Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Originally posted by MacBandit



I have a Dual Ghz/DDR and I agree wholely you can't do enough at one time to slow this thing down it is always fast. The CD ripping thing I have seen in excess of 20x nearing the end of a cd. This all while playing unreal and doing email and everything else you can imagine. Also it never crashes. Totally amazing.

Thank you for this post and the one from the dual 867 owner. This is a powerful testimonial for the new systems especially since they are priced same as other older and lower performance systems.

OSX is maturing indeed. And the new hardware "rocks" and is "sick". :)

Rocketman
 
To get a machine from outside the Norway and inside you have to pay 24% taxes to the goverment + + + +.
The prices I have refered to is from AppleStore (the cheapest place in Norway)

Where can I find out more about XWindows? Do all carbon and cocoa apps work with XWindows?
 
Separated at Birth?

G5 will not even be available until the end of 2003, on the other hand it really exists and runs reliably. The manufacturing is, however, not very reliable in terms of loss and is too expensive for the moment.

This quote comes from AMD Zone
made a call to my friend working for AMD and got the following info regarding Hammer delay:

(1) Hammer's layout need to redesign. The old design cannot reach competitive speed at introduction. Need to add one extra layer of metal, just like Tbred-B. A new layout revision takes time.

(2) SOI process is not as stable as expected. The yield is still poor and volume production is still a very challeging task. AMD process people is improving SOI process but this is not easy. Even IBM still has problems with SOI but IBM can afford to have a low yield with high-end Power4 unlike AMD where cost is a major concern. The nice thing is AMD already has a non-SOI backup plan in case SOI doesn't deliver the promise.

(3) Integrated memory controller has proven to be a two-edge sword. It does improve performance by 10-20% compared with the same frequency CPU without independent memory controller. However, the integrated memory controller make the CPU less scalable (in term of frequency). Also current design have some stabability issues when performing at high frequency, but new a revision is in progress and hopefully can fix these issues.

(4) realistically Hammer will not become widely available until early or mid Q2 [2003]. If non-SOI version is required then it will be further delayed until late Q2.

2 processor lines both delayed at about the same time for similar reasons...
 
Re: Re: behind

Originally posted by iGAV


Something tells me you're a 'the glass is half empty kind of guy'..... :rolleyes: :p

Mozez is one of those rare, but insightful "pessimists [whom] are naught but informed optimists," I'd say. Forgive me, iGAV, "the road [may] go on forever, but [this] party," (while it may indeed never end) has me a bit hungover.

Despite a truly magnificent OS (speed, remote DT and other issues notwithstanding), Apple just simply must give us faster hardware if the competition (for users,especially high end ones) is to continue without reference to Aesop.
 
No DivX?

Originally posted by F/reW/re


Why dont I buy a G4, because I cant afford it!! Apple doesent seem to care about ordinary people in no other place than USA. Thats why I hope for OSX on wintels!

We all dont live in USA!

So find an American friend to buy you one and ship it to you freight class.

But I'll still have my Ibook to play my mp3s :) No divx though :(

Have you ever heard of Versiontracker? There's a 3ivX and DivX codec for OS X. Works fine.

Paix,
dB
 
Speed?

Hi all. I am a power user. I use my Mac for the typical daily tasks such as browsing and typing reports, playing top end 3D games, and doing high end 3D animation and physics. You know what? You should try using a dual 1 GHz or faster if you are complaining about speed-- 'cause that's what I have and it's great (quicksilver). Seriously, boot up CPU monitor and look at a dual 1 GHz when you do a bunch of tasks. Aside from rending 3D models with Radiosity, etc., which can always use more horsepower. Generally, it seems unaffected. At times a program or two will put it to 50% capacity. You know what I wait for the most? My hard drive. It ain't the CPU.

For me to upgrade I need a 100% increase in speed to justify it. I upgraded from a 400 MHz Sawtooth, which was upgraded from a 250 MHz G3 PowerComputing clone. I can always use speed, unlike a lot of people. Do I think what Apple is going to produce something 2x better than my Quicksilver dual 1GHz before July? I wouldn't bet on it. I know I'm not in the market until the MWSF 2004, since I usually upgrade every 24 - 28 months. By then, the 970 could be released... optimistically in it's 2nd revision. Giddyup!

Quite honestly, I'm much more interested in my mac being able to run PHP or a cool iApp than I am speed right now. In 1 year or so, I'll be in the market for more speed. Until then, I'll be enjoying what I've got. I may be a dork, but I'm a practical dork.
 
Okay, who was the newbie that brought back this 3 month old thread back??
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
rolleyes.gif
 
...and I am not sure if this has been noticed before, but I think Jef might have some insider infos...he has been trying to inform us for months now, but his tongue was tied (is that the expression ? :)) by a 42page Apple NDA document. Good thing he is so creative...

The G5 is going to be an overclocked 68040 !
:D
 
Both Os9 and OSX are great

They are both great, they both have there unique good points and bad points. OSX is definately much much more stable and looks much much better. Although www.aquamakeover. com can get your OS9 to look just as good. They both crash, Mac osx much much less. And when it does it does not bring the whole system down as much. Apple needed OS9 to finance OSX, virtually every OSX user first used OS9. Many OS9 users still use it because they have to, thier apps are not yet available in OSX, dont run in classic, run better in OS9 (hard to believe but sometimes true) or more commonly they have hardware scanners, sound cards, printers whose OSX drivers they need they are still waiting on or are discontinued and they dont have the money to upgrade that hardware and/or it works just fine in OS9.

Believe it or not many OS9 systems are very stable and stay up for days and weeks with out a hard freeze, to people that know how to optimize them.
What I dont understand is why those who use OSX only are so quick to jump down the throat of any one that still uses OS9 ocassionally or often.
They are both Macos both running on a Apple Mac system and people choose the one that works best for them for what they are doing at that time, we all have diff needs right? Is that a bad thing. OS( will be around and used for a few more years and give a lot of people joy and pain until they can make the move to OSX or maybe OSX1 by then)
After all we are brothers" this is not a Windows vs Mac scenerio developing" that would be bad for the Mac community as a whole, I hope not because we need to stick together for the good of all of us.
 
Re: Both Os9 and OSX are great

Originally posted by daveg5
Believe it or not many OS9 systems are very stable and stay up for days and weeks with out a hard freeze, to people that know how to optimize them.
What I dont understand is why those who use OSX only are so quick to jump down the throat of any one that still uses OS9 ocassionally or often.
They are both Macos both running on a Apple Mac system and people choose the one that works best for them for what they are doing at that time, we all have diff needs right? Is that a bad thing. OS( will be around and used for a few more years and give a lot of people joy and pain until they can make the move to OSX or maybe OSX1 by then)
After all we are brothers" this is not a Windows vs Mac scenerio developing" that would be bad for the Mac community as a whole, I hope not because we need to stick together for the good of all of us.

Well, while I've got to laugh at the Rodney King (pseudo-) reference, :confused: my man here does have a point about OS 9.x. Just ask your U.S. Army why they switched from NT web servers to AppleShare IP (OS 8.6 & ASIP 6.2) and continue to run them on OS 9.x and ASIP 6.3.x. Provided enough RAM, efficient allocation thereof to processes and an administrator/user of the machine who knows how to resolve conflicts, Mac OS 9.1 and higher runs fine.

I've got to wonder if this fella has ever seen a kernel panic, though. But, weren't we talking about hardware?:rolleyes:

Paix.
 
This thread is a little depressing...

This thread is a little depressing after hearing that recent semi-credible rumor about moto's G5 disappearing act and Apple pulling G5 prototypes from software developers. I hope that's the most "off" rumor I've read at Mac Rumors... but somehow I think it's true.

Who want's to bet that we see dual 1.0, 1.25 & 1.4Ghz G4's in January? These have to be seriously overclocked processors to garner the codename "windtunnel"... I mean come on. What's next codename "rainforest" for the water-cooled dual 1.6Ghz G4's in July?
 
Re: This thread is a little depressing...

Originally posted by ELYXR
What's next codename "rainforest" for the water-cooled dual 1.6Ghz G4's in July?

If it's stable I'll buy... but water-cooled would go higher than 1.6, give me 2GHz on that ****! :)
 
G4 Processor Speeds at 1.4 GHz

In an interview with a MorphOS software engineer:

5. Please give us the specs (memory, hard drive, gfx card etc) of the computer that runs MorphOS.

Nicholas Blachford: The Pegasos is a MicroATX motherboard so the resellers are free to decide which sort of components are used. The current CPU is a 600Mhz G3 which is attached via a CPU card. This can be upgraded later to a G4 or dual G4 card (up to 1.4 GHz).

The link to this page, on OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2345&page=2

So it appears that he's indirectly confirmed that 1.4 GHz G4's are in existence and will be ready soon. Does this mean that in Jan. or Feb. (more likely) we will see the pro line move to 1.4 GHz? That ain't that much of a speed increase, but at least it's something. Then again, maybe 1.4 GHz is available NOW, and there will be a 1.5 or 1.6 by then?
 
Re: G4 Processor Speeds at 1.4 GHz

Originally posted by Frobozz
In an interview with a MorphOS software engineer:



The link to this page, on OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2345&page=2

So it appears that he's indirectly confirmed that 1.4 GHz G4's are in existence and will be ready soon. Does this mean that in Jan. or Feb. (more likely) we will see the pro line move to 1.4 GHz? That ain't that much of a speed increase, but at least it's something. Then again, maybe 1.4 GHz is available NOW, and there will be a 1.5 or 1.6 by then?

This confirms nothing. He's stating that down the road you can upgrade...that's all. His statement that specifies the 1.4 Ghz G4 can mean a number of things including that perhaps Motorola's roadmap for the G4 does not include a faster G4 with the multiplier needed to go faster on the bus on their systems.
 
Re: This thread is a little depressing...

Originally posted by ELYXR
This thread is a little depressing after hearing that recent semi-credible rumor about moto's G5 disappearing act and Apple pulling G5 prototypes from software developers. I hope that's the most "off" rumor I've read at Mac Rumors... but somehow I think it's true.

Who want's to bet that we see dual 1.0, 1.25 & 1.4Ghz G4's in January? These have to be seriously overclocked processors to garner the codename "windtunnel"... I mean come on. What's next codename "rainforest" for the water-cooled dual 1.6Ghz G4's in July?


It's not overclocking if Motorola tests and approves them at those speeds as they did with the 1.25s.

Overclocking is a description of an action taken by an end user.
 
We'll definately have faster Minimum bus speeds in the next revision of the G4. Motorola introduced the PPC 7455 G4 with a 133Mhz bus, that's now changed to 150/167Mhz.

The PPC7457 is going to have a 200Mhz bus so that pushes up the bandwidth aswell. I'm sure apple will be using at least PC2700 RAM on all models and with the PPC7457 having twice the L2 cache and a 200Mhz FSB, I'd expect a 1.4Ghz G4 based on one of those chips to outperform the current 1.25Ghz G4 by more than the 12% you'd get from the increase in clockspeed.

If this means we'll have a line up like this :

dual 1 Ghz G4, 256K L2, 1Mb L3, 167Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.2 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 1Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.4 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 2Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.

then apple will have some decent models with reasonable bandwidth at last. Assuming the prices are the same as now.

Of course this line up would be better :

dual 1 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 1Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.3 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 1Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.
dual 1.6 Ghz G4, 512K L2, 2Mb L3, 200Mhz FSB, 333Mhz motherboard.

These could be the first macs that are pushing close to the throughput of 266MHz DDR without even having a DDR compatable chip.

I'm sure the difference between 1.6Gb/s and 2.1Gb/s is hardly going to cause a performance decrease of more than a few insignificant % anyway.

I know this is all rumour and nothing to get excited about but the prospect of faster cpus with faster throughput is good for everybody no matter what they like to do with their macs.
 
barkmonster:

Edit: Answered my own question.

It is almost certain that Apple's DDR chipset cannot run the FSB and RAM asynchronously, which is to say that I can almost assure you that there will not be a DDR-333 and 200mhz FSB Mac. Also, since DDR-400 isn't even standardized yet, and is supported only very buggily on cutting-edge PC enthusiast boards, I would not expect Apple to be trying to use it any time very soon, which pretty much means that no 200mhz FSB is coming all that soon. But like I keep telling people, the G4 has worse problems than it's FSB speed. A higher clocked G4 would be great.

Also, if the "7457" is the 130nm G4, hitting 1.4 ghz right off the line should be very easy. (Of course AMD's first 130nm chips could hardly clock higher than their mature 180nm chips.)
 
Re: Re: Great

Originally posted by mymemory


Apple got behind FOR EVER!!!


Apple is trying so hard to push every body to the new OSX that offer less than half the options of OS9. People does not want to migrate just because do not feel better with OSX just because it is not better!!!

OSX is the equivalent of running 8.1 today.

You OS 9 chodes never cease to amaze me. You're hell bent on believing that machines like a 9600 running OS 9 are better than anything running Mac OS X. You are so disillusioned that its not funny. In fact, I feel sorry for you. The wave of great technology that makes up OS X will mow you down in your ignorance because you're too stupid to make the leap into modern times and get with the program. People that hail OS 9 are worse than PC users. Even PC users know when its time to let an old legacy OS rest in peace. It has served us well and now its time to move on. Maybe you like it when apps bring your whole machine screeching to a grinding halt. Maybe you're afraid of productivity (that Mac OS X affords us) and use the down time to go whack it. Jettison 9 all together and let it die for good!!! So in a plea to all you OS 9 peckerwoods, let go! I promise that life will go on and the world will be ok without 9. If you have to, get some counseling. There is life after those legacy bits and bytes of OS code...I can assure you of that.

One who champions Mac OS X,
mphatik677
 
Re: Re: Re: Great

Originally posted by mphatik677


You OS 9 chodes never cease to amaze me. You're hell bent on believing that machines like a 9600 running OS 9 are better than anything running Mac OS X. You are so disillusioned that its not funny. In fact, I feel sorry for you. The wave of great technology that makes up OS X will mow you down in your ignorance because you're too stupid to make the leap into modern times and get with the program. People that hail OS 9 are worse than PC users. Even PC users know when its time to let an old legacy OS rest in peace. It has served us well and now its time to move on. Maybe you like it when apps bring your whole machine screeching to a grinding halt. Maybe you're afraid of productivity (that Mac OS X affords us) and use the down time to go whack it. Jettison 9 all together and let it die for good!!! So in a plea to all you OS 9 peckerwoods, let go! I promise that life will go on and the world will be ok without 9. If you have to, get some counseling. There is life after those legacy bits and bytes of OS code...I can assure you of that.

One who champions Mac OS X,
mphatik677

A 9600 running OS9 is better than a 9600 running OSX a 604e proceesor and 4MB Vram wont cut it for OSX., "Mac user's runinning 6,7,8,9 are better then pc users anyday, many pc users are still using 95,98,me actually its the majority just like more people use MAC OS8-9 then use OSX, it takes time for change (apple has the figures). The world is not okay when your main Audio apps are not out yet, and buggy core audio beta drivers cause pops and clicks for your recent audio card if you can find a driver. While i will be the first to agree OSX is the S!!! it is still having teething pains in audio and is not prime time yet in that sector dso i use cubase and logic and protools le in OS9 with the OSX GUI from www.aquamakeover.com so that my screen and GUI looks the same in both. after OSX I could not stand to look at the regular OS9 GUI . I don't know how much trouble you had when you used OS9, but when I do go into 9 for audio work mine and many others are very stable. I can go as much as 2 weeks or more without a hard crash but I admit I do get minor crashes every know and then and IE quits on its own, but hey that happens in OSX too, just not as often, even OSX has crashes that require a restart, its called kernal panic. but it is agreed that it is many times more stable than OS9.
please the last thing we need is elitist Macusers telling those without the same needs or wherewith all for OSX to put down OS9 users or vice-versa, we are in this together against the evil empire. OS9 will be around for a few more years for those who need it or cannot yet afford to upgrade or whatever(some people like W95, I still have an atari with Logic on it that i use ocassionally its grat for midi work tighter timing then all this new bloated software. Anyway find something else to complain about than OS9 users
Peace out
 
daveg5 - you're always pusshing that aquamakeover software! give it up already! ;) (i agree, it does look really, really nice!)
Joking aside, Dave's right.

Here's an idea though... maybe Steve knows the recorder's plight. Maybe he knows that we need an osX multitrack solution and the market is lacking... When the new mac's won't boot into 9, we'll be searching for a fix like junkies... How convienant that he has a solution called Logic. What's the current news on that piece of sotware? if its not out yet.. we WILL see it by January. :)
 
Originally posted by cr2sh
daveg5 - you're always pusshing that aquamakeover software! give it up already! ;) (i agree, it does look really, really nice!)
Joking aside, Dave's right.

G5: Thanks, You are right just trying to help those that are stuck with nine only and those who want there classic to look like Jag and who does nt', anyway I will lay off, but it's cool isnt it.
Os9.1 used to crash a couple times a day on me until I found out my drive had bad blocks, and I had bad (Cheap) memory. i did a clean install on a new drive and walla i still had crashes. It was not until I upgraded to 9.2 that my g3 has become rock solid maybe a crash or 2 a week. for older powermacs check out OS9forever and xpostfacto for OSX installation on those older macs.(oops there I go again).

Here's an idea though... maybe Steve knows the recorder's plight. Maybe he knows that we need an osX multitrack solution and the market is lacking... When the new mac's won't boot into 9, we'll be searching for a fix like junkies... How convienant that he has a solution called Logic. What's the current news on that piece of sotware? if its not out yet.. we WILL see it by January. :)


G5: I know steve has a much overhauled appletized Logic coming 2nd or 3rd quarter and that drivers for my audiowerk2 card are being worked on. and yamaha is being pressured to support the dspfactory (the wolrds best sound card under $1000, count em 5dsps) and mlan.
Since I am a Cubase and logic user i will upgrade cubase 1st for $99 and wait for Logic 6 Titanium this Summer fall. until then it OS9 only for Music.
peace out
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Great

Originally posted by daveg5


A 9600 running OS9 is better than a 9600 running OSX a 604e proceesor and 4MB Vram wont cut it for OSX., "Mac user's runinning 6,7,8,9 are better then pc users anyday, many pc users are still using 95,98,me actually its the majority just like more people use MAC OS8-9 then use OSX, it takes time for change (apple has the figures). The world is not okay when your main Audio apps are not out yet, and buggy core audio beta drivers cause pops and clicks for your recent audio card if you can find a driver. While i will be the first to agree OSX is the S!!! it is still having teething pains in audio and is not prime time yet in that sector dso i use cubase and logic and protools le in OS9 with the OSX GUI from www.aquamakeover.com so that my screen and GUI looks the same in both. after OSX I could not stand to look at the regular OS9 GUI . I don't know how much trouble you had when you used OS9, but when I do go into 9 for audio work mine and many others are very stable. I can go as much as 2 weeks or more without a hard crash but I admit I do get minor crashes every know and then and IE quits on its own, but hey that happens in OSX too, just not as often, even OSX has crashes that require a restart, its called kernal panic. but it is agreed that it is many times more stable than OS9.
please the last thing we need is elitist Macusers telling those without the same needs or wherewith all for OSX to put down OS9 users or vice-versa, we are in this together against the evil empire. OS9 will be around for a few more years for those who need it or cannot yet afford to upgrade or whatever(some people like W95, I still have an atari with Logic on it that i use ocassionally its grat for midi work tighter timing then all this new bloated software. Anyway find something else to complain about than OS9 users
Peace out

Here's my 10¢:

The solution for your audio problems is this little app called Logic Audio. I get tired of hearing people bitch about features available in X that they can't get in 9, yet they're reluctant to upgrade. For 80-90% of the Mac using population, there isn't an app in 9 that they can't have a better version of in X. That leaves no reason not to upgrade except maybe some scratch availability but come on, Apple is not charging the $200-$300 for a single license of Jaguar that M$ charges for winblows. And by the way, I'm an expert with OS 9 and have on many occasions had it running for several weeks at a time. I've had X running for 3-4 months without a reboot. All I ask is that people don't bitch about new technologies available in X when they won't help themselves and upgrade. Come on people, support this great company we all know and love. The more people using X, the greater the chance there is for developers to write cool apps for us. You gotta make the leap and help the developers help us by creating market demand for their software. Simple equation, nuff said.

My 2¢ is free.
 
Re: Both Os9 and OSX are great

Originally posted by daveg5
They are both great, they both have there unique good points and bad points. OSX is definately much much more stable and looks much much better. Although www.aquamakeover. com can get your OS9 to look just as good. They both crash, Mac osx much much less. And when it does it does not bring the whole system down as much. Apple needed OS9 to finance OSX, virtually every OSX user first used OS9. Many OS9 users still use it because they have to, thier apps are not yet available in OSX, dont run in classic, run better in OS9 (hard to believe but sometimes true) or more commonly they have hardware scanners, sound cards, printers whose OSX drivers they need they are still waiting on or are discontinued and they dont have the money to upgrade that hardware and/or it works just fine in OS9.

Believe it or not many OS9 systems are very stable and stay up for days and weeks with out a hard freeze, to people that know how to optimize them.
What I dont understand is why those who use OSX only are so quick to jump down the throat of any one that still uses OS9 ocassionally or often.
They are both Macos both running on a Apple Mac system and people choose the one that works best for them for what they are doing at that time, we all have diff needs right? Is that a bad thing. OS( will be around and used for a few more years and give a lot of people joy and pain until they can make the move to OSX or maybe OSX1 by then)
After all we are brothers" this is not a Windows vs Mac scenerio developing" that would be bad for the Mac community as a whole, I hope not because we need to stick together for the good of all of us.


Well, I've run since the beta and I've had about 4-6 crashes during that year 1/2 or so period. I would hardly say that X 'crashes'. That's more like a hic up. 9 would crash daily using Ie & Entourage, mmm, both M$ products, but 9 wasn't very stable.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.