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.
New PowerMac G4's at MWNY
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ok then, i could live with 1 ghz being 1599 for a g4 tower...my goal is to see g5 which, in my strange logic, will purge the g3
follow me?
then after purging g3, then the crt imac and the ibook will get g4 and we will be altivec across the board!
sj says crt imac will live for education mkt well into 2003
and ibook g4 sounds sexy to me, even in 2003...and even if tibook goes to g5...i would not be able to afford or justify it
i could be a lot like more of you kids/young ones here, but when you get older (late 20s-early 30s), don't pay for grad school at a private university with a credit card...he he
otherwise, i would easily have a tibook right now
Originally posted by jefhatfield
i could be a lot like more of you kids/young ones here, but when you get older (late 20s-early 30s), don't pay for grad school at a private university with a credit card...he he
otherwise, i would easily have a tibook right now
being a pt teacher, i am not knocking school...but get only the education you will need and use for life (hs, or trade school, or college, or med school, whatever) and nothing more...being over qualified is a beech when trying to find a job
and use the saved money for a tibook...he he
depending on your real estate market, also use the rest for a house
never buy a new vehicle since that is the biggest waste of funds...motorcylcle new is ok as alphatech can attest to
don't invest all your funds in the same stock, funds, or even business sector
diversify
don't trust is all to retirement or iras or social security only
some gold or silver is ok but green american cash is still the "gold" standard of today...but this can change from time to time
and remember, the president is a figurehead and the real power of the usa is in the hands of the speaker of the house...of which most know nothing about and the way the speaker likes it
rant over
Bluetooth ?
Does anyone think they might add bluetooth on the motherboard ? it seems like a logical step.
Does anyone think they might add bluetooth on the motherboard ? it seems like a logical step.
TDR?
Now, quad speed (QDR?) is thinkable, if a second clock cycle was added exactly half way between the original clock - but you've effectively doubled your bus speed then haven't you?
I don't thing TDR is is possible. Regular ram "talks" once per clock cycle. DDR "talks" on the up and down ticks of the clock cycle. Since there is no clear "middle" of the clock cycle I don't think it's possible.
Now, quad speed (QDR?) is thinkable, if a second clock cycle was added exactly half way between the original clock - but you've effectively doubled your bus speed then haven't you?
I agree with you...
...but the current G4 doesn't support ANY sort of DDR ram, 333, 266, or 200. I think 266 is the most likely, but not for the reason you posted.
Re: Bluetooth ?
I've heard the rumor from various sources (on the web) that we will see bluetooth. However, I don't see the benefit. Bluetooth is slow and as today's devices support massive data transfers. I don't see why you'd need it on a pc?
I've heard the rumor from various sources (on the web) that we will see bluetooth. However, I don't see the benefit. Bluetooth is slow and as today's devices support massive data transfers. I don't see why you'd need it on a pc?
Re: same price points?
w00t! a fellow fortran-er here!
indeed it does take a tad (lot!) more effort. Some tasks are ok mind, but gcc under osX is nice. Are you using the absoft compilers? I never got on with them personally, although I do know they do a high performance (altivec) version - but its not excatly cheap. Im only just thinking about porting my stuff over from a sun- I've heard some pretty good things about gcc under osX, although Im not sure how quick/performace is....(this, people, is why Id like a true 64bit g5/hammer....)
w00t! a fellow fortran-er here!
indeed it does take a tad (lot!) more effort. Some tasks are ok mind, but gcc under osX is nice. Are you using the absoft compilers? I never got on with them personally, although I do know they do a high performance (altivec) version - but its not excatly cheap. Im only just thinking about porting my stuff over from a sun- I've heard some pretty good things about gcc under osX, although Im not sure how quick/performace is....(this, people, is why Id like a true 64bit g5/hammer....)
I think you fail to understand bluetooth. Bluetooth is not meant to replace highspeed wireless. It compliments high speed wireless, and without a doubt plays a big part in the Mac future. For example 802.11 lets you put just about anything wirelessly over it. Bluetooth is more or less of a standard in the fact that it has one protocal. If you support bluetooth, anything that is bluetooth compatible will work with your hardware. No extra drivers ect needed. For example wireless mice, wireless pens that send data to screen. Wireless cellphone earpieces, wireless sync to computer, are all devices that don't need the high power that 802.11 takes nore the broadcast range. Bluetooth can fit in supersmall devices. Apple will be making your mouse and keyboard both bluetooth enabled in the future. Bluetooth has soooo many options. I've seen a bluetooth keychain that turns the lights off in the house when you leave. Or a bluetooth (standard size pen) that as you write on a pad nearby sends all the scribbles to the screen. Bluetooth is a connectivity standard. I can sync my entire phone address book instantly with my calendar and contacts on my computer. No cables NO software no hassle. Bluetooth is the future and will work well with 802.11g high speed wireless networks. Do some more research into it, you will find it harbors great possiblilities. I'm very excited to see our wireless world emerging...
Bluetooth
I understand where you're coming from, but bluetooth is not as easy as you make it sound. There're plenty of bluetooth devices out there, unfortunately they don't communicate that well together. Given that it's rather expensive to implement and there's all types of communication problems, it seems to be a real bluetooth (as in ache). There's lot's of technologies people say is the future, but I'm not so sure bluetooth will make it.
If the cost comes down considerably, it may be worthwhile, but until then it's not worth it. It's been around for a while now, but it's not taking off like people hoped for.
I understand where you're coming from, but bluetooth is not as easy as you make it sound. There're plenty of bluetooth devices out there, unfortunately they don't communicate that well together. Given that it's rather expensive to implement and there's all types of communication problems, it seems to be a real bluetooth (as in ache). There's lot's of technologies people say is the future, but I'm not so sure bluetooth will make it.
If the cost comes down considerably, it may be worthwhile, but until then it's not worth it. It's been around for a while now, but it's not taking off like people hoped for.
True - but most games should be multi-threaded now-a-days. Thus, they will automatically be spread across the 2 proc's. (Unless the they specifically ask the OS not to be for some reason.)
That is, as long as you're running them on OS X.
dual processors
Yep, I'm using Absoft. Research grant money makes the expense not such a pain and the AltiVec optimization (although still not great) is nice. Haven't tried gcc on osX yet, but I would guess that it doesn't do any auto-parallelization for multiple processors. Right now I have a cluster of 5 G4s and I use MPI and Pooch to handle message passing between processors. My understanding is that (using this setup) one must add an additional layer of message passing code to make use of multiple processors in a single machine (as opposed to multiple processors which are each housed in a separate machine). Although the processing power per dollar is great in the dualies, I can't see rewriting all my code to take advantage of the extra processor. And if I don't, then I might as well have a single processor machine for less $. That's why I am hoping to see a single processor 1.2 GHz machine (or similar).
Anyways, Pants, its nice to know I'm not the only FORTRANer left.
Yep, I'm using Absoft. Research grant money makes the expense not such a pain and the AltiVec optimization (although still not great) is nice. Haven't tried gcc on osX yet, but I would guess that it doesn't do any auto-parallelization for multiple processors. Right now I have a cluster of 5 G4s and I use MPI and Pooch to handle message passing between processors. My understanding is that (using this setup) one must add an additional layer of message passing code to make use of multiple processors in a single machine (as opposed to multiple processors which are each housed in a separate machine). Although the processing power per dollar is great in the dualies, I can't see rewriting all my code to take advantage of the extra processor. And if I don't, then I might as well have a single processor machine for less $. That's why I am hoping to see a single processor 1.2 GHz machine (or similar).
Anyways, Pants, its nice to know I'm not the only FORTRANer left.
Re: Re: same price points?
I am sorry jef, but if that is what they come out with, then they should be tar'd'n'feathered.
I am sorry jef, but if that is what they come out with, then they should be tar'd'n'feathered.
In defense of the mid range dual... I think it's a great idea. A reasonably priced machine that can take advantage of DP to render FCP filters, PS, and all the other goodies for a mid range price...$2499? 2299? That's the machine I want.
In defense of the low end vs. a PC... What the f*** is the iMac for? If you want a machine that will compete against a wintel and be the better option it's the iMac not the tower.
In defense of Bluetooth... Bluetooth is a very good standard for the low range wireless, it's not that expensive and what are the alternatives that have adopted widespread compatibility? none. Airport is good for the whole machine but how much would an airport mouse or keyboard cost? how well would that work?
In defense of the low end vs. a PC... What the f*** is the iMac for? If you want a machine that will compete against a wintel and be the better option it's the iMac not the tower.
In defense of Bluetooth... Bluetooth is a very good standard for the low range wireless, it's not that expensive and what are the alternatives that have adopted widespread compatibility? none. Airport is good for the whole machine but how much would an airport mouse or keyboard cost? how well would that work?
Or maynot.. yet
According to:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwny02apple.html
They are %100 sure there will not be a powermac announcement.
I'm %100 sure I hope they do make an annoucement.
According to:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwny02apple.html
They are %100 sure there will not be a powermac announcement.
I'm %100 sure I hope they do make an annoucement.
Re: Or maynot.. yet
Yeah, not at MWNY according to them, but within a month after.
Hereby throwing gas on the fire, what other occasion merited the delayed announcement of something ready to go? The intro of the new iMac, since it was such big news that the towers would steal some of it's thunder. So, what does Steve have up his sleeve this time that's so big that it is worth delaying the new towers and pissing off his core Pro market? hmmmmm.....
Yeah, not at MWNY according to them, but within a month after.
Hereby throwing gas on the fire, what other occasion merited the delayed announcement of something ready to go? The intro of the new iMac, since it was such big news that the towers would steal some of it's thunder. So, what does Steve have up his sleeve this time that's so big that it is worth delaying the new towers and pissing off his core Pro market? hmmmmm.....
Here's a depressing article:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwny02apple.html
They are saying that there will be no new G4 PowerMac's at MWNY, just a 17" iMac.
How depressing.....
An I was just about to buy a new box. Oh well, no more money for Apple until they get it right!!!
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/mwny02apple.html
They are saying that there will be no new G4 PowerMac's at MWNY, just a 17" iMac.
How depressing.....
An I was just about to buy a new box. Oh well, no more money for Apple until they get it right!!!
Aye,
Sounds like an announcement in early August for the new PowerMacs if we put all our information together:
-Rebates on current line of G4s until 12 August
-Jaguar release brought forward to early August (pre-installed in new G4s?)
-Testing on 6 new casings (delaying output)
I have just sold my 800MP, s I could hopefully buy the 1.4 MP modle next Wednesday. Serves me right for trying to be so smart!
Horne
Sounds like an announcement in early August for the new PowerMacs if we put all our information together:
-Rebates on current line of G4s until 12 August
-Jaguar release brought forward to early August (pre-installed in new G4s?)
-Testing on 6 new casings (delaying output)
I have just sold my 800MP, s I could hopefully buy the 1.4 MP modle next Wednesday. Serves me right for trying to be so smart!
Horne
No new Macs!
According to the ThinkSecret article:
I wonder how much lower my AAPL stock will go on the 17th if ThinkSecret is right?
According to the ThinkSecret article:
Why doesn't Jobs just put 'em in a land fill like the rumored Lisa's? I have no desire to buy a non-DDR PowerMac for anywhere near the price they are currently asking - even with the new rebates. (I don't need a new monitor, thank you very much)
I wonder how much lower my AAPL stock will go on the 17th if ThinkSecret is right?
QDR RAM
Yes, QDR is more than thinkable. It has already been done. Basically.
Rambus RAM is close enough to QDR RAM most people wouldn't care about the difference.
Originally, Rambus RAM was 400Mhz rated, which is a quad-pumped 100Mhz structure.
Now it is 533Mhz. that is speed. If you want QDR, buy a P4
Yes, QDR is more than thinkable. It has already been done. Basically.
Rambus RAM is close enough to QDR RAM most people wouldn't care about the difference.
Originally, Rambus RAM was 400Mhz rated, which is a quad-pumped 100Mhz structure.
Now it is 533Mhz. that is speed. If you want QDR, buy a P4
Re: QDR RAM
Motorolla is so far behind the 8 Ball on this it makes me sick!Originally posted by qwerpafw
Originally, Rambus RAM was 400Mhz rated, which is a quad-pumped 100Mhz structure.
Now it is 533Mhz. that is speed. If you want QDR, buy a P4
eric_n_dfw:
Regardless of what games "should" be like, I am here to inform you that they are not generally multi-threaded (even for OSX). In fact, they don't even play all that well on OSX, for example in Warcraft3 my dual 800 w/ GF2MX gets run into the ground by my friend's Athlon 1400 with GF2MX, and by no small margin either. It's a massive defeat, I can't even play 8-way games (6 AI) remotely smoothly at 800x600 low graphics settings. Dissapointing. But hey, I'll put up with that to avoid my PC.
Anyway, in other news, I think people here are getting overly excited about nothing. As far as I can tell, even the DDR-supporting G4 is unconfirmed, let alone one with 512k of L2 and more L3. I more expect G4's with the same ol 133mhz FSB but the DDR memory as seen on Xserve. I can't imagine they would have created that Xserve chipset for just the Xserve for just a few months. I would be very surprised if Apple could afford to do that.
Anyway, if you hype yourselves up and then crash after the expo, you're at fault.
Regardless of what games "should" be like, I am here to inform you that they are not generally multi-threaded (even for OSX). In fact, they don't even play all that well on OSX, for example in Warcraft3 my dual 800 w/ GF2MX gets run into the ground by my friend's Athlon 1400 with GF2MX, and by no small margin either. It's a massive defeat, I can't even play 8-way games (6 AI) remotely smoothly at 800x600 low graphics settings. Dissapointing. But hey, I'll put up with that to avoid my PC.
Anyway, in other news, I think people here are getting overly excited about nothing. As far as I can tell, even the DDR-supporting G4 is unconfirmed, let alone one with 512k of L2 and more L3. I more expect G4's with the same ol 133mhz FSB but the DDR memory as seen on Xserve. I can't imagine they would have created that Xserve chipset for just the Xserve for just a few months. I would be very surprised if Apple could afford to do that.
Anyway, if you hype yourselves up and then crash after the expo, you're at fault.