Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AppleWorks 6.3 Scrolling
???
Where did this come from? Is there a new version that Apple secretly released to whomever did this benchmarking? I want that update! Apple's site only has 6.2.7... Is there finally support for Office that doesn't screw up the formatting? Can I finally do great things with tables?:D
 
Re: Re: good to see...

Originally posted by WM.
Wow, I thought it was a big jump when my mom upgraded from a 6115CD (stock HD, processor, and CD drive, running 8.1) to a 700 MHz G4 iMac. But I think you've got her beat! :D

WM

How about when my aunt upgraded from a Mac Plus to a Dual G4 500?
 
Originally posted by F/reW/re
Is this a bad thing? When the CPU speed goes up, the integrated ram controller will also do so.
This means that you get a lower latency and you dont have to boost the FSB when the MHz is getting higher. So far the 246 uses DDR333.
When windows gets 64 bit and the software to it will be even faster.
The new Opteron has a great future!

Don't think Mac people would choose a Opteron over a G5 because it runst 2 sec faster in a Photoshop test. I personaly choose Mac because of the feeling I get when I use it.
I really hope Macromedia 2004 is better than MX series on the Mac-platform. MX and flashplayer is so much better on Windows. This is my biggest consern after price.


Hmm, as far as I know the must redisign the Ram controlleri n the Chip, its also a expensive way to build a Chip as I read. So the way from IBM or Intel I like more.

But see it so the G5/Hammer/P4 are fast in their own ways every Chip has a optimized App only for him so ... choose what you need
I would say the G5 is great, after a long time its a Chip which is good as AMD or Intel chips even better.

A long time ago we had a Chip witch is so powerful :D
 
Re: Re: Re: Dont Forgett

Originally posted by whooleytoo
Anyone doubting that the G5, and the Itanium and Opteron are in different fields, should look at sales figures ( figures from The Register, sourced from IDC ). The G5 pre-orders alone dwarfed the entire quarterly sales of the other two chips combined.
So... I guess by that logic then that Apple's G5 isn't in the same league as, oh, the Pentium, and shouldn't be compared to one? C'mon... I'm not saying that your point wasn't (slightly) valid, but your reasoning surely isn't.

-Richard
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont Forgett

Originally posted by rjstanford
So... I guess by that logic then that Apple's G5 isn't in the same league as, oh, the Pentium, and shouldn't be compared to one? C'mon... I'm not saying that your point wasn't (slightly) valid, but your reasoning surely isn't.

-Richard

Aw, I quite liked my reasoning.. ;)

Given that Apple only has a 2 or 3% total market share, it's relatively unlikely it's ever going to have a 90+% market share in any individual sector - such as 64bit workstations or servers.

If the G5 was purely a 64bit workstation, then based on the Opteron and Itanium sales you'd only expect a thousand or so to be sold. The fact that it has sold over a hundred times that indicates the G5 is aimed at a much larger demographic.

Mike.
 
Re: Re: just the start

Originally posted by themadchemist
Clock speed boost would be nice, but I think we're also going to need a L2 cache boost. Return of L3 would be great. Plus, Apple needs to regularly update the RAM speed that its motherboards can support.

That means that I'd like to see, in say 6 months, Apple selling G5s that support 466 or 533 MHz RAM.

It's all about staying current. We've seen it in the past: A new architecture (EVEN the G4, which we all LOVED, admit it) gives a needed infusion of strength to the pro line, but development slows quickly and Apple gets behind.

Apple needs to update the motherboard frequently, and even when it doesn't have a processor bump, it should at least quietly update other important things.

Convincing nVIDIA and ATI to shell out better Mac GPUs would be nice, too.
Why on earth would you use L3 cache when the FSB is already running 1/2 the CPU clock? All you would accomplish is added memory latency, cost and power consumption. L3 caches always run at a fraction of the CPU clock, so all you're doing is inserting an unecessary and unwanted buffer stage between memory and the L2 cache.
 
Originally posted by Mav451
dude did you even READ my post? I mention OCing b/c they display results for the OCed Xeon (2.4 @ 3.06) and "old" 3.06 @ 349.

2ndly, where the heck do i say that this test is inaccurate? Did you come up with that misconception by yourself?

Don't stereotype and lookdown on overclocking just because you do not understand it.

Look at my sig--it is 100% safe b/c the only issue with overclocking is too much voltage (i.e. 1.8v +, i'm not in that range), PCI bus overclock? (nope, nforce2 and all modern Intel boards lock them at 33, agp @ 66 respectively).

And actually the #1 cause of failure is heat. Most newbies do not understand that they cannot overclock with "stock" equipment. Spending 30bucks for that Swiftech or Thermalright SLK will pay HEAVY HEAVY dividends in increased stability, more headroom, and overall lower case temperatures.
Dude, chill out just a bit. I don't think most people on this board are really into overclocking because of a number of reasons.

Personally, I used to be into overclocking but then I figured out that the amount of time it takes to experiment with hardware could be better spent making money and actually buying a faster computer. I was spending hours every day trying every possible BIOS setting and voltage to get a little extra performance out of my systems. I could have spent those same hours just working some overtime and buying faster components.

Most people that buy Macs are looking for a quality computer that works right out of the box, no assembly required. At least that's what I'm looking for, and I've built dozens of PCs from parts before. I remember the "good old days" where overclocking a Celeron 300A up to 450 was as simple as changing a setting in your BIOS and now your $69 "budget" processor was faster than a $250 Pentium III-450, which was the top of the line at the time.

For most of us here, it's just not worth it to overclock. You void the warranty and risk failure of components in your system.
 
mac speed

You all need a lesson. The Amiga is the king of the hill always has been always will be due to the fact that intel is making a clone of it as is sony. The speed of mine is 10.ghz real-time and 64bit thru out the whole system not 16bit addressing like the pc and mac. Mine isnt the fastest Amiga. I think its either Cameron or Spielberg that have the fastest at the moment. Could be Nasa next. You see The Amiga can have alpha and other risc/cisc chips on the same motherboard without getting a new motherboard to "update"-funny as if you guys could really- to a better system. This means I can have the exact same system aka a A1000 to a G5. Which is what i did with my Amiga 4000.This is true ugrading. Power is making more out of a little which none of you can do unless your on an Amiga. The clone by the way is Itanium and Ps3 . The hombre clones which are amigas.

I mean my 68040 A1200 beats a dual G5 mac, because the mac has the same archane archtiecture as ibm compatibles. Hence you dont see the true power of the G5 unless its on an Amiga.

Here Endth the Lesson.:D :cool:
 
Yeah, while Amiga is pretty much dead right now, they still have several interesting capabilities. Apple should have snatched up Amiga for a bargain price when they had the chance six years ago(I believe the sale price was something like one million dollars). Now it's probably too late to really make a purchase worthwhile. There isn't much left for assets - some patents and a few diehard fans in Europe.

The dual G5 is very fast, and that's too slow. The Mac should beat the competition on all of the benchmak tests. IBM and Apple should jump on this opportunity to pull ahead if they can. Put the pedal to the metal. Ratchet clock speeds up to get closer to Intel and try to keep up with demand, which will be intense. I want an insanely fast Mac.
 
the problem with that comment is a.) amiga has been dead since 1994. according to people like you who have no knowledge of what i goign on. Rember we dont have to have the Amiga name on every system for us to win .Just the companies to use our theolgy and topology or patents as you put it. This is exactly what several big comapnies are doing. Some of which I said earlier. So the some of the diehard fans as you call it are actually in the millions and are bigger then mac. Secondly, we have those big companies to continue and expand the Amiga terroity unlike mac or the wintel commnity as Intel and sony are making Amiga clones. The part about the G5 being slow, its not its the mac ,like I said before the mac doesnt show the true power.THe G5 is unlike a x86 archtiecture true 64bit and real-time. This speed far outweighs even the fastest dual x86 even with the mac.
 
So, are you including everyone who is using some part of the Amiga architecture as an Amiga clone? Or are you referring to all versions of the Amiga OS running on any type of hardware? You refer to running a G5 Amiga. Do you mean Amiga OS on Apple, IBM, or other hardware? Or is this just a theory?

You refer to millions of users with a popularity that exceeds the number of Mac users. Can you provide any links that would support those numbers?

I agree that Amiga can be very fast, but from the benchmarks I have seen the fastest performance was demonstrated on x86 systems using an Amiga emulator. This is becuase of a very good JIT compiler for the emulator. The emulator managed to beat all Amiga hardware based systems. I agree that the branch of Amiga that run on PowerPC could potentially be very fast on a G5. However, speed isn't everything. Things like protected memory are nice to have. AmigaOS3.9 doesn't offer as much as MacOS10.3 IMHO.

Amiga does however have enough to be of some interest, which is why I mentioned the possibilty of a purchase by Apple. The Amiga OS could then have full support on Mac hardware. The OS could either run in a window(like VirtualPC), in an Amiga mode(like Classic), or as a full boot option(OS9,OSX,Linux) and supported by Apple. Again, the financial benefit of such an option is questionable.
 
The Best of the BEST

-So, are you including everyone who is using some part of the Amiga architecture as an Amiga clone? Or are you referring to all versions of the Amiga OS running on any
type of hardware? You refer to running a G5 Amiga. Do you mean Amiga OS on Apple, IBM, or other hardware? Or is this just a theory?


First, its not some partits all of it, the real-time mutitasking.Its not Amiga with that archane archticture of the ibc or mac world.I mean would you call a yugo a Ferrai just becasue it has Ferrai painted on it ,of course not. Anotehr thin the mac nor the Ibm compatible can truly handle the Amgia os . yes , you have an emmulator or can get one ,but its no where near the speed nor does it have the other needful things that really make it the true Amiga os. A handicapped os as it would be called. Heck the Orginal G4 2.5 ghz real-time ppc only exsist on Amigas and with the moive monguls. So yes a G5 can be put on any Amiga without getting or makigna special motherboard or like wise and ALpha chip due to the great archtiecture of the Amiga. LikeI said -before the Amgia can use any CPU. Now if you use north or soutbridge its old archane adn wouldnt be considered an Amiga by Nasa or nybody in their right mind. Ask steve Jobs/Bil Gates about that.

I cant provide links saying that ,but consider holllywood Tv Stationsand alike . With the Amiga its called the silent majority. Can you give me a link for Mac beating a Pegasos or let alone an Amiga. Yet you ok maybe not you,but makes does. On the flip side Ican give you links where Mac loses to he Pegasos -even if Pegasos uses a the same a hardware ,but slower PPC.
Ye liek I said berfore the AMgai is faster still and you canfind that. jsu tlook fro yourself on Google. Plus my website which answers all the millions of users and speed Its not my opinion but facts. These statments are taken from SGI users to Gateway and Intel , IBM themselves.


-I agree that Amiga can be very fast, but from the benchmarks I have seen the fastest performance was demonstrated on x86 systems using an Amiga emulator.

You have to remeber thats from Amiga forever they dont show realbench marks. Oh yeha it takes a PIV pc to get anywhere near a Amiga1000. That is just raw power so that benchmark is off. Lets see now you cant multitask or the true 64bit like on the Amiga . SO that all has to be taken into affect. ie a 486 120mhz is faster then a 386 200mhz or more so when comparing an Amiga due to the Amiga advanced design.
When you really try to multitask you crash. In otherwards come to a compelte stop. So standing still isnt going to be as fast as an Amiga no matter how slow the slowest Amiga is. Which would be right out of the box A1000 prototype.

If you have great programs and a great os you dont need protected memory or the Amiga would crash an awful lot which in fact it is the most stable. like I said the stements about the emmlator being faster are out right lies. The orginal System(pc,mac) itelf is slower .now when it emmulates its goin to be even slower. That is a known fact . I expained up a parargraph or 2 again why that bogus statement on the emmualtor is a lie. Hell Im far from bias I admit the Amgias short commings and it has far less then the rest which is why I and millions others choose it. TO be not advertised and yet still be made clones of and recognized and used that tells about its superior technology and people wanting to use it. Mac os has more right . We made Samba and other liek it in 82 . The orginals actually work with newer pcs with xp. cant saytha tabout mac os. like i Said the mac os is half baked and Linus Trovald has said so. The Amgia os is True UNIX . Which is one of the many major reasons it can do true-real-time multitasking.
Yeah the Amiga doesnt crash as offten it has datatypes which make drivers look like **** . No reason for registry. Nope MAc os doesn even come close.

The speed is no maybe its a fact go to pegagos and see just how it beats the mac . Lets see running mac os thru linux faster then he mac os x and oh yeah running the apps faster on the amgia also. hiumm yep Amiga rocks yet again.

miga does however have enough to be of some interest, which is why I mentioned the possibilty of a purchase by Apple.

Actually I mentioned it first ,but it wouldnt happen as it was prevented by the community . For reason I wont go in here ,but suffice to say it makes the mac coummnity look like crap.

Leik I siad the hardware of the mac and the pc(ibc) is the same. So no the Aimga os would do ****ty. YOu dont understand becasue of these comments you made. You dont evne udnerstand why you have archane hardware. CPU is the best ok Itanium(PaRisc) beats it. Amiga is hardware and sofware. Not software alone,which software is all you people think of . An os makes a system wrong, both do and the hardware more so beacuse you can improve the os alot easier. Hence Amiga is Amiga because of its Superior Archtiecture and Superior OS. Amiga I cant call classic until the hombre comes out until then none can touch her. Full Boot option boy are you far behind we have been able to boot win,linux,mac os and Amiga os at the exact time in real-time fro ages. Its like dam I didnt realize we could do this oh yeah its Amiga we can. Hence the Slogan: Only Amiga makes it possible. -The classic ones as you call them.

Which you cant you have to boot one or the other then go not the other. Or at worst boot the other os instead.

Ok are os looks dated but we can improve it many ways (skins),and we use the vastly superior RGB True RGB not VGA to RGB or jsut plain RGB. Then you say its not the standard well tell that to millions of Tv users. Secondly if it wasnt the standard why try to emmualte it. I do mean try.

The Amiga is the standard from miltary design and making to the systems running miltiary ships. Plus interfacing with Hanger 18 stuff. The particular true standard is what this world is run on and why intel and sony are the first to go towards the light.-The Amiga.
i appreciate tis discssion .
AE system is truly modular liek I eplained before hence nonbias ,we have slow raw power cpu. But endusers just get on the net and alike, and for that no matter how fast you get, ok light speed will beat us%), youll be slower.

When a person wants to render faster he just adds another cpu. Without changing the motherboard, again superor technology. Hence the term renederign farm .

Several of these things I metioned earlier and Im reapeating. I have said the facts, and I really dont care what the next true Amiga is called(same topology and theology)design and archtiecture outlook. All I know One is going to be called the PS3 the other the Mckinly(Intel) the first out will be ahead. Like I said before check the whicte spec(sheet) on both compared to the hombre and they are the same,well PS3 might use the G6/G5 or the Itanium who knows. even mac has plans to copy it ,but it had to wait for what has happaned, mainly the demise of commodore. So we might have a third if mac last long enough. Which I do hope they do, more competion. Hum cheaper prices .

thanks fro the fun I do hate repeating myself and correcting arrors over and over again so email me for my phone number, or I will call you when you give it to me via email.
This discussion has sparked knowledge for you and others who would like to know,and I appreciate it.
Thanks
HombreOne:D :cool:
 
Re: The Best of the BEST

Originally posted by hombreone

HombreOne:D :cool:

why are people actually arguing with this crank?

A new P4 can't keep up with the Amiga OS running on an Amiga 1000 (7MHz 68000)?
You can plug any processor into an Amiga?
You can run Amiga OS on Itanium (_not_even_close_ to any instruction set that AmigaOS runs on)?

sheesh. It's not even a good troll... just ignore him.

BTW, I think this is the web site he was referring to earlier...

HombreOne's Amiga Lust Site
 
Power Mac 2.0GHZ PS7 Bench Benchmarks

A friend of mine has a dual G5. He was editing a video in Avid dv pro, while capturing clips in DV for another project in FCP 4 while listening to internet radio and sending an occasional email. Nothing slowed down, or crashed....
 

It runs really fast.

The only real problems I've had involve switching out the combo drive for a DVR-106D. I'm hoping all that gets resolved with 10.3.
 
ffakr said:
why are people actually arguing with this crank?

A new P4 can't keep up with the Amiga OS running on an Amiga 1000 (7MHz 68000)?
You can plug any processor into an Amiga?
You can run Amiga OS on Itanium (_not_even_close_ to any instruction set that AmigaOS runs on)?

sheesh. It's not even a good troll... just ignore him.

BTW, I think this is the web site he was referring to earlier...

HombreOne's Amiga Lust Site



I warned you before that Intel would take over mac .it has. Wrong I can run the Itanium on the Amiga -its Parisc it has been done. Plus the os that the Itanium runs on is based on the amiga os 3.9.2. oh by the way the itanium is a hombre clone exact same archtiture uses rgb zorro(pcexpress) and ahi no crappy creative.

Ah a jealous no nothing person that wishes his archane system was better -nah its dead - your site www.loserville.com :cool:
 
markeleven said:
A friend of mine has a dual G5. He was editing a video in Avid dv pro, while capturing clips in DV for another project in FCP 4 while listening to internet radio and sending an occasional email. Nothing slowed down, or crashed....

bull on the slowed down part it may not have crashed then but it will. Its inherenet of the archtiecture -x86
 
what a moron.

I think he's posting otherwhere as optimaloptimussupreme
I found a post by optimaloptimussupreme at Linux Format on the same topic and it's just as inane and silly as these posts.

Just a few things.. :)
-First, most people would say that you would run the Amiga OS on the Itanium Architecture, not that you RUN a processor or an ISA Architecture on an OS.
-I've looked up Parisc and it appears to be a Linux distro. Linux with the Amiga window manager (which I thought sucked when I played with it)
-Here's a great post by the guy who I think may be this guy's alter-ego.
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2222&st=0&#entry18441
He is rambling all kinds of insanity.. like how the Amiga is asymmetric and doesn't use a hardware clock (he doesn't seem to get how assymetric hardware is supposed to work).. and he thinks NASA uses Amigas. hehe
-And this one is the best. Hombre ISN'T and ITANIUM port of AmigaOS dumbass. Don't believe me? How about hearing it from a PhD who worked on the Hombre project at Commodore?
http://www.templeoftech.com/viewarticlepage.cka?articleid=26&pageid=2
Dr. Hepler: Hombre had an integer PA-RISC core on board to act as the system processor in the low-end mode or as a peripheral processor in the high-end mode.
Get that? It ran a PA RISC core as the system processor normally but would use that cpu as a specialty processor in special modes. The other cpu was not ITANIUM either. It was something custom built off 68K.
Dumbass.
Oh, and btw.. according to the guy who helped design Hombre, it was supposed to come out in 1995 when Itanium was still being designed ON PAPER.

Amiga people are funny. They just can't accept that their architecture is DEAD.
They are the flat-earthers of computing.
hahaha
 
ffakr said:
I think he's posting otherwhere as optimaloptimussupreme
I found a post by optimaloptimussupreme at Linux Format on the same topic and it's just as inane and silly as these posts.

Just a few things.. :)
-First, most people would say that you would run the Amiga OS on the Itanium Architecture, not that you RUN a processor or an ISA Architecture on an OS.
-I've looked up Parisc and it appears to be a Linux distro. Linux with the Amiga window manager (which I thought sucked when I played with it)
-Here's a great post by the guy who I think may be this guy's alter-ego.
http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2222&st=0&#entry18441
He is rambling all kinds of insanity.. like how the Amiga is asymmetric and doesn't use a hardware clock (he doesn't seem to get how assymetric hardware is supposed to work).. and he thinks NASA uses Amigas. hehe
-And this one is the best. Hombre ISN'T and ITANIUM port of AmigaOS dumbass. Don't believe me? How about hearing it from a PhD who worked on the Hombre project at Commodore?
http://www.templeoftech.com/viewarticlepage.cka?articleid=26&pageid=2
Dr. Hepler: Hombre had an integer PA-RISC core on board to act as the system processor in the low-end mode or as a peripheral processor in the high-end mode.
Get that? It ran a PA RISC core as the system processor normally but would use that cpu as a specialty processor in special modes. The other cpu was not ITANIUM either. It was something custom built off 68K.
Dumbass.
Oh, and btw.. according to the guy who helped design Hombre, it was supposed to come out in 1995 when Itanium was still being designed ON PAPER.

Amiga people are funny. They just can't accept that their architecture is DEAD.
They are the flat-earthers of computing.
hahaha


hum here is a quote form the history of amiga heck type it in Hombre:
The choice of the Hombre is a confusing one to an audience so used to the idea of the Amiga moving towards PowerPC. Rather than a clean break with a new CPU, Commodore chose to produce Hombre as a chipset with a PA-RISC core.
not used at nasa again he is wrong:
Gary Jones, the principle systems engineer for NASA's software systems at Cape Canaveral told us the Amigas take in all the telemetry data from the spacecraft, scale it by applying coefficients up to fifth order polynomials and convert the data back to engineering units for display to the engineers working the launch.

Gary went on to tell us that their first choice was the Macintosh, but as it was a closed system, Apple wouldn't give NASA enough information to get into it at the level that was needed. Talk about blowing a marketing opportunity!

He continued "We then looked at the PC, but the hardware architecture was really as bad then as it is now. So Hal was the first one who brought out one of the Amiga 1000's and we played with it."
"It just turned out that it was a good machine. The things that make a machine good for playing games tend to make it good for processing and displaying data. Because you've got some of the same problems. You need an operating system that very efficient, very fast and the Amiga has that and has got very little overhead. That's what makes it nice; we don't load down the system running the overhead we can just process the data."

"Most of our customizing is hardware customizing. The Amiga operating system is flexible enough we have to drop into assembly only once in a while to initialize some of the special boards we use, but otherwise the operating system is fine we don't do anything unusual with it. We use it just like it is and build hardware for our interfacing requirements because we have to pull the data out of the data bus in this building and put the data back in."

Seven Amigas are online assigned to operational support, six are dedicated to routing data to remote space centers and another six are reserved for hardware and software development.

The spacecraft supported by the Amigas include; all of the Atlas-Centaurs, Delta II and Delta III, the Orbital Sciences Pegasus, Lockheed-Martin Athena, a couple different models of the Titan, GOES and GPS spacecraft data and some user data off the space shuttle.

Because of way the Amiga is laid out and because the software is all tied together, if the bit rate isn't too high, they can actually support more than one spacecraft at a time in the same Amiga. A multi-tasking, multi-spacecraft personal computer!
Gary Jones; "If its not a PC, NASA gives us a lot of grief when we try to buy anything to go with the Amigas. They want us to buy Macs or PC's and run Windows 98 and NT(XP,2003), not to mention linux or bsd. We keep trying to tell them those platfofrms arent fast enough or stable enough so they tell us to buy DEC Alphas. We tell them its too expensive and not as powerful. They don't like the Amiga, it doesn't cost enough." They are starting to see the light now that they see Intel making clones of the Amiga.
there much more but accoridng to him they arent there. I call them every now and then like last week to upodate the info. I was physicaly there due to my work with the navy as they are training nasa astronauts. On flip, vnav and other courses. Oh yeha hell say thats not true becaue he doesnt udnerstand it orsome other immature thing.

Look up Intel again with there history youll fnd that intel bought out amiga chipsets to make the itanium which is identical to the Hombre, Pciexpress, and all ie useing ahi -sound not crappy creative and rgb not inferior vga.

Also youll find that redhat and suse used amgia os as the base of the new os for itanium. Thereby going true Unix. Going back to unix and amiga as it was intened and invented on . yes linux inveted on a amiga 3000. By the way look that in Linux mag called Linux user about 4 -6 months ago.

He claims to know archtecture x86 was invented as erly as 1947. Asymetirc archtieture 1982 hum whos behind now. Secondly, Amiga now Hombre is compared to humas as its the same archtiecture as the human cell. I do know he doesnt as he didnt know what i was comparing it to.

funny how fools resort to such immature tactics. The facts are as they are . It happend . His in the linux room and yet he claims mac os isnt linux then what is he doing there. Frankly he doesnt know jack hence the name calling as last resort. All you have to is look on the net ask Nasa and hollywood all of which use the Amiga or Hombre as it is called now hence my name. ;)


HERE ENDTH THE LESSON
meaning not going to reply to a fool that doesnt knwo jack

to the othere guy if you dont rember the past you are condemed to repeat it
bellbottoms and all%^) :cool:
 
Wow this is old!

Now that the G5 is at 2.7GHz, all models are dual, and we're going Intel! Shows how much this stuff changes. We now have flash iPods, color iPods, sub $500 headless Macs, a G5 at 2.0GHz in an iMac, and our latest addition, the four-button Apple mouse! Woo-hoo!
 
Fredo Viola said:
Looks like we may finally kick some tail! Here's to progress, folks, and IBM!

You mean...No thanks IBM! How things can change in a couple of years. Of course that was a couple of years ago, now about anything Intel makes can kick the G5's butt.
 
Abercrombieboy said:
You mean...No thanks IBM! How things can change in a couple of years. Of course that was a couple of years ago, now about anything Intel makes can kick the G5's butt.
Actually, at this point the G5 is still on par. Though AMD is making some great strides. It's what Intel is coming out with next that's impressive, and IBM not so much. We had faith in you Big Blue, but you let us down. Go Intel, I guess. :(
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.