Apple announces the G4 756
Roger wrote to us with the news that Apple has announced the G4. Apple's website has all the news. This is /really/ fast. Anyone wanna let me test one? It's got up to a 500 mhz G4, one meg of L2 cache @ 1/2 processing speed, 100mhz system bus. And check out the 22 inch display that can be ordered along with it.
Re:OS X MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!!! (Score:1)
"The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed yet" - William Gibson
"The future is already here,
it's just not evenly distributed yet"
Re:It's still a Mac (Score:1)
But make sure you criticise the Mac the most because it's uncool to those who use a "REAL" operating system right?
Well, I've HAD it.
I am absofreakinglutly SICK of people telling me that Apple is dead and that people who use MAcs are a bunch of freaks. Get off you goddamn high horse and stop telling us how we're idiots. WE like the Mac, that's all, and WE ARE NOT GOING AWAY.
I'm sorry for being a hypocrite, do you forgive me, computer god? Or should I just throw away my "piece of crap computer" and forget that I even bothered learning C and C++ and trying to be a part of some "great society" circle of gurus.
Excuse me for actually giving a sh*t about a platform.
You know, I am VERY happy for Linux
OSes are great for whatever you use them for
i feel like Im in high school again.
But if you want to go ahead and tell me how my IDIOTIC OPERATING SYSTEM is not memory protected, go ahead. Chances are, I've heard the line before
Try something else...anything else in fact. (Score:1)
Sadly 'if at first you suceed, try, try again' doesn't play well in the computer world.
Quake3 was just a suggestion. Its gameplay is pathetic anyway (HL/TF'er here) but the graphics are perfect for stressing new hardware (and now smp)
Anonymous Coward, get it?
2 for 3 at least (Score:1)
3) Marketing? Um no, this is equivilent to a papal mandate. This one is all opinion unless you happen to be one of the weasels, so cut the list to 3
4) Any the $64,000 question is...WHY? Guess why? Hint: first letter A, ryhmes with Snapple
Anonymous Coward, get it?
Re:OMG.. (Score:1)
...
Re:What is up with apple? Well... (Score:1)
At my old job, I loaded a math program for kids which wouldn't load because of this. Had I not known (since the OS didn't point out the problem), and been there to help, it would have been a problem since the app was needed.
However, lack of true multitasking and good memory protection are my greatest concerns. (My machine crashes and freezes up too much.)
They still have some OS magic to perform with OS X Final. If they can extend the BSD and Mach foundation with Finder-like magic and some of that new fairy dust they've been sprinkling around the last few months, I'll buy in. Otherwise, I'll just upgrade my LinuxPPC software. :-)
(I'm still using OS 8.0 because 8.6 is bloated and slow. I've got LinuxPPC on a second partition.)
Re:Wow what a surprise ;-) (Score:1)
I have BeOS, but it doesn't run on my machine. And since they've switched to PCs, I know there's no hope for us anymore. :-]
I can't be seen in public with an orange "toilet seat," (or a blue one) however, so I'll be saving for a "normal" PowerBook, or whatever succeeds it--just something good and classy.
Re:What about USparc / Alpha??? (Score:1)
Re:4 GFLOPs, 3x Faster than A PIII, etc - selectiv (Score:1)
It's true. (Score:2)
Re:and before... (Score:1)
Anyway.. why does not Apple compare there new G4 to a 800Mhz Kriotech Athlon [tomshardware.com] (which cost $2200, can use much better video cards and other hardware)
Sure G4 is a fine processor. But Apple's marketing drivel is annoying. It is so clearly exploits people without a slightest clue about computer usage, its sickening.
Re:At least be *honest* about MacOS [Right.] (Score:1)
It's true that a machine acting as a file server rarely crashes, and OS 8.x is a lot better than previous OSes, but you must not be doing very much if your machines never crash.
Write software, use Communicator, open apps: Bugs happen; Communicator happens; memory problems happen.
Re:seti (Score:1)
Re:parallelized photoshop (Score:1)
It was many moons ago, and the dust in my brain may be clouding the facts a little, but rest assured that photoshop is well tuned for multiple processors.
Re:This is just great... (Score:1)
Re:"Rips"? (Score:1)
I would hope so, since his CPU is at least two years old and you have 200 mhz on him. It also depends on what OS you're using; Unix is a lot faster than the Mac OS or NT.
These puppies are pretty (Score:1)
Re:Rage 128 is the only choice that works here (Score:1)
Re:Mmmmmmmm (Score:1)
I've simply found that *I*, personally, can get things done faster and with less hassle using BeOS as opposed to Linux, contradicting the original poster who claimed (paraphrasing) that no one could ever find BeOS more productive than Linux.
Re:BeOS Over rated (Score:1)
Re:and before... (Score:1)
Re:change your user name to Rip Van Winkle (Score:1)
:) Actually, it comes from my early Quake days when I played with the keyboard becuase my mouse wouldn't work. So I got beat up. A lot.
MS invested $150 mill (Score:1)
The 150 mill didn't do squat. It didn't change anything one way or the other.
If it comes from apple... (Score:1)
Now, if the specs can get out so Linux and Be can make their oses *fully support* the g4, great. But of course, Apple won't share its toys. They have a burning bridge mentality. Sad.
As for "8X faster!" or whatever ridiculous claim they're making (I don't even have to check, its up there for sure a la G3) you don't think that'll show up in any app that means shit? One filter for photoshop or a looped benchmark all in risc microcode doth not count. Try something like...o...quake3 when its finished? Among other things
Anonymous Coward, get it?
One word... (Score:1)
You didn't compre it to that. It would make all your points, and more. Plus, it has higher image quality in 2D and 3D.
The rage is the oldest 'newest' card from any 3D OEM. All the other guys have come out with new stuff, and then some. (nv10 and v4 on horizon)
Anonymous Coward, get it?
Re: UNIX bencb. (Score:1)
Re:i see a lot of jealous posters here (Score:1)
Nice Linux box? (Score:1)
I personally dislike MacOS, so this would instantly become a Linux box. As such, does anyone know if they're good for that? Any glaring software deficiencies?
New G4 Plus Cinema Display = Awesome!!! (Score:1)
This thing looks SOOOO awesome... I might die of envy right now...
Apple /.ed (Score:1)
Slashdotted? (Score:1)
Bucha new technology announced (Score:2)
Cool stuff: New Colours! The G4s are "silver and graphite"
Also bundled in Airport functionality [actually a card]
It's like christmas in August!!!
Look at the screen you can get! (Score:1)
I've sold my soul to intel, but I want one of those displays!
Oh shut up (Score:1)
Negative knee-jerk reactions to everything with the word "Apple" in it doesn't make you look too smart.
Wait for the 450 or 500 machines (Score:1)
They are still getting the bugs out of the SawTooth Mobo, maybe when they have produces enough of them they will come out with a SawTooth based G4/400.
Re:This is just great... (Score:1)
All in all, they're a happier group at the moment than most Amiga users. :-(
TedC
Re:and before... (Score:1)
But as for SMP support, my original comment was that with PC architecture we have it HERE and NOW. It there is also some pretty good competition in this area. So Apple's bragging about "supercomputer on a slice of silicon" is what it is - irresponsible bragging.
Amen brother (Score:1)
Re:What the fuck are you smoking? (Score:2)
$1507 vs $1599 is the difference in price of a USB mouse and keyboard vs non USB, or name brand over cheap, or the difference in price due to hard disk manufacturers.
A $200 difference is cheaper; $1307.
A $92 difference is not big enough for me to put up with making a system from scratch when Apple has already done it for me.
-AS
Re:This is... (Score:1)
DVD-RAM is standard on the faster models.
The standard Ultra2SCSI on those faster machines is much faster than Firewire. Firewire is capable of 400Mbs, but that doesnt mean the drives are. =)
Re:Sad (Score:1)
Wrongleading marketing (Score:1)
If they claim to be twice as fast as the fastest PIII and if they hide the fact that this is restricted to Photoshop, they are doing marketing with all PC users in mind. It's as simple as that - period. Nobody (including the original poster) denies they have a fast machine, it's their extremely wrong-leading type of advertising one can criticize.
Re:You're missing something... (Score:1)
Re:Disappointing graphics card (as usual) (Score:1)
-The Cheese
Re:Underdogs (Score:1)
How about this.. (Score:1)
Stop complaining about what it doesn't do because it was never meant to do it.
Re:mac people, the dumbest on the Planet (Score:1)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Re:SPECint95/SPECfp95 for SGI Octane (Score:1)
(AXP 21264 @466MHz)
SpecInt 24.6
SpecFP 47.9
Once again, Alpha just doesn't play in the same ballpark. And it runs Linux quite well too (not like those PowerMac which are hard to support). Alpha Processors Inc. and Compaq even seem to have a support service for running Linux on those beasts.
If you don't want to shell out the cash, you can still find AXP 21164 from 533MHz to 667MHz:
533HMz: 16.1 SPECint95, 22.5 SPECfp95
600MHz: 18.0 SPECint95, 27.0 SPECfp95
667MHz: 20.8 SPECint95, 32.4 SPECfp95
OK, integer is a lot less sexy, but it's the same price as a Pentium II (at least for the 533MHz version) and noone can touch the floating-point performance, yet.
Moreover, if you insist on having the fastest double-processors micro-computer ever on earth, you can still buy the all-new UP2000 from Alpha Processor Inc (a fully configured system costs around US $6000).
SpecInt 31.8
SpecFP 49.0
...and wait for the coming upgrade to 750MHz, which should have top perfs at around 45 SpecInt and 60 SpecFP
This is... (Score:1)
Re:Vector does more than just FP (Score:1)
Shouldn't mix SlashDot and HashPot...
Yeah, I'm a Mac programmer. You got a problem with that?
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:1)
order of magnitude as well... but I'd rather pay
$1000. What's your point?
The choice of OS is not the point. It's the
cost of hardware. If anything, I wouldn't bring
up the OS issue here... it just shows how many
more flavors run on x86 than on PPC, and goes
further to show the value of a cheaper system.
Doink.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Its legally a supercomputer.... (Score:1)
Re:Apple == Good, Apple Executives == Retards (Score:1)
Increase the licensing fee to the cloners. Problem solved. The ones who can pay it will, the ones who can't pay it won't. I'm not concerned with what's good for "Apple" I'm conscerned with what's good for the platform. Steve Jobs is definately not that.
Getting rid of the floppy doesn't bother me, it's obsolete anyway, but eliminating ADB and SCSI are the two things that have caused me to decide not to buy a new mac system. I'll buy my old mac from work and put a G3/4 card into it before I buy one of the new Blue and White or Charcoal and Graphite macs.
LK
Re:Apple == Good, Apple Executives == Retards (Score:1)
While I'm at it, Hitler did a wonderful job of building the German economy, many people loved him too. As long as you don't mind sacrificing a few Jews along the way, I suppose that you can side with anyone to make a buck.
LK
Re:Yeah, but.... Yea (Score:1)
Don't you think a couple companies will write drivers when Macs have AGP?
G4(450, 500+)= AGP
8Ball iMac= AGP
iBook= AGP
Next Rev of Powerbook= AGP
Next Rev of Servers(the multiprocessor ones)= AGP
What the fuck are you smoking? (Score:1)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Anti-Appleists (Score:1)
Re:Linux BeOS (Score:1)
LinuxPPC is not in the same boat as Be. LinuxPPC has the excuse in the event of a lawsuit that they are simply repackaging an existing operating system, that they are only contributing to a community-designed operating system. Be doesn't have that excuse. If they reverse-engineer the specs, they could conceivably be held legally accountable. Further, unofficial specs also leave them at the whim of Apple (as is the case with LinuxPPC as well) - if Apple decides to change something that the MacOS understands, but screws all alternative OSes... oops.
The common complaint is, why doesn't BeOS just use the Linux base? Because most likely that would contaminate the BeOS source base with GPL code. Be doesn't want to open-source their operating system yet, so they can't incorporate GPL source into the underlying operating system.
As for BeOS has on Linux, ease of use, ease of installation, ease of configuration, GUI speed (after trying both GNOME and KDE, BeOS is by far the more responsive performer - although non-DEs, like the "basic" window managers, are on par with it), the SMP tricks (some of which you simply can't do on the Linux kernel, because of the differences in kernel architecture), pervasive multithreading, a clean, intelligent, and simple C++ API, built-in GUI scripting, built-in standard , powerful messenging system, the MIME-based file system (of which GNOME has, been virtually no applications use), and lastly, a 64-bit journalled file system with attributes that can handle very significantly larger file and volume sizes than even XFS.
Yes, however, hardware support is lacking. On the other hand, my machine (as listed below) works perfectly with absolutely no problems. The situation is analogous to how Linux used to be a few years ago - you'd have to buy Linux-compatible hardware, instead of buying hardware and pretty much knowing it would work.
Dual Pentium-II/400
384M PC100 Memory
Matrox G200 8Mb AGP
Creative Labs Voodoo2
SB Live! Value
3Com 3C905B-TX Fast Ethernet adapter
Intel PRO/100+ Fast Ethernet adapter
10.2G Maxtor UDMA HDD
8.4G Western Digital UDMA HDD
Iomega Internal Zip Drive (100M)
40x UDMA CD-ROM Drive (generic)
Re:Its legally a supercomputer.... (Score:1)
Re:Apple's last gasp for air (Score:1)
BTW: It wasn't Bill Gates that made Apple arise from its ashes... it was the buyout of Power Computing's kickass 604e & the return of der führer, Herr Jobs.
Re:You're missing something... (Score:1)
Re:not true (Score:1)
'nuff said.
Re:{ switchTo.linux() } // aargh OO-API design (Score:1)
Re:and before... (Score:1)
dual PIII boards BEFORE PIII shipped. It uses the same MB that PII.
Any ETA for dual G4 from Apple, wise ass? And what about OS support for it? It will take a while. PC will have i64 and SMP 1Ghz Athlons long before that.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:1)
Re:Idiots-Do I have to explain everything? (Score:1)
I'm lucky enough that I had to wait to get the loan for My new computer. I was going to get a 350MHz G3, but I managed to get everything I wanted AND a 400MHz G4.
There is another "real-world" bench toted on the site...or maybe an article. At the unveiling of the system, Jobs ran SETI-at-home on both the 600 PIII and the 500 G4...the G4 was makeing 3 to 4 graphs per every one of the PIII...Not bad I'd say.
Re:User's take: Nice display, nice computer. (Score:1)
Hmmmm. Didn't realize I was "falling for the pro-Linux hype," just bemoaning the state of software bloat in general -- I detest having to buy faster, bigger processing and disk hardware to support the latest applications. Meanwhile, I'm never getting the kind of display technology I need at an affordable price.
By the time I'm ready to take a deep breath and plunge into Linux for a productivity platform, I figure OpenLinux et al. will be mature & robust enough that I won't be beating my brains out as long as my hardware's nothing too exotic.
Re:change your user name to Rip Van Winkle (Score:1)
Re:change your user name to Rip Van Winkle (Score:1)
I stand corrected, *if* they've begun consolidating all those damned add-ons into the System and Finder executables themselves. Trying to keep track of all them pieces-parts is major distraction, too.
Meanwhile, you can call me "Rip" if you like. At least my user name doesn't profess to perform fellatio on theater-range ballistic missiles. ;)
Re:When Mac OS X ships (Score:1)
As for OS X, that's going to be BSD Unix (free), gcc for G4 (free) with a Mac GUI ($) and an updated version of the NextStep API. I suspect the full development tools will not appear in the OS X Client release, I hope they'll be free (in the best possible sense), but I'll settle for cheap with source code available (if not Open Source in some form).
Mac OS 8.6 (the current shipping version) is very stable. I just finished a support contract with a Fortune 100 company, and I had our 8.6 machines running perfectly (with the exception of the occaisonal packet storm on the network and of course well all know Lotus Notes isn't (very) stable on the Mac (although 4.57b cuts the random crashes to a minimum, and those probably reflect insufficient error checking given the unstable TCP/IP environment at that site).
A few notes on the 'benchmarks' shown during the keynote. Photoshop is a valid single-app benchmark, since tens of thousands of people spend all day using it. I expect the G4 acceleration to be similar in scope to the MMX or PIII acceleration. Watch the canned video of the tests, they show marked superiority in Photoshop, QT video compression (admittedly an Apple technology and almost certainly more optimized for a G4 than a PII), SETI@HOME and some scientific analysis (3D rendering of Mars Observer data).
I'm looking forward to Intel's rebuttal of these tests, and I'd also like to see someone run some of Intel's tests in the PIII performance area (PIII benchmarks [intel.com]). Speaking of whom, Apple does have the specs of Intels' tests online here [apple.com]. Note that without the Convolve test, their average is 2.24 times faster than a PIII (adjusted for MHz) instead of 2.94. Still...
Intel's explanation of the tests Apple ran are available here [intel.com].
Interestingly (and some will find suspiciously), these tests aren't in the PIII benchmark area. Of course, most of those that are use Microsoft software and so aren't really suitable for testing Apple systems. If anyone optimized the test suite for the G4, it would have been Motorolla, since AltiVec is their baby.
Re:Anti-Appleists (Score:1)
Very true, but it is always important to remember that Apple makes its money selling hardware, not software. The first 6 system releases were free. It was only 8 years ago that Apple started charging for new versions of the OS, and the latest version is always included with a new Mac.
The software market could 'die' an open-source death tomorrow, and Apple would probably just sell even more boxes as a result. Microsoft, on the other hand...
Very good G4 info: (Score:1)
http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC/products/semicon
Re:Some reality... (Score:1)
Not really. The machine I have my eye on is a dual P-III 450 MHz, 128 MB RAM, 20 GB HD, G400 AGP, etc etc.
Price? about $1300 from here [deeonesystems.com]. Of course, this place doesn't give you snazy colored boxes.
When Mac OS X ships (Score:2)
Re:this begs the obvious question... (Score:2)
It almost certainly will. The LinuxPPC folks typically get new machines running in a matter of weeks. It might take a little longer to get decent AltiVec support, but even without that, these machines can hold their own against x86 boxen. And OS X server is out NOW, and I'd guess that Apple's already got it running on these machines. Again, altiVec support might not be ready quite yet, but it will come.
2: will the
They use a variety of colors. The iMac is five different flavors, the iBook have two of the same flavors, and the Powerbooks have white Apple logos. I say stick with blue.
G4 !=MAC, G4!=G3 (Score:2)
Re:Gee, would ya look at that... (Score:2)
Re:Typical Apple benchmarking (lack thereof) (Score:2)
The secret of the G4's revolutionary performance is its aptly named Velocity Engine. It's the heart of a supercomputer miniaturized onto a sliver of silicon. The Velocity Engine can process data in 128-bit chunks, instead of the smaller 32-bit or 64-bit chunks used in traditional processors (it's the 128-bit vector processing technology used in scientific supercomputers--except that we've added 162 new instructions to speed up computations). In addition, it can perform four (in some cases eight) 32-bit floating-point calculations in a single cycle--two to four times faster than traditional processors.
Aside from the stupid name change (the "Velocity Engine" is Altivec) That sounds very impressive.
Keep in mind that Apple is re-writing OpenGL, Quickdraw, Quicktime, and other OS components to take advantage of Altivec. So once that code gets out (probably with OS X if not sooner) it will provide dramatic speed-ups of all apps that do intensive graphics operations.
And the non-Alitvec FP unit has also been improved, although I don't remember offhand what was changed.
Give me a RISC processor any day...
Um... The G4 is RISC.
Re:{ switchTo.linux() } // aargh OO-API design (Score:2)
G4 is NOT fast as hell (Score:3)
Apple claims [apple.com] that the a 500 Mhz G4 is 2.94 times as fast as a 600Mhz PIII.
What you have to realize is you should compare performance for price, not raw cpu performance. I'm sure a sun workstation could run circles around everybody, but it is obviously in another price range.
The 400Mhz G4 with 64mbytes of RAM costs $1499. Let's assume that it will run Photoshop 3 times as fast as a PentiumIII 500Mhz. For competition, let us look at the Ars Technica Hot Rod [arstechnica.com], picking the dual overclocked celerons. This system costs $1287, and includes much better peripherals (20gb harddrive, 128mb ram, tnt2 video).
According to Ars's benchmarks, dual processor systems are significantly [arstechnica.com] faster than single processor systems at performing Photoshop tasks. You could make a dual processer PIII 450 for the same price as the 400Mhz G4 (PIII 450 = 2x cost of Celeron 366). That's a bench mark I'd like to see, and one which might reflect the true cost/performance comparisons between a high end mac and a high end x86.
What does this mean? Apple claims that the G4 Velocity engine complete 2-4 times the computation of standard CPUs. But single processor x86 boxes are not the competition for the g4 (except maybe the Athlon, but Apple didn't benchmark that, did they?), since you can easily afford smp systems for the prices that they are charging.
Furthermore, this is hardware optimized for graphics production work only. Apple servers are a long way away. LinuxPPC is probably your best option, but since apple has been stingy about releasing the details of their architecture in the past, you probably wouldn't get a Linux box as optimized for the G4 as the Apple OS is. If you could get similar (and more flexible) performance on another box, why else would you want to deal with the only OS more fubared than MS?
Re:Look at the screen you can get! (Score:2)
We Got One! (Score:2)
Max, my business partner is on the phone with Apple ordering a G4. The sales rep was like "Huh? We haven't released that ye-
God, that feels good.
Check this out (Score:2)
the G4 processor, which has a sustained speed of 1 gigaflops and a peak speed of 4 gigaflops.
Apple's new systems are available in 400 Mhz, 450 Mhz, 500 Mhz speeds. The 500 Mhz version will include a DVD-RAM drive, which can record several gigs of data to a CD-sized disk.
The 400 Mhz system will be priced at $1599, the 450 Mhz system at $2499, the 500 Mhz at $3,499.
Apple will be immediately shipping the 400 Mhz system, with the other two systems shipping in a "few weeks."
Jobs said that the new systems will ship with a Photoshop plug-in that will recognize the G4 processor.
In a head-to-head race against a Pentium III system, the PowerMac G4 handily blew away the Pentium III system, rendering a scene with Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story more than twice as fast as the Pentium machine, which was running at 600 Mhz.
The next demo tested memory bandwidth. Again facing the fastest Pentium III currently available, the PowerMac G4 crushed the Pentium system.
Next came a QuickTime encoding demo, where the trailer for the James Bond movie was compressed in real time on the PowerMac G4, but took about twice as long on the Pentium system. In fact, the PowerMac G4 could actually compress the James Bond movie and play it back before the Pentium system could encode the clip.
A college professor then took the reins to demonstrate the supercomputer capabilities of the G4.He demonstrated the popular SETI@Home project, where a G4 was able to process in 6 hours the same amount of information that a Pentium III could process in 25 hours.
To demonstrate encryption speed, a 1000 bit encryption key was decoded on both a G4 and G3, where the G4 was almost seven times faster. Standard cryptography applications run at 3 to 8 times the speed of Pentium III systems, according to the professor.
The last demo showed actual data from the Mars Pathfinder mission. A G4 and a Pentium II system set up head-to-head showed the rendering of data from a probe flying through a valley on Mars. The G4 played like a movie, while the Pentium III played more like a slide-show.
--------------------------------------
Gee... (Score:2)
P'raps you _should_ be. >;)
You're missing something... (Score:3)
Rage 128 is actually pretty decent. Depending on what you're looking for in a card, it can be the best one out there. Here's the thing: Voodoo3 has the fastest renderer, but there's a reason for that: it can't do any more than 16-bit color (and yes, I've read that little excuse^H^H^H^H^H^Harticle from that 3Dfx guy; I've seen the cards back to back and I don't buy it in the least). In other words, each frame won't look as good as one from a Rage 128. Then there are NVidia's offerings; reasonably good framerate, but the renderer is still of pretty low quality. Rage 128 has a relatively slow renderer (key word "relatively"; it beats Voodoo2 handily and I've never seen it more than five FPS slower than a Voodoo3) but its frames look better than the others do.
Personally, I'll sacrifice a few FPS for better-looking graphics. Then again, that's just me; some people can't tell the differences between the three renderers, just as some people (myself included)_can't tell the difference between an MP3 and the original CD recording.
Besides which, 3Dfx and Matrox are still flaky with MacOS support. The cards do work, but I don't think either is OF-compliant at this point. ATI, on the other hand, is (and has been since Apple started including their chips, which is probably why Apple did it).
Re:Apple is promoting boot legging (Score:2)
Ten million years or so...
-
Sad (Score:2)
Apple is promoting boot legging (Score:2)
I can just see it now, an army of people in theatres with their digital camera's going home and uploading it directly to their computer and burning it on vcd or better yet(for Apple that is)onto a dvd-ram in Quick Time format.
Re:Look at the screen you can get! (Score:2)
PLEASE BUY MINE!!! (Score:2)
*sigh* Expect to see mine on eBay or uBid sometime in the next couple of weeks... considering how badass these new machines are gonna be, I'm not sure how much demand there'll be for used G3's...
Re:Unreasonable bitterness (Score:2)
Why do you need to find a website that explains
why? It should be pretty obvious.
There are always people that will hate anything.
For example, I hate lots of things; probably even
some things that you like.
The next part is whether I'm bored enough to
vent about those things in front of you. This guy
was, apparantly.
If you want a specific answer on why people might
specifically hate Apple, here are a few ideas with
which I may or may not agree:
1. Apple makes closed hardware and software. This pisses off Linux folks.
2. They won't share their G3/G4 specs with other OS companies. This pisses off BeOS folks.
3. They bend the truth with numbers (i.e. claiming
their G3 was twice as fast as the current intel
chip, even though this was for integer performance
only). This pisses off x86 folks.
4. They complain about Microsoft, and then turn
around and do Microsoft-ish things (as well as
except money from MS). This pisses off lots of folks.
5. They rely/relied on their zealots to carry them
through the past 5-8 years where they were no longer
innovating. Merely claiming Win95 == MacOS '89 (or
whatever) is not the same thing as innovating.
I'm sure there's more.
Honestly though, if you can't answer your own
question, then perhaps you are not very objective
about software companies? I love BeOS, I use
Windows, I don't like Linux or Mac, but I can
understand why people love and hate all of those
products.
-WW
P.S. They're all just tools
work.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
No Linux! (Score:2)
Darn but I wished formatting was kept.
But subtract the $309 for NT and you do get a cheaper SMP system, Be or Linux.
Be *might* be able to function in a similar manner to a G4 in terms of graphics and multimedia.
-AS
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
For those fields(under which the G4 was released, at Seybold) there is no comparable machine in the market. DIYers can cobble together the above/previously mentioned SMP PIII, but not at a significantly lower price point.
-AS
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
Why NT? Because NT can do the same things, mostly, that Mac can do; desktop publishing, prepress, color correction, etc. If we are targetting different markets, then sure, throw in Linux or BeOS. For Seybold, I think NT would be appropriate.
-AS
The funny thing is... (Score:2)
Now thats funny.
Another thing about the G4... when typing it, if you give it a little SHIFT, you get G$
does Apple know something we dont
What are you talking about? (Score:2)
-AS
*sigh*, once again, Apple misleads. (Score:3)
If the damned thing is fast, show me *useful data saying so*, not some bullshit Specmark and one-singular-application tests. That'll never happen, though, because then they wouldn't be able to make such ridiculous "200% faster!!" claims.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
Re:Mmmmmmmm (Score:2)
Right on. So poor little Be supposedly couldn't reverse engineer Apple's G3 motherboard. But they do manage to figure out how to reverse engineer around the various bugs and defects for the gazillion PC motherboards and BIOSes out there.
I would love to see IBM sink some money into Be to keep BeOS/PPC alive, but would imply that IBM would actually have to support the PPC platform beyond the point of just re-releasing some old motherboard specs.
--
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
I do believe $1507 is cheaper than $1599? Or
perhaps I'm reading your heap o' numbers wrong.
But most importantly, you through NT in to the
mix. Who says I want that? You added $309 for NT. Subtract $309, and add $0 for Linux if you want
a server system, or $69 for BeOS if you want an
end-user system.
doink.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring