-end/server/pro markets, now those are really suffering right now. The educated buyer doesn't care about GHz, but they do care about benchmarks. PPC 970 saves the day...
Oh, and while I agree with you that a server OS doesn't have to be pretty, I don't think it's a bad thing. Actually, those IT types probably love it, but would never admit it in front of witnesses... hehe It does have to be well designed, easy-to-use and efficient though. And from what I've heard, OS X Server has it all, including pretty. mathiasr:
Important developers will probably be taken care of quite well, I'm sure you can stop worrying about Apple screwing it up.
Important developers will probably be taken care of quite well, I'm sure you can stop worrying about Apple screwing it up.
If you have to tell developers why 64 bits are or are not useful to their project then... there is a problem with the developer. The tools have essentially not changed. Linking to libraries is not a big deal. You seem to be vastly overestimating the changes required for this "exciting" new 64-bitness.
The Itanium? Yeah, there's a processor on its way into consumer machines.
As for the "cult of secrecy," its actually useful for Apple. Sure, it's also a little weird, but it keeps Apple's "Always ahead of the curve" development secret to grabby PC companies (*cough, Dell, *cough*cough, Microsoft, cough*).
I don't think the 'cult of secrecy' is at all of benefit to Apple, it's been going on for FAR TOO LONG, and certainly not to it's decreasing size of happy users, with all these endless rumors, and a spectacular lack of direction.
There is nothing more satisfying in 'user' experience than a more snappy interface on the fastest computer (Pro PC users, particularly those that couldn't wait for Apple/Moto/IBM any longer know that) ... that is why people are crying out for faster CPUs in Macs ... the OSX benefits only takes you so far. However unreliable PCs may have been in the past, seems they're really happy with XP.
I had a saleman tell me that 'Apple Macs are so far behind PCs and that no one knows when, or if, they will ever catch up ... but hey if you want to cling to rumors and pay too much for a small speed bump, go right ahead ...' It has become a huge joke to them!
Maybe Intel knows something. Seems they will annouce their new 3.2GHz P4 early (June 16) for 'marketing reasons' instead of June 23...maybe to try and dent the 970 announcement???? at WWDC.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30982.html
There is nothing more satisfying in 'user' experience than a more snappy interface on the fastest computer (Pro PC users, particularly those that couldn't wait for Apple/Moto/IBM any longer know that) ... that is why people are crying out for faster CPUs in Macs ... the OSX benefits only takes you so far. However unreliable PCs may have been in the past, seems they're really happy with XP.
I had a saleman tell me that 'Apple Macs are so far behind PCs and that no one knows when, or if, they will ever catch up ... but hey if you want to cling to rumors and pay too much for a small speed bump, go right ahead ...' It has become a huge joke to them!
Maybe Intel knows something. Seems they will annouce their new 3.2GHz P4 early (June 16) for 'marketing reasons' instead of June 23...maybe to try and dent the 970 announcement???? at WWDC.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30982.html
Re: Apple is silencing IBM? Haha!
I am not sure what MIA and AWOL mean.
Go here and have a look:
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/photolib...etails and is not likely to be fake... as if!
I am not sure what MIA and AWOL mean.
Go here and have a look:
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/photolib...etails and is not likely to be fake... as if!
While I agree that Apple's secrecy has its downsides, consider this: In January, Apple announces plans to switch Powermacs to the 970 in June. Who the hell is going to buy a Powermac now? Apple's market share is too small to lose business because they let some info slip.
Also, imagine if Apple had trusted Motorola's when they had their little roadmap for the G5. Apple would have said something like: "G5-January 2002." Whoops! Moto's a deadbeat and the G5 doesn't actually exist! You see my point.
I'm not saying Apple's secrecy is all good, but it's done for a reason.
The feathers aren't wearing anti-static straps
AWOL = Absent WithOut Leave
It may not be a working chip either.... At the Alpha EV-5 introduction Digital was handing out business cards with a dud chip laminated to the card. Digital also glued dud MicroVAX II chips to one year's annual reports.
If all you've got to show is a photo of a chip with feathers, that says a lot!
MIA = Missing In Action
AWOL = Absent WithOut Leave
It may not be a working chip either.... At the Alpha EV-5 introduction Digital was handing out business cards with a dud chip laminated to the card. Digital also glued dud MicroVAX II chips to one year's annual reports.
If all you've got to show is a photo of a chip with feathers, that says a lot!
The 970 isn't MIA or AWOL, but the G5 is. Call me just a little bitter towards Motorola for that.
Re: Re: Hey, lighten up guys & gals
Well, I'm no computer design engineer. But I would have thought it would be pretty complicated. The fact that the PPC 970 is 64-bit, and that's it's FSB is completely different from the 74xx. Needs new motherboard design, new support chips, etc... Don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't discount the sexiness factor so quickly. hehe Most PowerBook owners are business types And as for speed, I'm sure a 1 GHz G4 holds it's own against a 1.7 GHz Pentium. The really high-end ones might be a touch faster. But the problem there is minimal compared to the destop situation. More speed wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it would help much either.
Ah, GigaHertz, SchmigaHertz. Tell it to the hand! (See my earlier post on this)
Well, I'm no computer design engineer. But I would have thought it would be pretty complicated. The fact that the PPC 970 is 64-bit, and that's it's FSB is completely different from the 74xx. Needs new motherboard design, new support chips, etc... Don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong.
Don't discount the sexiness factor so quickly. hehe Most PowerBook owners are business types
And as for speed, I'm sure a 1 GHz G4 holds it's own against a 1.7 GHz Pentium. The really high-end ones might be a touch faster. But the problem there is minimal compared to the destop situation. More speed wouldn't hurt, but I don't think it would help much either.Ah, GigaHertz, SchmigaHertz. Tell it to the hand!
(See my earlier post on this)Re: PowerMac sales
Yup. My next new PowerMac will be a dual processor 1.8 GHz PPC 970, with at least 200 MHz true DDR RAM. Not going to settle for less. I'll hold out as long as it takes. Still got plenty of upgrade options coming for my Blue & White.
Yup. My next new PowerMac will be a dual processor 1.8 GHz PPC 970, with at least 200 MHz true DDR RAM. Not going to settle for less. I'll hold out as long as it takes. Still got plenty of upgrade options coming for my Blue & White.
To some extend, yes
I would still have some questions pending: will 32 bits kernel extensions (drivers) run on the 64 bits kernel, how to ensure a CPU has AltiVec units, when compiling a generic 32 bits app should I optimise for G3/G4 or 970 instruction scheduling, since the 970 has twice as much L1 instruction cache should I try more aggressive loop unrolling, if the cache-lines are 4 times bigger on the 970 how would this impact dcbt hints, is there a way to customize the message displayed when a 64 bits app is launched on a 32 bits kernel...
Re: Re: Re: Hey, lighten up guys & gals
VPN client software. PeopleSoft. Custom-built oracle stuff. Any other custom apps that the company you work for uses. DSP control/programming software. Any kind of specialized hardware interface programs. Various types of CAD programs (e.g. PCB design). Sophisticated audio measurement software. The list goes on.
This is not really true. There is a great variety of games on the PC, and a great many of them are very good and yet not ported to the Mac. And when they are ported, many of them don't run very well...and this is usually due to anemic hardware and drivers on the Mac side, not the quality of the porting developers (the latter usually seems very good actually).
My friends are also impressed with my Mac when they see it...but really, I think their understanding and appreciation of it is far less than you or I. Certainly it is not enough to persuade most of them to get a Mac.
The word "game" covers a broad spectrum. It can refer to everything from Solitaire to Doom 3. If we are talking about the former, naturally anything can run it. But what about Warbirds 3, WWII online, Neverwinter Nights, Everquest, Jedi Knight 2, Unreal 2003, etc etc etc etc. Try these on any new Mac you can get under $1500...then try them on a $1200 PC. You will see exactly how outdated Mac hardware is.
The sad truth is the Mac is behind in both GHz and real performance, at all price points. This fact in and of itself is not the problem, since it has been true for almost the entire history of the Mac. The problem now is, we are way behind the price/performance curve; IOW, we are paying a relatively huge premium for the priviledge of running OSX.
At the present time, personally, I feel that this premium is too high...right now, I would rather get an XP/Linux box than a G4 OSX box. If the MacB rumors pan out and we get 970s shipping next month...then we will still be behind the price/performance curve, but the gap will be closer and the "OSX premium" will be lower; if that happens, then I will personally see the Mac as a better deal than the PC. So I am waiting.
Correct me if wrong, but the sense I am getting here (and in many other posts) is, "the average consumer doesn't need anything more powerful than an iMac, because he is just doing email and web and word and a few low power games." But then by the same token, the average user doesn't need the power and capabilities and advantages of OSX. Objectively, all the above tasks are easily accomplished in XP; the OSX advantage is extremely marginal in this case.
VPN client software. PeopleSoft. Custom-built oracle stuff. Any other custom apps that the company you work for uses. DSP control/programming software. Any kind of specialized hardware interface programs. Various types of CAD programs (e.g. PCB design). Sophisticated audio measurement software. The list goes on.
This is not really true. There is a great variety of games on the PC, and a great many of them are very good and yet not ported to the Mac. And when they are ported, many of them don't run very well...and this is usually due to anemic hardware and drivers on the Mac side, not the quality of the porting developers (the latter usually seems very good actually).
My friends are also impressed with my Mac when they see it...but really, I think their understanding and appreciation of it is far less than you or I.
Certainly it is not enough to persuade most of them to get a Mac.Originally posted by ZeeOwl
While I agree with you that a 1,000$ PC will handle most modern games quite well, I disagree that a low-end Mac (albeit more expensive) will struggle with them. My 700 MHz G4 iMac has no trouble with any of the games that I or my kids play (I have about 20 to 30 on my machines). No, I don't own Quake. Not my style.
The word "game" covers a broad spectrum. It can refer to everything from Solitaire to Doom 3. If we are talking about the former, naturally anything can run it. But what about Warbirds 3, WWII online, Neverwinter Nights, Everquest, Jedi Knight 2, Unreal 2003, etc etc etc etc. Try these on any new Mac you can get under $1500...then try them on a $1200 PC. You will see exactly how outdated Mac hardware is.
Originally posted by ZeeOwl
It's true that consumer's usually will want the fastest machine they can afford. Actually, they don't really want the fastest machine, they want the one with the most GHz.
The sad truth is the Mac is behind in both GHz and real performance, at all price points. This fact in and of itself is not the problem, since it has been true for almost the entire history of the Mac. The problem now is, we are way behind the price/performance curve; IOW, we are paying a relatively huge premium for the priviledge of running OSX.
At the present time, personally, I feel that this premium is too high...right now, I would rather get an XP/Linux box than a G4 OSX box. If the MacB rumors pan out and we get 970s shipping next month...then we will still be behind the price/performance curve, but the gap will be closer and the "OSX premium" will be lower; if that happens, then I will personally see the Mac as a better deal than the PC. So I am waiting.
Correct me if wrong, but the sense I am getting here (and in many other posts) is, "the average consumer doesn't need anything more powerful than an iMac, because he is just doing email and web and word and a few low power games." But then by the same token, the average user doesn't need the power and capabilities and advantages of OSX. Objectively, all the above tasks are easily accomplished in XP; the OSX advantage is extremely marginal in this case.
Originally posted by pyrotoaster
The 970 isn't MIA or AWOL, but the G5 is. Call me just a little bitter towards Motorola for that.
I want closure.
Did the 'G5' as Apple users understand it (i.e. not the embedded 'G5') ever exist?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, lighten up guys & gals
That's far from "average user" stuff, but I'll do my best to address it anyways. I have a PBC design program (DesignWorks Pro). It's even OS X native. Quite good too. There are at least a half-dozen excellent CAD programs on the Mac. Vellum & RealCADD come to mind. I've seen a few good ones specifically for architects too, like ArchiCAD. But since that's not my specialty, I really can't comment on them. I'm more into animation. On the specialized enterprise/server stuff, you've lost me. I know nothing about it. I'm sure you can do quite a bit with OS X Server. And I've heard there are some high-end database apps available under it, in either OS X or UNIX environments. I don't know the specifics, of course.
I'm just relaying my impression from looking at the shelves in the typical gaming aisle. They all look pretty much the same to me. Half of them are first-person shooters, and most of the rest are third-person shooters. But I do occasionally see an interesting looking one. And the only one of those I've ever seen that was not ported to the Mac was Pharoah. All the ones I've bought run fine on both my Macs, even the 350 MHz G3. Only Falcon 4 and X-Plane are a bit sluggish. But the machine is 5 years old. Cut it some slack. 800 Mhz G3 upgrade on it's way... hehe
Well, as we both mentioned, price is a major incentive for the average human...
I don't own any "Solitaire" category games. I know a lot of PC owners who do though! lol I don't have Doom (or Quake or Jedi Knight), not my style. Warbirds III runs fine though, as does Summoner, X-Plane, Falcon 4, Pod Racer, Caesar III, Sim City 3000, Tropico. Those are pretty system taxing games. Maybe it's just the shooter's that don't run well... I don't have any.
It's been behind in GHz most of it's existence, true. In raw performance, I disagree. That only started about 3 years ago. Now, way behind in price/performance, I 100% agree. For the average consumer, I don't think that that is such a huge issue. It's more the price than the performance that's a problem, for Apple's consumer sales. The buyer who only (out of pseudo-expertise) cares about GHz will never buy a Mac, ever, case closed. For the pro/high-end enterprise markets though, it is becoming a huge problem. I feel the pain, I'm an animator. I actually need fast machines.
I don't really mind paying the premium for OS X. I think it's worth it. But the lack of speed is starting to actually hurt me. And that's why Apple needs to get these PPC 970s in their pro lineup. Macs will never compete with Wintel boxes on price/performance (if the definition of performance is limited to speed, mine is a bit vaster). And frankly, I don't care. As long as they're fast enough to get the job done. That's what's been missing lately. Just don't take away my high-performance hardware design and user interface, because that's why I'm willing to pay the premium price.
I partially agree with you. The average user doesn't need all the power of OS X. Heck, I don't need all the power of OS X. And I'm a programmer/animator/semi-power-user/geek. I just want a powerful, stable, user-friendly & fun OS. I've yet to see a viable alternative to X. I think the average user has the same needs, less maybe the powerful. In this case also, I know of no superior OS to X. And for the übergeek/power-user, there's the Terminal. But I'm too lazy to bother learning UNIX commands. I love my GUI. haha. All of the tasks you mentioned are accomplishable in XP, true. But I don't think as easily, or as enjoyably as in X.
You know, this thread is really starting to get interesting.
That's far from "average user" stuff, but I'll do my best to address it anyways. I have a PBC design program (DesignWorks Pro). It's even OS X native. Quite good too. There are at least a half-dozen excellent CAD programs on the Mac. Vellum & RealCADD come to mind. I've seen a few good ones specifically for architects too, like ArchiCAD. But since that's not my specialty, I really can't comment on them. I'm more into animation. On the specialized enterprise/server stuff, you've lost me. I know nothing about it. I'm sure you can do quite a bit with OS X Server. And I've heard there are some high-end database apps available under it, in either OS X or UNIX environments. I don't know the specifics, of course.
I'm just relaying my impression from looking at the shelves in the typical gaming aisle. They all look pretty much the same to me. Half of them are first-person shooters, and most of the rest are third-person shooters.
But I do occasionally see an interesting looking one. And the only one of those I've ever seen that was not ported to the Mac was Pharoah. All the ones I've bought run fine on both my Macs, even the 350 MHz G3. Only Falcon 4 and X-Plane are a bit sluggish. But the machine is 5 years old. Cut it some slack. 800 Mhz G3 upgrade on it's way... heheMy friends are also impressed with my Mac when they see it... but really, I think their understanding and appreciation of it is far less than you or I.
Well, as we both mentioned, price is a major incentive for the average human...
I don't own any "Solitaire" category games. I know a lot of PC owners who do though! lol I don't have Doom (or Quake or Jedi Knight), not my style. Warbirds III runs fine though, as does Summoner, X-Plane, Falcon 4, Pod Racer, Caesar III, Sim City 3000, Tropico. Those are pretty system taxing games. Maybe it's just the shooter's that don't run well... I don't have any.
It's been behind in GHz most of it's existence, true. In raw performance, I disagree. That only started about 3 years ago. Now, way behind in price/performance, I 100% agree. For the average consumer, I don't think that that is such a huge issue. It's more the price than the performance that's a problem, for Apple's consumer sales. The buyer who only (out of pseudo-expertise) cares about GHz will never buy a Mac, ever, case closed. For the pro/high-end enterprise markets though, it is becoming a huge problem. I feel the pain, I'm an animator. I actually need fast machines.
At the present time, personally, I feel that this premium is too high...right now, I would rather get an XP/Linux box than a G4 OSX box. If the MacB rumors pan out and we get 970s shipping next month...then we will still be behind the price/performance curve, but the gap will be closer and the "OSX premium" will be lower; if that happens, then I will personally see the Mac as a better deal than the PC. So I am waiting.
I don't really mind paying the premium for OS X. I think it's worth it. But the lack of speed is starting to actually hurt me. And that's why Apple needs to get these PPC 970s in their pro lineup. Macs will never compete with Wintel boxes on price/performance (if the definition of performance is limited to speed, mine is a bit vaster
). And frankly, I don't care. As long as they're fast enough to get the job done. That's what's been missing lately. Just don't take away my high-performance hardware design and user interface, because that's why I'm willing to pay the premium price.I partially agree with you. The average user doesn't need all the power of OS X. Heck, I don't need all the power of OS X. And I'm a programmer/animator/semi-power-user/geek.
I just want a powerful, stable, user-friendly & fun OS. I've yet to see a viable alternative to X. I think the average user has the same needs, less maybe the powerful. In this case also, I know of no superior OS to X. And for the übergeek/power-user, there's the Terminal. But I'm too lazy to bother learning UNIX commands. I love my GUI. haha. All of the tasks you mentioned are accomplishable in XP, true. But I don't think as easily, or as enjoyably as in X.You know, this thread is really starting to get interesting.
The G5 was definitely an idea at Motorola at one point, but who knows if they ever even tried building one.
Forget closure, I want sweet revenge.
When does...
when does..."sweet revenge" become the same as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
If these Moto chips come to pass as cheap, fast, timely high performance engines - would you suggest that Apple should sell more expensive, slower IBM chips?
I thought not....
Originally posted by pyrotoaster
Forget closure, I want sweet revenge.
when does..."sweet revenge" become the same as "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
If these Moto chips come to pass as cheap, fast, timely high performance engines - would you suggest that Apple should sell more expensive, slower IBM chips?
I thought not....
Re: When does...
That's almost an oxymoron. Almost.
It would be nice to see Moto getting back into the desktop market, but it seems unlikely, given their concentration on the embedded market, a market in which they seem to do rather well.
That's almost an oxymoron. Almost.
It would be nice to see Moto getting back into the desktop market, but it seems unlikely, given their concentration on the embedded market, a market in which they seem to do rather well.
I agree. The 970 hype will probably derail any new G4 PowerMac announcement and eager Mac users will most likely choose to wait for another year or so before upgrading. I remember the MacWorld from 2 years ago when everyone was expecting the flat-panel iMac and it did not get unveiled. There was definitely a lot of disappointment in the Mac community after that and the same (or worse) could happen at the end of this month.
reality check
Why are you sure? Have you actually tested this assertion personally? No.
Indeed have you compared any p4 to g4, and no not just a comparision you read on a mac booster web site. No
How can I be so sure the answer is no you ask? because I have.
The P4 is so much faster than the g4 ACROSS THE BOARD, even a slow p4, that the phrase "holds it's own" simply shouldn't be used in the same conversation. It's a bad joke.
The g4 holds its own allright, it then gets arrested for indecency in a public place and is led off sobbing pitifully while an outraged audience of mac faithfull mumble "it cant be true, he was such a nice boy and a neat dresser to"
A dual 1.4 g4 is less than half as fast as a mildly configured p4@2.4 , and costs over twice as much. Open your eyes, the emperor has no clothes!
Why are you sure? Have you actually tested this assertion personally? No.
Indeed have you compared any p4 to g4, and no not just a comparision you read on a mac booster web site. No
How can I be so sure the answer is no you ask? because I have.
The P4 is so much faster than the g4 ACROSS THE BOARD, even a slow p4, that the phrase "holds it's own" simply shouldn't be used in the same conversation. It's a bad joke.
The g4 holds its own allright, it then gets arrested for indecency in a public place and is led off sobbing pitifully while an outraged audience of mac faithfull mumble "it cant be true, he was such a nice boy and a neat dresser to"
A dual 1.4 g4 is less than half as fast as a mildly configured p4@2.4 , and costs over twice as much. Open your eyes, the emperor has no clothes!
Re: When does...
Now, Moto chips, if cheaper and if Apple and Moto can come to some reasonable arrangement, may end up somewhere in the Mac line- but IBM is touting cheaper at higher efficiency, therefore WHILE Apple may stay only with Moto, it is not highly likely, given that Moto has been a dead loss for about 2 years.
One definition of insanity, is after all, doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Listen, mate, THAT is not Steve Jobs! That said, who knows what stunt(s) Moto will pull to sell their chips? But, on the surface of it, I suspect it is too little, too late... NOT impossible- just not bloody likely.
If by the end of the year, Apple has no 970 line and they are still diddling around with whatever junk Moto is proferring, I'll shout you a beer... of your choice... but it's got to be Aussie. Fair dinkum!
First, let's get back to the presence or lack thereof of the 970s. It is almost ridiculous, but it certainly seems silly, to suggest that these chips don't exist. Yes, I know you can say they don't but the data strongly suggest they do. I know that the sun may not come up tomorrow... but it is nonsensical to suggest same... and IBM has these chips and sooner or later, it matters not which, they will be in Macs.
Now, Moto chips, if cheaper and if Apple and Moto can come to some reasonable arrangement, may end up somewhere in the Mac line- but IBM is touting cheaper at higher efficiency, therefore WHILE Apple may stay only with Moto, it is not highly likely, given that Moto has been a dead loss for about 2 years.
One definition of insanity, is after all, doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. Listen, mate, THAT is not Steve Jobs! That said, who knows what stunt(s) Moto will pull to sell their chips? But, on the surface of it, I suspect it is too little, too late... NOT impossible- just not bloody likely.
If by the end of the year, Apple has no 970 line and they are still diddling around with whatever junk Moto is proferring, I'll shout you a beer... of your choice... but it's got to be Aussie. Fair dinkum!
Re: Re: When does...
According to The Register article Motorola will be selling their new G4 CPUs to Apple for less than half the current price. That seems very competitive with the prices IBM is rumored to be offering Apple (25% to 35% lower than the current G4 price according to MacWhispers).
Something tells me that Apple will try to have its cake and eat it too by buying Motorola and IBM processors, in order to differentiate their professional and their consumer computers.
According to The Register article Motorola will be selling their new G4 CPUs to Apple for less than half the current price. That seems very competitive with the prices IBM is rumored to be offering Apple (25% to 35% lower than the current G4 price according to MacWhispers).
Something tells me that Apple will try to have its cake and eat it too by buying Motorola and IBM processors, in order to differentiate their professional and their consumer computers.