as said: wait and see...
information can always be interpreted...nice to see that people are chilled down.
information can always be interpreted...nice to see that people are chilled down.
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.
PPC 970/MacBidouille Rumor Summary
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My money says that is what the twist is... that they'll announce the 15" AlBook... with a 970. Year of the notebook indeed.
Works for me. I got my PowerMac last November - spent around $3500 all told, and I'm a little upset that the 970 is about to obsolete it... but I was already planning to get the 15" AlBook when it comes out, so having that be 970 based would more than compensate.
Here's hoping
Re: Re: correction
actually, the power4 is more heavily insulated - for reliability reasons - than the 970, meaning that the 970 is considerably quicker in terms of latency. this advantage is only academic.
Originally posted by aasmund
You are wrong
Power4 is enterprise class 64 bit processor, it's competitors are itanium, alpha axp, Sparc etc, much faster than any consumer chip available. it has several megabytes on die cache and the die size is a about 4 times that of the 970 the chip itself is about 3 times larger.
actually, the power4 is more heavily insulated - for reliability reasons - than the 970, meaning that the 970 is considerably quicker in terms of latency. this advantage is only academic.
news from Apple and Looprumors.com on Panther
Dear all,
I think macbidouille news regarding the PPC970 might indeed be true regarding at least the date, just check the last announcement from Apple itself
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/may/08wwdc.html
our looprumors.com : http://www.looprumors.com/
I am not saying that MB benchmarks are entirely true but we might expect to see Panther demoed by Steve itself during the keynote, and if it is the case it needs an computer to run it.....
Dear all,
I think macbidouille news regarding the PPC970 might indeed be true regarding at least the date, just check the last announcement from Apple itself
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/may/08wwdc.html
our looprumors.com : http://www.looprumors.com/
I am not saying that MB benchmarks are entirely true but we might expect to see Panther demoed by Steve itself during the keynote, and if it is the case it needs an computer to run it.....
AppleScript to Translate Macbidouille
Hi all,
In an effort to curb my daily Babelfish translations of Macbidouille, I've produced a small AppleScript that will grab today's date, and encode it in the URL to BabelFish MacBidouille's daily news page. In other words, it's automatically going to get you today's Macbidouille news page in English no matter what day it is, and open it in your preferred browser.
Obviously, this is a quick AppleScript, so don't contact me with support questions. It's provided "as is." I have included 2 versions: one executable and one editable. You may edit it if it's broken on your machine or you'd like different functionality. It was made on OS X, so I'm not sure if it'll work on OS 9.
This software makes a lot of assumptions concerning the date format it receives... no error checking... so if you get a problem that's almost certainly it. Should be easy to follow to fix it, though!
Happy translating!
Translate Today's Macbidouille News
Hi all,
In an effort to curb my daily Babelfish translations of Macbidouille, I've produced a small AppleScript that will grab today's date, and encode it in the URL to BabelFish MacBidouille's daily news page. In other words, it's automatically going to get you today's Macbidouille news page in English no matter what day it is, and open it in your preferred browser.
Obviously, this is a quick AppleScript, so don't contact me with support questions. It's provided "as is." I have included 2 versions: one executable and one editable. You may edit it if it's broken on your machine or you'd like different functionality. It was made on OS X, so I'm not sure if it'll work on OS 9.
This software makes a lot of assumptions concerning the date format it receives... no error checking... so if you get a problem that's almost certainly it. Should be easy to follow to fix it, though!
Happy translating!
Translate Today's Macbidouille News
Re: AppleScript to Translate Macbidouille
nice work but I think Macbidouille is setting up an english version of their news page, planned for very soon
nice work but I think Macbidouille is setting up an english version of their news page, planned for very soon
Re: Re: AppleScript to Translate Macbidouille
Sweet. Eh... it only took me about 20 minutes to hack together a couple existing scripts I had around.
Sweet. Eh... it only took me about 20 minutes to hack together a couple existing scripts I had around.
Re: Plan to get a free 970
Make sure that you have a good understanding of capital gains tax. You are likely to owe the IRS 28% on any profit you make from the sale of a stock, if you held the stock for less than a year. You'll likely owe at least 20% even if you hold the stock a year before selling it for a profit. Its not a bad idea to calculate 28% of what you made on the stock and expect to pay that next year at tax time.
But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself here http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html
Example:
1. Bought 100 shares of AAPL at $10 on May 1, 2003. Shares bought, cost $1,000
2. Sold 100 shares of AAPL at $12 on May 15, 2003. Shares sold, collected $1,200
$200 gain x 28% = $56 owed to the IRS.
Your profit is really $144.
Make sure that you have a good understanding of capital gains tax. You are likely to owe the IRS 28% on any profit you make from the sale of a stock, if you held the stock for less than a year. You'll likely owe at least 20% even if you hold the stock a year before selling it for a profit. Its not a bad idea to calculate 28% of what you made on the stock and expect to pay that next year at tax time.
But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself here http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106799,00.html
Example:
1. Bought 100 shares of AAPL at $10 on May 1, 2003. Shares bought, cost $1,000
2. Sold 100 shares of AAPL at $12 on May 15, 2003. Shares sold, collected $1,200
$200 gain x 28% = $56 owed to the IRS.
Your profit is really $144.
I'm not so sure about this. I just took a look at Tom's Hardware's comparison of a dual Xeon 3.06 versus a dual Opteron 1.8 ghz versus a P4 3.06ghz. The dual Xeon is definitely faster than a P4 on most tests, but the advantage varies greatly depending on the application (obviously). The biggest advantage is in a Cinema 4D test: the dual Xeon is about 90% faster.
Now, we don't have any real benchmarks to go by for the 970, but if we say a 1.8 ghz 970 is roughly equivalent to a P4 at 3ghz (they're close in SPEC scores and Apple could potentially provide faster bus, memory, etc.), then a dual 1.8 ghz 970 should be roughly equivalent to a dual Xeon at 3 ghz. This is all pure speculation at this point but I think I'm basing this on some resonable assumptions.
Of course, there is also the possibility that Apple will go for the jugular and release a high-end workstation (i.e. the 'Xstation') using something like a dual 2.3 ghz 970 which would blow the door off any dual Xeon.
To Marcus Mackey:
Dude, I realize you're enthusiastic and all that, but you SERIOUSLY need to shorten your postings! ;-)
I am keen to read it, but your sentences are like 3 times as long as mine (and I've been told mine are way too long already!) and you often fail to just get your points across. You just go on and on and on and on and at the end of the sentence i totally forgot what you were trying to say in the beginning! ;-)
You seem pretty knowledgable, so it'd be a shame to let a potentially interesting read go to waste by neverending hard to read sentences that "trail everywhere besides the path" aswell! ;-)
Dude, I realize you're enthusiastic and all that, but you SERIOUSLY need to shorten your postings! ;-)
I am keen to read it, but your sentences are like 3 times as long as mine (and I've been told mine are way too long already!) and you often fail to just get your points across. You just go on and on and on and on and at the end of the sentence i totally forgot what you were trying to say in the beginning! ;-)
You seem pretty knowledgable, so it'd be a shame to let a potentially interesting read go to waste by neverending hard to read sentences that "trail everywhere besides the path" aswell! ;-)
Re: To Marcus Mackey:
Understandable Kai, but let's for a second go under the presumption that I go in and edit for brevity (mind you, I'm not writing for MacWorld or getting paid the salary to edit it down). It'd take what... an extra 5-10 minutes to shorten the posting's wordiness, and then figure out what information/details to gut out which could truncate and leave people making false presumptions because I've restricted myself. It could take upwards of 20-30 minutes for one posting that only took me 3-5 to write (I type reeeeeeally fast). Rather than do that, the people have a choice of reading it, as-is, if they truly care to read... or they don't have to, could skim it, skim past it, ignore it, etc. etc.
Let's put it this way... as enthusiastic as some are on here, they'd read what I say if it was Stephen King length (a few hundred pages). If you can't keep up or can't remember where I'm going, re-read it. If not, oh well... you probably wouldn't read, understand, or care if it was 5-10 words.
It's a messageboard... not a pictures page. If you didn't come here to read, why are you here? Y'know? For those that don't care to read it... that's their prerogative. I'm not holding a gun to their head. I can't please everybody, and I am not aiming to. LoL If it came down to that, and I had to edit my postings to please everybody, I just wouldn't post. It'd be too much like work, and this is more of a "leisure time" activity.
Understandable Kai, but let's for a second go under the presumption that I go in and edit for brevity (mind you, I'm not writing for MacWorld or getting paid the salary to edit it down). It'd take what... an extra 5-10 minutes to shorten the posting's wordiness, and then figure out what information/details to gut out which could truncate and leave people making false presumptions because I've restricted myself. It could take upwards of 20-30 minutes for one posting that only took me 3-5 to write (I type reeeeeeally fast). Rather than do that, the people have a choice of reading it, as-is, if they truly care to read... or they don't have to, could skim it, skim past it, ignore it, etc. etc.
Let's put it this way... as enthusiastic as some are on here, they'd read what I say if it was Stephen King length (a few hundred pages). If you can't keep up or can't remember where I'm going, re-read it. If not, oh well... you probably wouldn't read, understand, or care if it was 5-10 words.
It's a messageboard... not a pictures page.
If you didn't come here to read, why are you here? Y'know? For those that don't care to read it... that's their prerogative. I'm not holding a gun to their head. I can't please everybody, and I am not aiming to. LoL If it came down to that, and I had to edit my postings to please everybody, I just wouldn't post. It'd be too much like work, and this is more of a "leisure time" activity.IBM Press Release and Steve Sakoman
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2002/10/14.html
If you read that for what it says right there... you'll see that the underlying writing I spoke of above is there, and this is an "OFFICIAL" press announcement. Of course, it mentions that it'll be available "NEXT YEAR" which is another reason to try to keep your jets cooled. They might be ahead of schedule (perhaps at Apple's urging)...
But they might not. Why set yourself up to be disappointed?
Which is why I even gave until Q2 on the speculation, saying that, that'd be a "GOOD" time (although, right now would be totally awesome LoL), and it'd fit the "Year of the Powerbook" claims as the desktops and XServes wouldn't likely see major changes 'til sometime in 2004, and Powerbooks I don't figure are very likely for the PPC 970 based on the previous "heat" statements. Disappointing that no PPC 970 might be announced? Perhaps... but I'm sure IBM's trying their damnedest to get these out as fast as they can. You can only do so much...
After all, the faster they get them to market, the faster IBM and Apple can use them to bowl their competition, rather than buoy or merely keep pace. Which obviously... the more speed advantage you get overall, the better off you are. I really feel the PPC 970 will be "competitive" at current 1.2-1.8 Ghz speeds even into around May-June 2004, if not longer. It's not just the speed of the processor, it's the architecture and how swift it is. Way it sounds with Hypertransport and all of the other goodies like the bus, faster PCI, faster AGP, faster RAM, et al. this could be quite wicked.
Even at that launch, it'd not be a bad deal, as we'd be on par, if not the leader with some OS fine-tuning to get some efficiency out of the ol' OS. That could be why Apple got this...
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-991061.html
Steve Sakoman, who not only worked on Apple with their "Newton" project, but was an executive (and engineer) at Be Inc. who made one of the most efficient and threaded desktop OS's, in BeOS. He also briefly worked at Palm after they took over Be Inc. as noted at the bottom of the page. I place more emphasis on his knowledge from Be than the Palm deal (wasn't there for a tremendously long time, rather brief actually), although it's obvious that the iPod eventually is taking on more and more tasks, and could branch into a bunch of other iDevices; which likely had to lure Sakoman over in some vain.
Yet in the end... getting a highly threaded Mac OS with someone who's obviously knowledgeable in such manners (once again, Sakoman) could make OS X run significantly faster on existing older hardware (a G4 could be more than bearable, and a 970 would literally fly), and furthermore... make the newer hardware seem that much faster. After all, NT (Windows 2k, XP, et al.) gets more and more bloated and slow with each release (much as Classic Mac OS did for some of us who ran it on older hardware before)... Apple turns back the clock on their efficiency, Microsoft will need Intel to be 2x's as fast just to keep pace, all the while increasing speed but also adding features to the system that don't tax it or make it crumble under the added weight.
It's not strict hardware gluttony that makes a fast computer (ask any Amiga Aficianado, they'll tell you), although being on pace in hardware holds the potential to make an advantage out of a slight deficiency in Ghz/Mhz, through efficiency and fine-tuning. Be did it, so could Apple. Running an older build of BeOS from CD-ROM (demo disc) on a 233 Mhz. PII vs. Windows NT 4, BeOS was "NOTICEABLY" faster. Just imagine if it was running from a hard disk...
For anyone that's used BeOS on Intel or PowerPC, you know the speed advantage it had over just about anything you could throw at it, including Classic Mac OS on "LIKE/SAME" hardware (as in older 604e and 603e machines). Given an efficiency formula with OS X in the "threadedness" of the system, if the PPC 970 ships a little late and is a "little" behind it's competition; as long as it's "ballpark", the operating system's efficiency can make up for it and make it seem like the clear winner overall.
http://www.ibm.com/news/us/2002/10/14.html
If you read that for what it says right there... you'll see that the underlying writing I spoke of above is there, and this is an "OFFICIAL" press announcement. Of course, it mentions that it'll be available "NEXT YEAR" which is another reason to try to keep your jets cooled. They might be ahead of schedule (perhaps at Apple's urging)...
But they might not. Why set yourself up to be disappointed?
Which is why I even gave until Q2 on the speculation, saying that, that'd be a "GOOD" time (although, right now would be totally awesome LoL), and it'd fit the "Year of the Powerbook" claims as the desktops and XServes wouldn't likely see major changes 'til sometime in 2004, and Powerbooks I don't figure are very likely for the PPC 970 based on the previous "heat" statements. Disappointing that no PPC 970 might be announced? Perhaps... but I'm sure IBM's trying their damnedest to get these out as fast as they can. You can only do so much...
After all, the faster they get them to market, the faster IBM and Apple can use them to bowl their competition, rather than buoy or merely keep pace. Which obviously... the more speed advantage you get overall, the better off you are. I really feel the PPC 970 will be "competitive" at current 1.2-1.8 Ghz speeds even into around May-June 2004, if not longer. It's not just the speed of the processor, it's the architecture and how swift it is. Way it sounds with Hypertransport and all of the other goodies like the bus, faster PCI, faster AGP, faster RAM, et al. this could be quite wicked.
Even at that launch, it'd not be a bad deal, as we'd be on par, if not the leader with some OS fine-tuning to get some efficiency out of the ol' OS. That could be why Apple got this...
http://news.com.com/2100-1041-991061.html
Steve Sakoman, who not only worked on Apple with their "Newton" project, but was an executive (and engineer) at Be Inc. who made one of the most efficient and threaded desktop OS's, in BeOS. He also briefly worked at Palm after they took over Be Inc. as noted at the bottom of the page. I place more emphasis on his knowledge from Be than the Palm deal (wasn't there for a tremendously long time, rather brief actually), although it's obvious that the iPod eventually is taking on more and more tasks, and could branch into a bunch of other iDevices; which likely had to lure Sakoman over in some vain.
Yet in the end... getting a highly threaded Mac OS with someone who's obviously knowledgeable in such manners (once again, Sakoman) could make OS X run significantly faster on existing older hardware (a G4 could be more than bearable, and a 970 would literally fly), and furthermore... make the newer hardware seem that much faster. After all, NT (Windows 2k, XP, et al.) gets more and more bloated and slow with each release (much as Classic Mac OS did for some of us who ran it on older hardware before)... Apple turns back the clock on their efficiency, Microsoft will need Intel to be 2x's as fast just to keep pace, all the while increasing speed but also adding features to the system that don't tax it or make it crumble under the added weight.
It's not strict hardware gluttony that makes a fast computer (ask any Amiga Aficianado, they'll tell you), although being on pace in hardware holds the potential to make an advantage out of a slight deficiency in Ghz/Mhz, through efficiency and fine-tuning. Be did it, so could Apple. Running an older build of BeOS from CD-ROM (demo disc) on a 233 Mhz. PII vs. Windows NT 4, BeOS was "NOTICEABLY" faster. Just imagine if it was running from a hard disk...
For anyone that's used BeOS on Intel or PowerPC, you know the speed advantage it had over just about anything you could throw at it, including Classic Mac OS on "LIKE/SAME" hardware (as in older 604e and 603e machines). Given an efficiency formula with OS X in the "threadedness" of the system, if the PPC 970 ships a little late and is a "little" behind it's competition; as long as it's "ballpark", the operating system's efficiency can make up for it and make it seem like the clear winner overall.
Re: IBM Press Release and Steve Sakoman
Small point perhaps, but that was released in October of 2002. We are now in 2003. This is the "next year" referred to. Based upon that statement, it could be released anytime in 2003. Summer is about as good a time as any.
Actual production geared up in April. Finished chips (not just prototypes) were shipping by the end of April. Assembly lines could be shipping finished product by the end of May. Inventory builds in Warehouses through June. Announced around WWDC towards the end of June. July brings immediate availbility of at least part of the line. (still skeptical about the PowerBook and high end Power Mac availability but willing to be surprised.)
Panther will not be required, but will bring some performance increase when released, just because it will be better optimized for the 970.
Small point perhaps, but that was released in October of 2002. We are now in 2003. This is the "next year" referred to. Based upon that statement, it could be released anytime in 2003. Summer is about as good a time as any.
Actual production geared up in April. Finished chips (not just prototypes) were shipping by the end of April. Assembly lines could be shipping finished product by the end of May. Inventory builds in Warehouses through June. Announced around WWDC towards the end of June. July brings immediate availbility of at least part of the line. (still skeptical about the PowerBook and high end Power Mac availability but willing to be surprised.)
Panther will not be required, but will bring some performance increase when released, just because it will be better optimized for the 970.
Good point Shaktai, I hadn't really paid much attention to the date on that article. Perhaps MacBidouille is on the mark based on that point. Be nice if it indeed holds true. Love to see the Mac trump the PC's on performance again, and if it launches then... it more than likely would.
Not too unfeasible after all...
Be nice if it indeed holds true. Love to see the Mac trump the PC's on performance again, and if it launches then... it more than likely would. Not too unfeasible after all...
Re: Re: To Marcus Mackey:
I agree with Kai. When I encounter one of your posts, I try to read it. After a while, however, I jump to the next post. You ask a rather silly question about whether or not Kai came here to read. Some people like to read War and Peace, some people like to read USA Today. Just because Kai prefers to read short writings doesn't mean that he should not read at all. The Gettysburg Address was one of the greatest American Presidential speeches of all time. It is shorter than virtually anything that you have ever posted here.Originally posted by IVIIVI4ck3y27
Understandable Kai, but let's for a second go under the presumption that I go in and edit for brevity (mind you, I'm not writing for MacWorld or getting paid the salary to edit it down). It'd take what... an extra 5-10 minutes to shorten the posting's wordiness, and then figure out what information/details to gut out which could truncate and leave people making false presumptions because I've restricted myself. It could take upwards of 20-30 minutes for one posting that only took me 3-5 to write (I type reeeeeeally fast). Rather than do that, the people have a choice of reading it, as-is, if they truly care to read... or they don't have to, could skim it, skim past it, ignore it, etc. etc.
Let's put it this way... as enthusiastic as some are on here, they'd read what I say if it was Stephen King length (a few hundred pages). If you can't keep up or can't remember where I'm going, re-read it. If not, oh well... you probably wouldn't read, understand, or care if it was 5-10 words.
It's a messageboard... not a pictures page.
I'm just going to jump in here and say that for those of us who are verbose, type fast, and have a lot to say, the temptation to write long posts is great.
But it's a good habit to break (as a habit).
But it's a good habit to break (as a habit).
That's fine then, don't read my posts. I don't particularly care. Yet it seems some people do...
That's their prerogative. More power to them.
The point is if you came here to read short bite-sized postings, be my guest. Just ignore my postings altogether, and scroll on by. No matter how long my postings, the threads you see here will take the same amount of time to load, because ::gasping:: they're based on overall length.
Yet, don't b!tch at those that exert their constitutional rights to write as they see fit, in the way that they write. If you don't wish to read my postings, don't. You can scroll right on by, skim it, or ignore it altogether... I DID MAKE LIGHT OF THAT as an option, so exert your constitutional rights to do what ever the h-e-double-hockeysticks you wish. If you wish to berate me for writing a lot, I have every entitlement to create a rebuttal of similar fashion for your pettiness and bigotry towards those who elect to not be "brief". I'm not bashing you for writing short postings, am I? I could... but I really don't care. I read everything as it comes in, short or long... it's not a problem to me. Apparently it is to some. Probably the same group that would b!tch about the cost of tea in China, without even living there. Some people just need something to b!tch about, because they're not happy unless they're b!tching. More power to 'em! LoL At least they're keeping occupied I reckon.
If you wish to not come as a pomphous asinine jerk, then don't be one... just ignore what I have to say and move on. It's not that hard... otherwise... you get what you put in. I'm not changing who I am or how I post for anybody... because as I said earlier, if I have to put in extra efforts to bend over backwards for people like yourself, who I can really care very little about (judging by their mutual attitudes)... then perhaps I should put in extra effort to be like the Jehovah's witnesses that come knock on my door? Perhaps I should make an extra effort to walk like you, talk like you, act like you, wear the same clothes as you... get the message?
Here, let me make it clearer:
I'm me, you're you... don't like what I say or do... don't. It's your right. It's also my right to do as I wish, as long as it doesn't inflict damage to you or violate any laws.
Just for the record, I was being "polite" to Kai... because he was ;-) I was
Care to take this up with me, e-mail me, that's what the link is there for right? Or should I turn this into a flamewar for you for violating a rule of netiquette worse than lack of brevity? That being, changing the subject from it's original intents, as well as taking a personal matter up in public, and showing your @ss. You've chosen to violate 2...
Now... back to the original topic.
Yet it seems some people do...That's their prerogative. More power to them.
The point is if you came here to read short bite-sized postings, be my guest. Just ignore my postings altogether, and scroll on by. No matter how long my postings, the threads you see here will take the same amount of time to load, because ::gasping:: they're based on overall length.
Yet, don't b!tch at those that exert their constitutional rights to write as they see fit, in the way that they write. If you don't wish to read my postings, don't. You can scroll right on by, skim it, or ignore it altogether... I DID MAKE LIGHT OF THAT as an option, so exert your constitutional rights to do what ever the h-e-double-hockeysticks you wish. If you wish to berate me for writing a lot, I have every entitlement to create a rebuttal of similar fashion for your pettiness and bigotry towards those who elect to not be "brief". I'm not bashing you for writing short postings, am I? I could... but I really don't care. I read everything as it comes in, short or long... it's not a problem to me. Apparently it is to some. Probably the same group that would b!tch about the cost of tea in China, without even living there. Some people just need something to b!tch about, because they're not happy unless they're b!tching. More power to 'em! LoL At least they're keeping occupied I reckon.
If you wish to not come as a pomphous asinine jerk, then don't be one... just ignore what I have to say and move on. It's not that hard... otherwise... you get what you put in. I'm not changing who I am or how I post for anybody... because as I said earlier, if I have to put in extra efforts to bend over backwards for people like yourself, who I can really care very little about (judging by their mutual attitudes)... then perhaps I should put in extra effort to be like the Jehovah's witnesses that come knock on my door? Perhaps I should make an extra effort to walk like you, talk like you, act like you, wear the same clothes as you... get the message?
Here, let me make it clearer:
I'm me, you're you... don't like what I say or do... don't.
It's your right. It's also my right to do as I wish, as long as it doesn't inflict damage to you or violate any laws.Just for the record, I was being "polite" to Kai... because he was ;-) I was
Care to take this up with me, e-mail me, that's what the link is there for right? Or should I turn this into a flamewar for you for violating a rule of netiquette worse than lack of brevity? That being, changing the subject from it's original intents, as well as taking a personal matter up in public, and showing your @ss. You've chosen to violate 2...
Now... back to the original topic.
Please step away from the keyboard
OK people... lets remember why we're here... (hint: its not to start laying into each other...)
OK people... lets remember why we're here... (hint: its not to start laying into each other...)
970Book's feasibility
I observed there are 4 voices (wishes) on 970Book.
(a) Next year. (b) Late this year just 1G Hz. (c) Soon 1.2GHz (130nm). and (d) Soon, likely September, higher clock (90nm).
I am an optimist, and am believing case (d). Because - 90 nm process will be up and running full speed at IBM factory, quite soon.
see - http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1216_xilinx.html
This is my first post. javascript:smilie('')
Originally posted by Panther
My money says that is what the twist is... that they'll announce the 15" AlBook... with a 970. Year of the notebook indeed.
Works for me. I got my PowerMac last November - spent around $3500 all told, and I'm a little upset that the 970 is about to obsolete it... but I was already planning to get the 15" AlBook when it comes out, so having that be 970 based would more than compensate.
Here's hoping
I observed there are 4 voices (wishes) on 970Book.
(a) Next year. (b) Late this year just 1G Hz. (c) Soon 1.2GHz (130nm). and (d) Soon, likely September, higher clock (90nm).
I am an optimist, and am believing case (d). Because - 90 nm process will be up and running full speed at IBM factory, quite soon.
see - http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1216_xilinx.html
This is my first post. javascript:smilie('
')I can't believe the things people complain about
What's wrong with you people? If you don't like the lengths of his posts, scroll. I can't believe some of the things people complain about.
Its really harrassment to ridicule his posts because of length. Some of us just express differently. Asking him to whip up a fast food post instead of making his own from scratch stinks much like a wintel braggart telling a mac user to dump his toy mac in the trash and use a real computer.
Act different.
What's wrong with you people? If you don't like the lengths of his posts, scroll. I can't believe some of the things people complain about.
Its really harrassment to ridicule his posts because of length. Some of us just express differently. Asking him to whip up a fast food post instead of making his own from scratch stinks much like a wintel braggart telling a mac user to dump his toy mac in the trash and use a real computer.
Act different.
Re: I can't believe the things people complain about
Absolutely totally agree.
He posts some of the most intelligent analysis here.
Far better than the crowd that jumps on any mention of OS 9 with cries of "get with the program, you old fool!"
Perhaps only the foul-mouthed and offensive posts should be criticized - but these often seem to be the ones that are accepted by everyone.
BTW my general rule of thumb isi that if I am criticized by people who can use logic and language, I am probably wrong. If I am criticized by people who can only send mis-spelled, ungrammatical hate mail, I am probably right.
Absolutely totally agree.
He posts some of the most intelligent analysis here.
Far better than the crowd that jumps on any mention of OS 9 with cries of "get with the program, you old fool!"
Perhaps only the foul-mouthed and offensive posts should be criticized - but these often seem to be the ones that are accepted by everyone.
BTW my general rule of thumb isi that if I am criticized by people who can use logic and language, I am probably wrong. If I am criticized by people who can only send mis-spelled, ungrammatical hate mail, I am probably right.
Re: Re: I can't believe the things people complain about
Good point. I just add those foul-mouthed types to my Ignore List. After you receive the same tired "you're wrong because..." response from the _same_ people with the _same_ misinformation you start to realize the power of the "Ignore List." I excercise my right to get to the good posts. ;-)
Good point. I just add those foul-mouthed types to my Ignore List. After you receive the same tired "you're wrong because..." response from the _same_ people with the _same_ misinformation you start to realize the power of the "Ignore List." I excercise my right to get to the good posts. ;-)
New article?
Did you guys already see this article at www.ibm.com?
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A2CE393ABF2CE99787256D21006AE8A2/$file/PPC970_MPF_Review.pdf
It's a 3rd part article an it says that volume production of the 970 starts at 2H2003...
Nice article.
Did you guys already see this article at www.ibm.com?
http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/techlib/techlib.nsf/techdocs/A2CE393ABF2CE99787256D21006AE8A2/$file/PPC970_MPF_Review.pdf
It's a 3rd part article an it says that volume production of the 970 starts at 2H2003...
Nice article.