PowerMacs, iMacs and eMacs

[chubakka]

3rd quarter of 2003...

Here's a question...

IBM said that the 970 would be available in the 3rd quarter of 2003. right?

This can mean 2 things...

the calendar quarter... which starts in July... July being the 2nd HALF of the year but also the start of the 3rd quarter.

OR

The fiscal 3rd quarter... we're in 2nd quarter now... so the 3rd quarter would actually be coming up in April... right?

I'm just saying... MacWorld could be do-able for the 970.

Am I off the mark?

 

[Frobozz]

Re: 3rd quarter of 2003...

Originally posted by chubakka
Here's a question...

IBM said that the 970 would be available in the 3rd quarter of 2003. right?

This can mean 2 things...

the calendar quarter... which starts in July... July being the 2nd HALF of the year but also the start of the 3rd quarter.

OR

The fiscal 3rd quarter... we're in 2nd quarter now... so the 3rd quarter would actually be coming up in April... right?

I'm just saying... MacWorld could be do-able for the 970.

Am I off the mark?

Yeah, I think you're right. Steve-o is no moron. He knows there's a severe problem with the high end machine, and even eluded to a significant upgrade to them later this year when interviewed on CNBC. The tone of his message indicated a MWNY or earlier debut.

 

[primalman]

Re: 3rd quarter of 2003...

Originally posted by chubakka
Here's a question...

IBM said that the 970 would be available in the 3rd quarter of 2003. right?

This can mean 2 things...

the calendar quarter... which starts in July... July being the 2nd HALF of the year but also the start of the 3rd quarter.

OR

The fiscal 3rd quarter... we're in 2nd quarter now... so the 3rd quarter would actually be coming up in April... right?

I'm just saying... MacWorld could be do-able for the 970.

Am I off the mark?

It's funny, I had this thought and mentioned it in several forums about 6 weeks ago, and no one even noticed. Not bitching, just a curiousity.

BTW, I still am 75% convinced that the Qx remarks are made in that way, to be flexible, so if they do not hit fiscal Qx, they can do it by calendar Qx and not be dishonest, technically.

 

[gotohamish]

Re: 3rd quarter of 2003...

Originally posted by chubakka
Here's a question...

IBM said that the 970 would be available in the 3rd quarter of 2003. right?

This can mean 2 things...

the calendar quarter... which starts in July... July being the 2nd HALF of the year but also the start of the 3rd quarter.

OR

The fiscal 3rd quarter... we're in 2nd quarter now... so the 3rd quarter would actually be coming up in April... right?

I'm just saying... MacWorld could be do-able for the 970.

Am I off the mark?

For the sake of all of us and our sanity, I hope you're right.

 

[suzerain]

I hate to be a pessimist...

...but maybe it's just because I run a gaming site.

When I hear '3rd Quarter' in the tech industry...I immediately think, 'October at the earliest'.

(October being the last month in the quarter.)

One thing I do know is that if they are not announced at MWNY (or some reasonable facsimile assuming Apple backs out), Mac users (myself included) are going to be terribly disappointed.

 

[chubakka]

October?

But October is the 1st month of the 4th calendar quarter.

 

[suzerain]

Re: October?

Originally posted by chubakka
But October is the 1st month of the 4th calendar quarter.

yeah...sorry...i'm a dumbass sometimes.

i meant that to be september.

and of course, it'd be september 30th. like when apple announces that something is coming in 'summer'...it's always in the last week.

 

[edenwaith]

Re: Dual 867 MHz performance

Originally posted by nicmac
I have a Dual 867 with a 2 Gigs of Ram
I run my Cadd programs, Photoshop Web Browsers, InDesign etc.
I never feel a need for more speed.
The machine runs everything very smoothly and usually waits for me.
I recommend that you max out your ram before you condemn your Mac's performance.

But it certainly doesn't hurt to have a Dual processor machine running over 800 MHz. Even some 700-800 MHz iMacs I've tried out over the past year seemed a lot snappier than any of my machines. But still, my 400 MHz G4 PowerMac seems to be moving a little faster these days. Maybe bumping the RAM from 320 MB to 896 MB did do the trick, or perhaps OS 10.2 did add a little more kick.

With my machine, which is 2.5 years old by this point, is doing pretty well for the most part. I can still see some slow down and lag at times (such as when I tried to watch the opening movie to Quake 3 under Classic...yes, I have it running under OS X now), but I would say my machine works very well speedwise at least 90%. And one thing I've learned after *shudder* having to have used some machines with W2K and WinXP, the Mac OS has great multi-program support. I can move from one app to the next to the next with rarely a speed bump to slow me down. Yet, XP and W2K can get locked up for a few moments when it is trying to figure out what to do next, and these were on 1.6 GHz and 2.0 GHz machines. It's not all in the hardware, baby. Just think how fast System 6 or 7 could run on a modern machine!

 

[edenwaith]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small changes coming soon

Originally posted by locovaca


Built my freshmen year of high school, August '96:

486-100
64 megs of ram (max is 128)
4 gb hard drive
2 meg VLB video card
SB 16
ISA 10 BT network card
Windows 95, IE 5.0, Office 97.
CTX 14" monitor that still works just fine

It sits in the basement and makes for a fine online cribbage and spades machine for my sisters.

Now, I'm impressed that a PC lived that long. My parents bought me a PC ($2500 price) in 1996, and pretty much EVERY piece of hardware on that machine has died, most of it within 2 to 3 years. The speakers are about the last remaining item, and even those are starting to die (just replaced them with JBL Creature speakers).

I even had another PC system which I was going to port a Mac project of mine over to Linux and Windows. However, the key word here is 'was'. After that machine sat around for a few months (3-4), I plugged it back in, and....nothing. No response. It was dead in the water. No idea why it just up and died...maybe that living room full of Macs scared it to death.

Perhaps I wouldn't even mind too much paying a little more for a PC if it would actually f!@%@#% work and not die!!! I still have my parents' first computer, a 1987 Tandy 1000 HX...the thing still works, even after sitting in cold storages for years. Yet, that other POS, just died for no apparent reason.

Yet another reason why I stick with Macs. The hardware actually LASTS. If I consider the number of hardware repairs I've had to made to my Macs in the past 4 years, I would say I still end up saving money in the long run, versus having to continually fix and upgrade a POS PC. You buy cheap, you get cheap, I suppose.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Small changes coming soon

Originally posted by edenwaith
Perhaps I wouldn't even mind too much paying a little more for a PC if it would actually f!@%@#% work and not die!!! I still have my parents' first computer, a 1987 Tandy 1000 HX...the thing still works, even after sitting in cold storages for years. Yet, that other POS, just died for no apparent reason.

I'm pretty positive you're clock battery is dead.