×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New G4s Coming Our Way

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the more-power-to-shake-a-stick-at dept.

Apple 259

MasterOfDisaster writes "According to c|net, and this article on maccentral.com, Apple will release "four new, single-processor Power Mac G4 models, all using a 133MHz system bus, and ranging in speed from 466MHz to 733MHz" as well as MacOS 9.1 and several other things, next Tuesday at MacWorld Expo in San Francisco."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

259 comments

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

danheskett (178529) | more than 13 years ago | (#532394)

Yes, it is.

I told a Mac friend i Would help him troubleshoot his Mac internet server (webstar, icky, but stable/secure). Anyways, long story short the server process was not getting any CPU time because a pop-up window was preventing it from switching tasks. Yes, thats right. A little 'Click Accept' dialog was shutting down his site. Thats how "not that bad" it is. An open window will DOS a Mac box. Its actually pathetic. I had pre-emptive multitasking on my Amiga, 12 years ago.

NT Shipping Dates, Cairo, Chicago, etc... (2)

namespan (225296) | more than 13 years ago | (#532395)

I remember having a conversation in 1994 about the future of windows. I remember two code names -- Cairo and Chicago. I think one of them was Win95 and the other was what became NT 5.0 The projected release for NT 5.0 was late 1995 early 1996.

All hearsay, of course.

--

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 13 years ago | (#532398)

1.)Have you ever worked anywhere that required working with colors and shapes? What if those colors and shapes needed to look the same on every monitor in the shop? Well, that new Apple Display Connector should help.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? ADC is just an interface combining power, DVI, and USB in one cable/port. It's only purpose is to eliminate cable clutter.

Macs have been known for color consistency for years because of ColorSync. This has nothing to do with ADC, which is based on a 3 year old IBM technology and was introduced only 6 months ago with the CP machines.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

Golias (176380) | more than 13 years ago | (#532399)

A NON-ERGONOMIC optical mouse with ONE FREAKING BUTTON!

Make that the most ergonomic mouse around with no buttons. You obviously have this mixed up with the old Apple mouse from a year ago.

There are no ergonomic 3-button mice, because they all force you to keep three fingers poised over their respective buttons with either your palm pushing the mouse, or else your thumb and pinky clamped onto its sides... very un-ergonomic. The buttonless Apple mouse is a dream, to use... especially since the OS does not really require multiple mouse buttons. I like my MS Intelimouse, particularilly the spiffy scroll wheel in the middle, but the new Apple mouse is much more pleasant to use. (For the record, I still use the MS mouse on Win and Linux boxes, and I think MS makes some of the best mice on the market.)

Wired (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532401)

Has anyone read the Wired [wired.com] article yet?

get your dates right (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 13 years ago | (#532405)

MacOS X was originally due in fall '99. Jobs then changed this when Aqua was introduced, pushing it back a year(IIRC). Then it was delayed again to Jan 2001, and then "early" 2001.

Anyway, Rhapsody was originally due out in '98, and while MacOS X Server did eventually come out in '99, it really didn't fulfill the promise of Rhapsody: a stable consumer OS. So you could say that MacOS X is really about 3 years late now.

Also, Rhapsody was originally going to run on x86 machines as well as PPC, which was completely dropped after Apple realized that if it did, no one would buy Apple's overpriced hardware.

-this is from a long time Apple/Mac user: Apple IIe, Classic, Classic II, 5200, Blue G3, G4/400

If we could only send a Jackass to the moon... (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#532406)

My wishlist for this next year includes a lithium polymer battery for my 1999 series Powerbook. I would REALLY like to get rid of this 1.something pound Li battery. I don't really give a shit if I get more time to play games or type things up in Appleworks, I just want a damned lighter piece of equipment to carry around. Even halving the weight of the battery would be fine by me. With that out of the way I just really want to say yahoo! (in a non-proper sort of way that doesn't infringe on copyrights). I've been waiting oh so long for Apple to release systems with higher clock speeds. Motorola has demonstrated 1GHz processors and Apple is trudging along with their line of 500MHz G4s. The addition of a higher memory bus speed is also a plus. Now if they would only crank out boxes with 4x AGP enabled they'd be in a great position for games as well as hardware acceleration for Maya and other apps.

umm, no (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 13 years ago | (#532407)

Even I, who really don't care much for Aqua, am really looking forward to MacOS X.

Having a machine that doesn't crash and has real dynamic memory allocation will be heaven for most Mac users. All Apple really needs to do is take out that friggin debug code so the thing doesn't run slow as shit.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 13 years ago | (#532411)

Please. In probably less than two months, all you command line freaks can sit there in the terminal in OS X and do whatever the heck it is you do. Pick up a copy of OS X PB and you can do it today.

Re:Finally... (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 13 years ago | (#532413)

If Steve Jobs doesn't give some serious, concrete info on OS X at MWSF(i.e. ship date, improvements since PB, carbonized apps), he will be killed by the crowd.

I am not joking.

Price plays a part (2)

Gorimek (61128) | more than 13 years ago | (#532415)

The 450/500 MHz G4s they put in the dual systems had been out for almost a year, and are probably pretty cheap.

But these freshly baked 733MHz wonders will be much more expensive at first. And it would add a lot to the price of the system to add an extra processor.

I agree (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 13 years ago | (#532416)

I never said I like Aqua. In fact I don't. It looks pretty, but it really isn't as functional as the OS 9 GUI.

But still, the prospect of having a stable, modern underpinning to the OS is very appealing.

I'm hoping that Apple will change Aqua a bit before the final(we should see the results at MWSF) and also that they will release tools to allow 3rd parties to create themes that can drastically change the interface. I will almost certainly not be using the default Aqua scheme(even if they give me an Apple menu and trash the dock, it's way too bright).

Re:NT Shipping Dates, Cairo, Chicago, etc... (1)

SVDave (231875) | more than 13 years ago | (#532418)

Chicago was the code name for Windows 4.0, aka Windows 95.

Some documents [pcc.edu](note its date) claim Cairo was the code name for Windows NT 4.0 (the first release of NT with the Win95 interface).

Others [microsoft.com] claim that Cairo is/was the code name of NT 5.0 (aka Windows 2000)

Perhaps Microsoft used the Cairo codename for NT 4, and then reused it for NT 5. That's just a guess, though. However, the claim that NT 5 was due out in late '95 doesn't seem to have any basis in fact. Rather, it seems like the result of a confused combination of the version number of Cairo #2 with the release date of Cairo #1.

Still losing the speed race (3)

sheckard (91376) | more than 13 years ago | (#532421)

Face it, speed sells. If the average consumer was to pick between a (top-of-the-line) 733Mhz G4 and a even middle-of-the-road 1Ghz Athlon, guess which one they're going to pick. Now, don't give me the crap about how Macs aren't for the average consumer or whatever, but face it, this is a problem for Apple. It's a shame that they're being held back by Motorola when their Mac OS X is so wonderful. But boy does it need it's CPU cycles.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

.pentai. (37595) | more than 13 years ago | (#532422)

umm, read, "low end"

A "low end" machine is generally the cheapest available. An E-Machine box for Intel arch, an iMac for Apples.

And a "low end" PC generally doesn't have a 17" display - if so damn, I'm still using a 15" at home (and I cry when I leave my 19" at work)

Re:get your dates right (1)

.pentai. (37595) | more than 13 years ago | (#532430)

MacOS X may not be coming to x86 machines, but the core (Darwin) works well according to various places...which means it's not a TOTAL mistruth. But you're right, they won't port to x86 fully because then they lose their profits, and a company with no profits fails.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

BSOD Bitch (260492) | more than 13 years ago | (#532432)

Actually a powermac 733 will kill a 1ghz i386 processor in graphics performance. i386's arch just wouln't press the instructions. Ask some people who use both i386, and Mac, they will tell you the same.

Shooting off here... (2)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 13 years ago | (#532433)

Maybe I have my info wrong, but the ADC is a littl e more than just power, DVI, and USB; the monitors hooked up to them (LCD and the like) actually use the USB port to transmit calibration data, IIRC, though you'll have to scroll down to the bottom of the PDF linked [akamai.net] in order to get an inkling of some of this capability...



Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]

Re:Funny, I'm a new fan of Apple, myself. (1)

mmontour (2208) | more than 13 years ago | (#532436)

Then there's the quiet fanless iMacs and G4 cubes.

I really wish that there were more fanless computers like the iMac or Cube. Passive (noiseless) cooling is one thing that I've really missed since I traded in my Amiga 500. I've always shared a fairly small living space with my computers, and I just can't sleep with one of these multi-fan x86 monsters grinding away all night. Even the 15W StrongARM-based Netwinder has a small but surprisingly annoying fan in it.

I just wish that Apple made a fanless model somewhere in between the iMac (the built-in monitor's a bit small) and the G4 Cube (too expensive).

Re:Boring.... (2)

mmontour (2208) | more than 13 years ago | (#532437)

Apple should just stick a divide-by-two flip-flop on the CPU's clock pin, then jack up the oscillator frequency until they're MHz-competitive with the x86 world. It wouldn't hurt the performance much, and it's no dirtier than some of the tricks that Intel's played over the years (487SX Coprocessor upgrade [pcguide.com], anyone?).

Re:Boring.... (1)

chrischow (133164) | more than 13 years ago | (#532439)

are you an average consumer who doesn't understand the difference between RISC and CISC then?

Re:Hopefully? (1)

chrischow (133164) | more than 13 years ago | (#532440)

the majority of mac users? seems opposite to me, some vocal opposition but there was when we had to move from OS 6 to 7!

DVI, ADC, etc. (1)

rfsayre (255559) | more than 13 years ago | (#532454)

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? ADC is just an interface combining power, DVI, and USB in one cable/port. It's only purpose is to eliminate cable clutter.

Macs have been known for color consistency for years because of ColorSync. This has nothing to do with ADC, which is based on a 3 year old IBM technology and was introduced only 6 months ago with the CP machines.

Well, these are all true facts... except for the part about ADC only being about cable clutter. I'm well aware of the fact that ADC is a new inclusion in Apple boxes, and I didn't mean to imply that it was one of those hyped up Revolutionary Apple Innovations. The nice thing is that they put this (still new to consumers) technology in without requiring the purchase of a flat panel monitor.

Colorsync is good... but not that great. Even Apple admits that a correctly configured colorsync workflow will not be perfect. The only real solution is to manually (w/ colorsync on) tweak your display & output device to match each other. Color management is not a plug-and-play operation. Besides, PCs aren't much different anymore, are they?

I hope you're referring to DVI as that 3 yr old technology, and not that sucky aptiva thing.

I will admit that, for reasons unknown even to myself, I thought that the CRT monitors were using the DVI also. So that was stupid.

Anyway, the whole reason I got into this discussion was to point out that Apple often includes slightly ahead of the (consumer) curve technology, which makes the box a good purchase over the long haul. Let's just say there are probably a lot of parallel port zip drives hanging around unused these days.

But you *still* can't buy cheap PPC motherboards (1)

Karma collector (184064) | more than 13 years ago | (#532460)

Want to build your own PPC system? Around $2,500 if you want a non Mac mobo. It's cheaper to buy a Mac and trash the bits you don't want.

Apple Hardware prices (1)

fungai (133594) | more than 13 years ago | (#532462)

Also note that apple has slashed its hardware prices a lot to get rid of about 11.5 weeks of stock sitting around. Apparently they overestimated the average mac user's upgrade cycle. Plus the G4 cube wasn't nearly as popular as they hoped it would be. I'm seriously thinking of buying a mac and just run linux on it till OS X comes out. Hell, you can now buy a Power Mac G4 for $1299 [apple.com]!

Re:St. Steve is the loser... (1)

Spruitje (15331) | more than 13 years ago | (#532463)


MacOS is almost 20 years old now, about the same as DOS.


DOS is even older.
The first version, called CP/M was developed around 1974.
The Macintosh Operatingsystem is from 1982.
The difference is very large.
CP/M is originally a 8 bits OS.
The Macintosh operatingsystem is a true 32 bits OS.
So, there is a very large difference between DOS and MacOS.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

netpixie (155816) | more than 13 years ago | (#532472)

It's even worse then that. When I used to program the wacky things, holding the mouse button down prevented any "user level" programs getting any time. Which is why the clock used to stop when you were using menus or dragging windows. Which is why if you want to do anything complicated you have to start programming at interrupt level (yes, you read that right, I said inturrupt level).

-------------------------------------------

Re:St. Steve is the loser... (1)

mallie_mcg (161403) | more than 13 years ago | (#532475)

Maybe you are thinking of Apple Unix, A/UX? That untill now was the only OS from Apple that supported more than one CPU/had SMP support.

Dont know about A/UX having SMP support, but apple at the time that the previous guy mentions (PPC 604e X4)the machines running MacOS, were able to use the extra processors providing the Program ie: PhotoShop had been written to support the multi procs, i believe though that instead of SMP it was Asyncronous MP or something with an A, that did not mean Apple.


How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

mallie_mcg (161403) | more than 13 years ago | (#532477)

I expect to be working with the G4 in a Powerbook some time next month without using clock pacing tricks like Intel has had to implement in the Pentium portables. (a trick by the way implemented by Apple sometime back in 1991 for their powerbooks at the time).

Unless i am mistaken the way that Apple's method of implimentation varies significantly to Intels, apple is able to (at least on my iBook) change the CPU speed to relatively anything based apon how much is currently needed to do the work, and is very dynamic, this is done to get better batterly life. Intels solution (i think i am correct here) is LAME, they just run the processor at (2) Two different speeds, eg: 600MHz when plugged into power point, and say 400MHz when running of the battery. (Those specific examples may be incorrect, but illustrate the point).


How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.

Re:I agree (1)

mallie_mcg (161403) | more than 13 years ago | (#532478)

Hell yeah! i just recently switched back from OS X to OS9 on my iBook, as i found the Aqua to be nice looking, but just not useable enough. Kind of irritating, nothing really that i can place my finger apon, i just seems to have departed to far from what i like about MacOS


How every version of MICROS~1 Windows(TM) comes to exist.

Re:Boring.... (2)

Phroggy (441) | more than 13 years ago | (#532479)

It's hard to get excited about specs that were met by AMD/Intel over a year ago... Granted we're comparing apples to oranges, but does the average consumer understand the difference between a RISC and CISC (NOPE)...

They also don't understand the difference between closed-source and GPL. I guess all those Linux proponents should just go home.

--

VISION (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532491)

What I have to say will probably provoke a response from Mr. Commander Taco. He may label me "unstable" or even "sex-crazed". I realize and accept that as a consequence of what I am about to say. However, I do doubtlessly hope that Mr. Taco will read everything I have to say before labeling me. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to warn the public against those hectoring freaks whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

He teaches workshops on gangsterism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to give you some background information about Mr. Taco. He says that violence and prejudice are funny. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

The point at which you discover that his morals are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of deconstructionism is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that if I want to have a nervous breakdown, that should be my prerogative. I don't need him forcing me to. From secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, Mr. Taco's confreres have always found a way to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that Mr. Taco's wishy-washy allegations are to politics what the blitzkrieg was to international diplomacy?" The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that I unequivocally feel that Mr. Taco has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none, or he wouldn't attack the fabric of this nation. If I, not being one of the many clueless knuckle-draggers of this world, weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that after hearing about his mean-spirited attempts to make my stomach turn, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level.

The fabric of Mr. Taco's scare tactics is infused with stingy randy elitism. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: Mr. Taco can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time. I have had enough of his waste, fraud, misfeasance, and malfeasance. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: "Mr. Taco" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone lionize lewd stirrers, I tell him or her to stop "Mr. Taco-ing".

Once it becomes clear that he has come very, very close to making me lose heart, it becomes apparent that I overheard one of his backers say, "Mr. Taco knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- foolish gits, callow hidebound-types, and insensitive truculent slobs. To some extent, I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that he had the same intellectual honesty.

One can examine this from another angle, and plainly see that Mr. Taco's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Whether or not Mr. Taco should interfere with my efforts to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Mr. Taco ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, I know that Mr. Taco's simplistic reasoning follows the same fallacies as so many other treatises on similar issues. You know that. But does Mr. Taco know we know that? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture.

Needless to say, I oppose his rodomontades because they are arrogant. I oppose them because they are soulless. And I oppose them because they will turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a feral vat of nepotism in the immediate years ahead. Mr. Taco has made some dangerous assumptions about myopic egotists, and deep down in our bones, we all know why. The dominant characteristic of his expedients is not that they defend materialism, Marxism, and notions of racial superiority, but that, in the bargain, they shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs.

He throws the word "spinulosodenticulate" around as if it had the same meaning to everyone. (Actually, he is the most self-satisfied, uncivilized, and fatuitous waste of genetic material in our society, but that's not important now.) My usual response to Mr. Taco's values is this: Mr. Taco's pleas are particularism cloaked in the rhetoric of vainglorious sensationalism. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little dishonest, so let me be more specific. When Mr. Taco hears anyone say that by excluding any possibility of comparison, he can easily pass off his own reports as works of genius, his answer is to let the most spineless heavy metal fans you'll ever see serve as our overlords. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to spread awareness of the delirious nature of his fairy tales.

By seeking to make a mockery of the term "nondenominationalism", Mr. Taco reveals his ignorance about vandalism's polyvocality. He probably also doesn't realize that I frequently talk about how it is often said that my personal safety depends upon your starting to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward sexism, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same. I would drop the subject, except that he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to inculcate infantile diatribes. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Mr. Taco's bootlickers. The truth is that Mr. Taco likes to compare his publications to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. Mr. Taco may be sincere, but he is also sincerely benighted. I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how Mr. Taco argues that misguided sewer rats and cranky batty nymphomaniacs should rule this country. To maintain this thesis, Mr. Taco naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that society is screaming for his screeds. It has been said that his maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely orations are actually quite childish when you look at them a bit closer. I, in turn, maintain that he will go to almost any extreme to prevent my message of truth from getting out. But there's the rub; his arguments have grown into the world's greatest enslavers of human minds. Let me rephrase that: I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. Clericalism appears to have triumphed. Am I aware of how Mr. Taco will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because a number of insufferable amnesiacs have succumbed to excessive drug use, alcoholism, and other addictive behavior indicating maladaptive mechanisms. For proof of this fact, I must point out that he is not just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid.

Mr. Taco, do you feel no shame for what you've done? His smears are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Even though he has aired his disapproval of being criticized, I still suspect that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that I believe I have finally figured out what makes people like Mr. Taco impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior he disapproves of. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind, lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of exposure to the real world. There are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship, and there are those who hinder the power of brainless psychopaths like him. Mr. Taco fits neatly into the former category, of course. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me resolve a number of lingering problems, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

Re:Still losing the speed race (3)

Rombuu (22914) | more than 13 years ago | (#532495)

It's a shame that they're being held back by Motorola when their Mac OS X is so wonderful.

Apple, as usual, is being held back by Apple. They've switched processor families before and there is no technical reason they couldn't again. For some reason, everyone else in the world knows that selling PC hardware is a low margin game and that Apple's forte is their OS and some of their applications, but they keep stumbling around trying to convince themselves that making cool looking boxes is going to recapture their past and short lived glory years.

VISION (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532499)

I don't want to be rude or disrespectful, and I sincerely don't want to start an argument, but I invite you to talk to Mr. Commander Taco yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting his position. With this letter, I hope to give you some background information about Mr. Taco. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Mr. Taco's tirades are built on lies, and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. The tasteless nature of his whinges distracts us from the real lessons we could learn from a rigorous critique of Mr. Taco's criticisms. Yet Mr. Taco's put-downs are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, metagrobolism is dangerous. Mr. Taco's unprofessional version of it is doubly so. Quite simply, even when Mr. Taco isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to harvest what others have sown.

The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the twaddlers of this society are, but rather that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to give parents the means to protect their children. And just let him try and stop me. While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, it's indisputably astounding that Mr. Taco has found a way to work the words "archaeopterygiformes" and "roentgenographically" into his pronouncements. However, you may find it even more astounding that I, for one, indubitably have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Mr. Taco galvanize a self-centered hectoring hysteria, a large-scale version of the saturnine mentality that can violate values so important to our sense of community. When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planning to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to demand that loyalty to dirty loan sharks supersedes personal loyalty. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that statements like, "He is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that every time Mr. Taco gets caught trying to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his forces always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they claim, all any child needs is a big dose of television every day.

Mr. Taco's expedients have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. My purpose is to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Mr. Taco's squalid smears. Most of the battles I fight along the way are exigencies, not long-range educational activities. Nevertheless, Mr. Taco's philosophies cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that post-structuralism is the only alternative to ageism.

With Mr. Taco's snow jobs hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles, it makes sense that if one believes statements like, "The federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights," one is, in effect, supporting meddlesome election-year also-rans. Mr. Taco's cop-outs are tinctured with credentialism. And that's where we are right now. Someone needs to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Mr. Taco. Who's going to do it? Mr. Taco? I think not.

You can observe a definite bias in his insinuations relating to the worst classes of cruel pothouse drunks there are. But it doesn't stop there. He wants us to believe that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. How stupid does he think we are? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that he is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of vapid speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list!

Many people who follow Mr. Taco's assertions have come to the erroneous conclusion that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to Mr. Taco's scornful prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. The stark truth of the matter is that I, for one, like to speak of him as "self-serving". That's a reasonable term to use, I insist, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But as soon Mr. Taco takes us beyond the point of no return, the next thing we'll hear him say is, "Oops, made a mistake". Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Mr. Taco. Once again, I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that there is a format Mr. Taco should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, his legates will be unable to deny that Mr. Taco's intransigent pleas brand me as disgraceful. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of catty pauperism. Mr. Taco's fierce passions and fiendish cunning, combined with abnormal powers of intellect, with intense vitality, and with a persistency of purpose which the world has rarely seen, and whetted moreover by a keen thirst for blood engendered by defeat and subjection, combine to make him the deadly enemy of all mankind, while his flippant jeremiads contribute to inflame his wild lust of pelf, and to justify the crimes suggested by spite and superstition.

Mr. Taco possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition," much less achieve it. He has recently been going around claiming that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to obstruct various important things. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk.

Anyway, the consequence of all this is that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. Of course, I shall return to this point in particular. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. That's just not true. All the deals Mr. Taco makes are strictly one-way. Mr. Taco gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. His remonstrations are merely childish attempts at ridicule. But you knew that already. So let me add that at no time in the past did vicious chiselers shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. If you understand that I'm simply trying to explain Mr. Taco's mumpish tendencies as well as his officious tendencies as phases of a larger, unified cycle, then you can comprehend that Mr. Taco ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

He finds enemies everywhere. That said, let me continue. We all learned the Golden Rule in school. Maybe Mr. Taco was absent that day. How dare he pull the levers of commercialism and oil the gears of obstructionism? The fact that his secret police can be stereotyped as soulless mephitic tools of prepackaged political ideology and mischievous anarchists to boot is particularly striking, since there are some simple truths in this world. First, he makes decisions based on random things glamorized by the press and the resulting rantings of capricious publishers of hate literature. Second, his unedifying preoccupation with fetishism will inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns one day. And finally, we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with him. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is Marxism, which says to me that Mr. Taco proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

Does Mr. Taco do research before he reports things, or does he just guess and hope he's right? The reason I ask is that Mr. Taco says that he is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. He has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that brainless dorks with stronger voices than minds would revert to discourteous behavior. But his true goal is to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. All the statements that his helpers make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. Mr. Commander Taco upholds sin as sacred. That is why, come what may, we must stop this insanity.

Re:Can you imagine... (2)

lmake (240649) | more than 13 years ago | (#532508)

The Australian National University Considered using the G4 in the Beowulf cluster, but decided against it. Can't remember why.

Yay (1)

Bobo Kaput (15026) | more than 13 years ago | (#532516)

I guess. My 14 month old Yikes G4 is still the the perfect Photoshop deployment environment. The price drop should have happened six months ago however.

Re:Still losing the speed race (4)

cowscows (103644) | more than 13 years ago | (#532519)

Maybe with all the negative press that intel has been getting over it's P4, with the empty clock speed, at least a little more consumer awareness about the fact that clockspeed is just one of many numbers determining computer speed. Apple certainly is in a sucky spot with this whole motorola thing. I wonder if/when the computer world is going to end up more like the car world, where most any machine you buy will have plenty of power/speed, and other things can become a deciding factor in purchases. Apple would certainly like it that way.

Finally... (1)

Giant Robot (56744) | more than 13 years ago | (#532522)

A 733 Mhz G4 can finally beat my dual overclocked 1.2 Ghz Pentium III with the help of the "special instruction set" ;-)

Seriously, they haven't even mentioned or hinted at the so "Apple" prices these things are going to cost. Will OSX even be loaded on these machines?

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532524)

Not exactly. Apple makes it money in the hardware game. For a hardware company such as
Apple, the money they make off software is pennies compared to their hardware. If you want MacOS, you buy a Mac.

You speak of "short lived glory years"? When were these? Apple seemed to own the market from 78-88, if not longer. That seems like a good run, and they have been coming back in the past 2 years.

Sure mHz matters, but what about the Altivec! (1)

fosh (106184) | more than 13 years ago | (#532533)

Has anyone else watched the speed of mp3 encoding double when they use gogo (an mmx enabled encoder)?

Yes?

Now imagine (insert your fave mp3 encoder here) compiled with linuxPPC's <A HREF="http://www.linuxppc.org/software/index/ByDat e.html">AltiVEC enabled GCC</A> God damn!

Seriously though, this new hardware is BIG news for apple, whose future (IMHO) will be determined the acceptance (or lack there of (I hope not)) of OS X. Hopefully this will stop people from turning away from apple simply because its "Not fast enough"

BTW, I think the people saying apples are "not fast enough" are the same people asking you "What version of linux are you running?" expecting an anwer of "Redhat XX".

Oh Well
--Alex the rambling Fishman

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

Luggage (250884) | more than 13 years ago | (#532544)

They do have one advantage- they can do more processess at once. Rather than trying to do one process really fast and then another process really fast, a Mac does have the advantage of being able to do more processess at the same time, though not quite as fast. It's not that bad a trade-off in some ways.

Damn! We want dual processor G4s! (3)

ericdano (113424) | more than 13 years ago | (#532547)

What a STUPID proposal. Dropping Dual G4s! In the face of Mac OS X being around the corner, you'd think they'd WANT to show off the fact that a dual G4 running OS X would kick ass......but no!

Being an owner of a couple of macs, including a 9600 (old multiprocessor 604 computer) and a pc owner (1 dual pentium 166, 1 dual pentium pro, 2 dual pentium II 333 a single processor athlon and a partridge in a pear tree ;-) ), I'd say that my experience with multiprocessor computers is very favorable. Running Linux/FreeBSD or Windows 2000/NT, it really makes the machine more useable. Like if I encode a MP3 on my single processor computer, it will chew up all the processor time and make other programs running deadly slow (on my windows 2000 machine), but on the dual processor machine (windows 2000 or freebsd/linux) the machine can easily encode a mp3 and it will only chew up 50% resources.

I think Apple jumped the gun with dual G4s, but NOW IS NOT THE TIME to stop making them. OS X will take advantage of the extra CPU and make the thing fly!
--

Re:The real world uses windows (1)

influensa (267570) | more than 13 years ago | (#532575)

Aside from the fact that your post is off-topic, what difference does it make who uses what?

Hopefully this won't cause a major flame war, but it shouldn't. I just really don't see the point of doing posts like this.

Should Apple stop making Macs. Should Linus and all the others stop what they're doing to? I don't think there's much of an argument in the my-os-is-better-the-rest-should-give-up meme as successful as it's been. It doesn't matter if the "real-world" uses windows. If they do, then they probably made the decision that was best for them.

It's just simple organics and evolution that if there's more than one operating system, more people's needs will be met and all of the o/s's will continue to get better. This kind of competition is good for everybody. Even the worry of fragmentation and certain systems not being compatible with others is of not much bother. We all seem to be doing just fine communicating with all the different platforms.

So why am I responding to such obvious flamebait, even at the risk of losing karma? I think it's because I'm stoned.

But all in all, chastizing people about platform choice will get nobody anywhere. It's just nice to have a lot of choices.

Boring.... (2)

cmoanz (88260) | more than 13 years ago | (#532577)

It's hard to get excited about specs that were met by AMD/Intel over a year ago... Granted we're comparing apples to oranges, but does the average consumer understand the difference between a RISC and CISC (NOPE)...

--

Apple isn't being held back by anyone but Apple. (2)

aztektum (170569) | more than 13 years ago | (#532580)

I submitted this in Oct. but was DENIED. hehe. No anymosity

Motorola has hit 1 Ghz with the G4 Processor. Here's the story from CNET [cnet.com]

I'm sure Apple's pricing might scare people away from a G4 too, unless they sell a kid :/


aztek: the ultimate man

9.1 to be released at MacWorld Tokyo in *February* (1)

macdaddy (38372) | more than 13 years ago | (#532584)

9.1 is supposed to be released at MacWorld Tokyo in February (although it's ready anytime). MOSR [macosrumors.com] has the scoop.

--

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (5)

RealTypeR (75674) | more than 13 years ago | (#532586)

"First of all, Apple is falling farther and farther behind on the performance race. "

Have you compared the speeds of say a G4/500 dual processor system and one using a high end AMD or Intel chip? The systems are very comparable. The Mac will easily hold its own, and in certain tasks, like in photoshop etc, it is much much faster. they are not "falling farther and farther behind."

"Second, software: I'm sure I won't have too much trouble convincing the die-hard command line users that MacOS is inefficient and hard to use, but even in terms of GUI, the once-proud Apple has been overtaken by BeOS and Windows ME, and has GNOME and KDE hot on its heels. Much like hardware, Apple is handicapped by its users' insistence that changes be minor and easy to adapt to. "

MacOS is inefficient? Hard to use? I believe most people will acknowledge that MacOS is one of the easiet OSes to use. It is criticized sometimes for not being "sophisticated" enough for the power user. This does not make it inefficient. Though it lacks features like protected memory, etc, is it a very efficient OS, in the sense that Mac users are very very productive. Ask a graphic artist or desktop publisher. the mac OS is not hard to use, nor is it inefficient. Compared to Windows ME and the various Linux GUIs available, the average new computer user will find the Mac OS the easier to use.

You also comment on Apple's lack of "innovation.". Lets see, I'll name a few. These are not necessarily all apple inventions, but Apple was the first to actually bring these to the masses:
1. Firewire.
2. USB as the main I/O interface.
3. Get rid of legacy ports
4. iMovie - video editing for the masses
5. iMac - an easy to setup, all in one unit that appeals to the "average joe" who doesnt always care about technical specs
6. Optical mouse standard on all systems
7. OS X
8. Innovative Industrial design
9. Colorsync technology

St. Steve is the loser... (1)

RasTafarii (135869) | more than 13 years ago | (#532587)

"everyone else in the world knows that selling PC hardware is a low margin game and that Apple's forte is their OS"

so that's why the icube started at $1800 when you could get a comparable windoze system for less than $800!

and that 17 year old mac os that still does not have protected memory or pre-emptive multi-tasking is apple's forte...?

just wait a minute, mac os x will be here real soon now...

and apple has discontinued dual cpu macs, could it be that people saw the mac os 9.x did not support dual cpus'?

Hopefully? (4)

DLG (14172) | more than 13 years ago | (#532590)

Been watching these boxes for a while, and I think there are a few things to note.

1. The dual processors... Apple can go back to dual processors again when OS X is on them mainstream. Right now with 9.04 multiprocessing is barely useful for most users (photoshop users being perennial exception. Meanwhile a 733mhz G4 at 133mhz is pretty big news since what it will do is make everything faster in the short term.

2. MacOs X is not gonna be truly ready until September (a year late but hey, Win95 was supposed to come in 93 and we know NT 5 was supposed to come out in 95.:)) At that point I hope to see Dual 733's at 133mhz bus.What will the Win world have? WinME running Pentium III's?

3. It would be great if MacOS ran on more boxes than just Apples but they didn't do so well with that. Asking them to move to cheap commodity hardware is not really rational.The real deal here is that folks don't recognize true cost of ownership with computers until they have owned a few. The real shame is that Apple HAS reduced costs by using crappier equipment and it bit them.
4. The biggest problem Apple had was that no one wants to buy a new machine until OS X comes out. Apple was ready with a whole new set of boxes that would have looked really perty with the perty new OS but instead they are running same old OS 9. If Apple really wanted to get new models sold and empty it's inventory, finish the OS in the 1Q...

I am a longtime Apple user and Linux user and I hope to use both for a long time to come. As long as Apple makes machines that last me 5+ years I am not gonna bitch much. Since I am still using a 7600 with a g3 upgrade card I am definately waiting. I like the idea of a dual processing 733mhz, but in truth there is a sweet spot right now with dual 450....1999...No matter what anyone says about comparing 300 dollar pc's with this, the G4 is a better chip than anything Intel makes. Athlon might manage to screw that up if they keep raising the mhz but sheerly for media related stuff, the G4 rocks.Just RIP a few CD's...

dlg

For better and for worse... (2)

tomdarch (225937) | more than 13 years ago | (#532592)

If you read the article, they point out the issue that these faster chips may not be available for a while....

On the other hand, if Mot really can cough up a 733 G4, I would much rather be running Photoshop on that than a 1Ghz Athalon (or After Effects, or ...)

The real down side to the story is the comment about how most of the systems are likely to be single processor. This is going in the wrong direction. Alot of potential buyers are going to be quite disappointed. Frankly, I was hoping for a base single processor system, a mid-range dual processor, and a high-end quad processor system. If you've had to sit for an hour while AE renders 3 freaking seconds of footage, you'll know why I was hoping for quad processor towers....

But for what most of the Hertz whiners out there do with their systems, no, quad processors won't quadruple the frame rate of Doom.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

jmd! (111669) | more than 13 years ago | (#532594)

actually, mac multitasking is a joke... the architechture may be better then x86, but the OS driving it sure isnt

All I can say is... (2)

J.C.B. (141141) | more than 13 years ago | (#532597)

It's about damn time.

As for Apple (or more specifically Motorola) lagging behind AMD and Intel in terms of speed. This will keep more current Mac users with the platform, but Apple is going to need Mot to kick out 1Ghz chips real soon.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

rlkoppenhaver (101366) | more than 13 years ago | (#532599)

> 7. Optical mouse standard on all systems

<pet peeve>
A NON-ERGONOMIC optical mouse with ONE FREAKING BUTTON!
</pet peeve>

Re:Sure mHz matters, but what about the Altivec! (2)

Jeffrey Baker (6191) | more than 13 years ago | (#532603)

Great, GCC with Altivec code. When I was running LinuxPPC 2000 on a G4, I was told that Linux couldn't use the Altivec unit because the kernel didn't understand how to save and restore the registers properly. Is this fixed, if so in what kernel revision, and if not, how does an Altivec-aware GCC help Linux?

Re:St. Steve is the loser... (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#532604)

Where the fuck are you getting this? MacOS has supported multiple processors for years. You used to be able to get 9600 MPs that had dual 604e processors. That was back in the days of OS 7.x. Besides that Apple sells it's hardware on a much higher margin than PC manufacturers like Dell or Gateway. They have much higher volume production contracts than most PC makers as well as exclusive deals with people like Motorola. You don't see G4 (MPPC 7400) chips or motherboards in anything else do you? Since the chips don't go through any intermediaries before they get to Apple's assembly facilities they get them at about cost. I don't know if you know but Athlons and Pentium chips cost only a fraction of their retail (or whole for that matter) coming out of the factory. Prices like this vastly decrease the production cost for Macs and that money goes into Apple's cauffers. PC manufacturers often are forced to buy their hardware at wholesale prices which greatly reduces the profit from selling hardware. Oh yeah, Unix is a 31 year old idea. DOS almost as old, MacOS is a baby compared to the two. No OS is perfect, Unix still has lots of areas where it could use some work.

Re:Can you imagine... (1)

swf (129638) | more than 13 years ago | (#532605)

Well, from the Bunyip FAQ:

Why did we choose Intel Pentium III processors?

Some of our code has already been optimised to use the SSE instruction extensions of the Intel Pentium III processors, so we were initially baised in this direction. We looked at using the PowerPC G4 processor and determined (with tests performed by Paul Mackerras of Linuxcare) that a 350Mhz G4 can attain 1.6GFLOPS in single-precision using the Altivec instruction extensions making this a very attractive alternative, however the cost of these machines at the time made them less attractive.

We were also looked keenly at the AMD Athlon processor with the 3DNow instruction extensions, but could not get these with a dual-CPU motherboard at the time.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

TwitchSGL (265659) | more than 13 years ago | (#532606)

Win ME is a flaming pile. Win 2K is much better- m,ore on par w/ OSX (with out the unix compatibility). Of course OSX will cost only $100 (w/ apache). Win 2K starts at $150. Just remember you get what you pay for

Re:The real world uses windows (1)

hammock (247755) | more than 13 years ago | (#532607)

Up until now I was totally confused about the Microsoft monopoly and trial and all that.

Your circular logic has totally cleared up any confusion. Thanks!!

Hooray for bus speed! (2)

oh shoot (79863) | more than 13 years ago | (#532608)

What is really significant about these new machines is the faster bus speed. While PCs have been humming along with 133mhz+ busses, the G4s have been hindered by (100mhz?) busses. But even more so, the dual G4s have been hindered. Apple has shown than plunking two G4s into a box instead of one is easy, so future machines (spring? summer?) may even feature two 733mhz (1ghz?) G4s in them.

Maybe the tortoise is catching the rabbit?

Re:Sure mHz matters, but what about the Altivec! (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 13 years ago | (#532609)

Good point. The only thing that makes me sicker than the Megahertz race in PCs is the Megapixel race in DCs. Yes, our camera has 2 megapixels. All the images are recorded as 4 by 500,000 JPEGs with a strong skew towards pink. :)

Anyway, this is not unexpected news from Apple. Many expected that the price cuts on older models were signs of newer stuff coming out. It doesn't sound like anything revolutionary here; just improvements on existing designs. On one hand, it's good for them to be cautious after the Cube debacle. On the other, it won't rejuvinate them like the iMac did. With the still somewhat cloudy PC market, it's hard to fault them for being conservative.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

larkost (79011) | more than 13 years ago | (#532610)

If we are going to throw out the idea of "bring this to the masses" then I think the nod would have to go to NeXT...

Re:For better and for worse... (1)

jerrytcow (66962) | more than 13 years ago | (#532611)

With a bunch of single processor boxes (merely with more RAM and a faster CPU) you can just reuse the same motherboards which means you can buy them en masse and not be at a loss. With a small number of multiprocessor boxes you aren't moving the mobos out in volume which means you can't order large numbers of them.

All the new G4s use the same motherboards - the G4 chip (or chips) sit on a daughter card. You can swap the single out for a dual without any modifications. Here's a site [xlr8yourmac.com] that demonstrates this.

Re:For better and for worse... (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#532612)

Quad processors wont necessarily increase the speed of AE renders either. Adobe really needs to G4 optimize their products, more than just cracking out a few AltiVec ready filters. Building a line of SMP boxes is the wrong move for Apple at this point. With a bunch of single processor boxes (merely with more RAM and a faster CPU) you can just reuse the same motherboards which means you can buy them en masse and not be at a loss. With a small number of multiprocessor boxes you aren't moving the mobos out in volume which means you can't order large numbers of them. This drives up the cost that smart companies won't pass onto their customers. THis leaves Apple with sagging profits. So they are deep sixing their multiprocessor systems except in server models which don't sell heavily anyways.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

FigWig (10981) | more than 13 years ago | (#532613)

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Are you saying that the process scheduler is better in MacOS than in WinNT/Linux/BSD/BeOS/QNX/Solaris whatever? Doubtful - MacOS 9 was the first version with even decent multitasking, and OSX probably has a scheduler very similar to the free BSDs. Or are you trying to say that the PPC chip has more stages in its pipeline? PPC actually had a shorter pipeline than the Pentiums, which is one reason why the clock speed has been stuck at a lower speed.

I wouldn't have gone out of my way to point out your mistakes except you were moded up. There is already enough of a IQ deflation effect on /.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

FigWig (10981) | more than 13 years ago | (#532615)

only $100 (w/ apache).

Whoa! What a value add! I'm gonna buy OSX just for the free copy of apache!

Re:St. Steve is the loser... (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 13 years ago | (#532616)

I suspect the reason they discontinued the dual cpu systems is because the quantity of cpus is their bottleneck.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

hammock (247755) | more than 13 years ago | (#532617)

I would pay real money to see them upgrade any of thier MacOS line to MacOS 10.

Does Sun offer an upgrade path from Windows 3.1 to SunOS ?

Re:Still losing the speed race (2)

jlg (215187) | more than 13 years ago | (#532618)

I don't play computer games, so I might be out of the loop on this one, but why does speed matter so much? What can a 1 GHz computer do for the average user that a 500 MHz computer can't? I'm sure there are lot's of answers like "faster SETI", "faster compiles", "faster ray-tracing", "quake @ 1600x1200" etc. But most people don't use their computer for that.

Most people just want to interact with the internet and create different kinds of documents. Their "power app" is playing DVDs. The only thing that keeps their CPU below 99.5% idle is "Clippy" dancing at the bottom of the screen.

What people really need, more than CPU power, is good, easy to use software. Apple tries to provide that. If you don't belive me about the importance of good software, look at the success of the Palm Pilot vs. the failure of Windows CE.

Re:9.1 to be released at MacWorld Tokyo in *Februa (1)

larkost (79011) | more than 13 years ago | (#532619)

<sarcasm>Ooh!! a definitive source!!</sarcasm> I do regularly read macorsurmors, but after having watched them for a long time, they rarely are barking up the right tree... sometimes they get it right, but this is a one man operation, without any real solid sources. Interesting, but nothing to base real decisions on.

Re:For better and for worse... (1)

oh shoot (79863) | more than 13 years ago | (#532620)

If you have to wait for AE to render three seconds of footage, perhaps you should try Final Cut Pro or buy a Toaster. Both are a better solution.

Funny, I'm a new fan of Apple, myself. (3)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 13 years ago | (#532622)

Still deciding what to get; the iBook, all cute and cuddly like, the PowerBook, all serious and stoic, or the G4 Cube, suave and classy.

In terms of performance, PCs seem to be fast enough that faster just doesn't matter. Why would I need a 1.5GHz system? I'm running on a 500MHz system, and plan to be running it for another few years yet. Heck, even 800MHz would seem to last for at least 5 years, given my track record with my last computer.

Still, I'll probably think a 500MHz Apple sucks, right? I dunno, I don't have enough experience with the G3/G4 to say; do they age particularly better than a x86?

On the other hand, I am enamored with Apple's drive for innovation.

The USB IO adoption
The Firewire IO adoption
The use of Airport and wireless networking
Mac OSX (in the near future), and Unix stability, without the ugliness of Linux!

Well, Linux isn't quite ugly, it's damn functional, but sorta a pain to set up. Win2k is such a breeze to use.

Then there's the quiet fanless iMacs and G4 cubes.
There's the firewireness of the iBooks and Powerbooks.
Optical Mice. Everywhere
*Really* nice LCD screens.

Other hardware coolness I'm looking forward to; More snazzy designs!
A Newton2!
Wireless PCs; at least, as much as possible...
OS X!
Pervasive computing!
Inclusion of mic and USB cam with *all* computers!
Instant Messaging type usability in the OS

Other random cool stuff...
Still, they aren't dead yet, and they're still doing okay...

Maybe I'll regret writing this post in a few months, when I have my Apple. I'll post and let everyone know!

Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]

Re:Expectations (1)

scruffyMark (115082) | more than 13 years ago | (#532623)

I agree, this nonsense with chips that don't crank out enough heat to cook on is getting a little long in the tooth.

I had to get a second monitor just to get the blasted computer to give off enough heat to keep me warm this Winter. For heaven's sake, there's only two fans in the case, and not a single one of them is on the processor...

Re:Expectations (1)

larkost (79011) | more than 13 years ago | (#532624)

Sadly (?), you will not be able to, the whole PowerPC family is notorious for being much cooler than their Intel brethren... If you want something to burn your toast on, or cook an egg on, try a P3/P4 sans cooling system.. or switch to industrial grade, go with an UltraSparc (shared an office with a E420 for a month, nearly went deaf...)

Re:St. Steve is the loser... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532625)

Maybe you are thinking of Apple Unix, A/UX? That untill now was the only OS from Apple that supported more than one CPU/had SMP support.

This is Horrible News! (2)

cowscows (103644) | more than 13 years ago | (#532627)

This is extremely depressing to me. I've greatly enjoyed the fact that my 500mhz powerbook that i bought about a year ago is still the fastest clock speed you can buy in a macintosh. None of that silly next door neighbor buying the newest faster chip every two weeks for me. Way to make your computers appear to become obsolete a little less quicky apple!

Re:Hopefully? (1)

rabtech (223758) | more than 13 years ago | (#532628)

Actually in September we may have Windows 2001, Pentum-4's at 2GHz, and a 64-bit x86 chip from AMD.... as well as a new revision of the Linux kernel, VisualStudio.NET final (or at least the last RC), and probably hundreds of new KDE themes :)
-
The IHA Forums [ihateapple.com]

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

rfsayre (255559) | more than 13 years ago | (#532629)

Well, those "cool looking boxes" have quite a few advantages over your average Wintel box, albeit at somewhat of a price premium.

1.)Have you ever worked anywhere that required working with colors and shapes? What if those colors and shapes needed to look the same on every monitor in the shop? Well, that new Apple Display Connector should help.

2.)Want to add hardware? While you'll have fewer options than a Wintel user, your purchase is almost guaranteed not to conflict with any common configuration. And when you want to put it in, you open the door (no screws).

3.)Your purchase will last. I own a Power Mac 8600. I do all kinds of demanding work on it. To be fair, video is not one of them. But guess what? It's still really fast. Sure, I notice the difference during some Photoshop filters, and during sound file manipulations, but my machine was bought after the G3 came out. Let's see how those celeron boxes are doing in 4 years.

4.).DLL? what's that?

I had a dream... (1)

okmar (266773) | more than 13 years ago | (#532630)

That all of the companies out there pooled all of the best resources together and came up with the ultimate solution that handled all of the performance demands, ease of use for those who like it that way, and the complexity for those who choose to come in the side entrances.

Are we really asking too much? Apple makes a good products. *NIX is superior. Microsoft is easy to use. Yet they all refuse to recognize each other on so many different levels. They can only play tug of war for so long before it gets old.

It's really time to think about creating something that mutually ties the whole thing together. It is the next step. To hell with the competition factor, I want answers not this shit we have to listen to and deal with every day about who's doing what better than the next guy. It's a civilized war that's not so civilized if you look at the principals behind the issue. Who pays? You do.


.

Re:Confessions of a former Mac User (1)

CMonk (20789) | more than 13 years ago | (#532631)

An optical mouse was standard on my PC Jr in 1985.... go figure.

Re:This is Horrible News! (1)

SirFlakey (237855) | more than 13 years ago | (#532632)

Actually , that is not a silly thought at all. Mac gear always lasted "longer" in obsolesense terms then it's PC counterparts just because Apple didn't come out with a new chip every two months. I think that this is actually a much smarter way of doing things. I means how can you expect software to be obtimised if you change the playing field every odd month. My "expensive" Mac 9500 lasted years longer then any PC I have owned.
--

I tried an Apple at the mall (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532633)

I tried an Apple at the mall and was amazed by how responsive it was. It was running the demo that shows all the features of firewire airport etc. As a windows user I was shocked at the smoothness of the animation and it's response to mouse clicks. I really can't believe that people think PCs are faster after trying an iMac. Intel and Microsoft should be ashamed.

Apples, Oranges, Grapes, Pears.... (3)

Cinematique (167333) | more than 13 years ago | (#532634)

Why is it that every time a /. article mentions Apple Computer, a giant war starts as to which is more powerful, a PC or Mac? False facts fly like "Apple's lowest priced comptuer is still over $1000" when in fact they sell an iMac for $799.

Obviously I'm going to be taking a little shit for the fact that my email is from mac.com... so I must be *clearly* Apple baised :p BAH. My very first comptuer was a 286 laptop, followed by a 386 desktop, and a Pentium 120. It wasn't until I left for college that I got my own Mac. Why? Because it fits my computing needs and desires.

Now you are probably wondering... "Gee thats great, get to the fucking point." My point is that regardless of what you like, what you know, and whom you support, a little research is clearly in order. I'm really growing tired of watching people spew misinformed posts on to the boards and positioning them as fact.

funkdat.

Re:Still losing the speed race (2)

cjhui (301368) | more than 13 years ago | (#532635)

1.)Have you ever worked anywhere that required working with colors and shapes? What if those colors and shapes needed to look the same on every monitor in the shop? Well, that new Apple Display Connector should help.

Yeah, you can buy those too. If you are really going to need that kind of accuracy, you probably bought monitor/video card that already has this feature included(GO SGI FLAT PANEL, WOOO!). Anyway, ensuring color consistancy on all platforms has been solved a while ago.

2.)Want to add hardware? While you'll have fewer options than a Wintel user, your purchase is almost guaranteed not to conflict with any common configuration. And when you want to put it in, you open the door (no screws).

You know most PCs have screwless maintainance(well, with the case anyway. I like sun hard drive holder. in/out in/out... WWWEEEEEEEE!!!). It's all in case design, and if you don't like it, you can always get a different case(same with an apple machine too I guess)

Also, I have had very few problems dealing with hardware conflicts, especially now a days. So much in windows is handled almost transpartly by the OS now. While it still is slightly buggier than the Mac version, it also has to deal with more hardware. It's not as bad as you make it sound.

3.)Your purchase will last. I own a Power Mac 8600. I do all kinds of demanding work on it. To be fair, video is not one of them. But guess what? It's still really fast. Sure, I notice the difference during some Photoshop filters, and during sound file manipulations, but my machine was bought after the G3 came out. Let's see how those celeron boxes are doing in 4 years.

The speed increase in both platforms I believe has been very similar. What you argue is just a point of view. I used the same computer until recently for about 5 years(Windows, not a single reformat). I did basic 3D animation/modeling. If you can do it five years ago, you can still do it today on the same machine. Some people don't seem to understand that at all.

4.).DLL? what's that?

Dynamiclly Linked Library. Though I have never programmed on the MacOS, I'm pretty sure you have something similar. Anyhow, I don't really see the point of your argument. If there is a problem with DLLs it is simply a bug in the program(or in some cases the dll), not in the concept of DLLs.

Re:For better and for worse... (2)

Graymalkin (13732) | more than 13 years ago | (#532636)

Well I stand corrected about the motherboards. Although the point is still valid concerning extra cost for a dual system. They're sticking in the daughtercard and a second processor for the same price as the (when they first came out) single processor systems.

Re:Still losing the speed race (4)

BWJones (18351) | more than 13 years ago | (#532637)

What is with people equating speed with clock cycles? There is more than clock cycles at work here folks. (As the latest Pentium 4 debacle will demonstrate). I am sure that the enlightened ones here will agree with me when I say that there is more than one way to get performance out of a chip just as there is more than one way to get a car to go fast.

If you are assuming that more Mhz means faster chips, then you might be mistaken to say that the 400 Mhz SGI Octane is slower than the 500 Mhz Macintosh, or the Pentium system running at 750 Mhz. The reality is that the SGI will easily outpace both systems at most tasks just as a Porsche 911 will outrun a Dodge Viper that has a much larger engine than the Porsche. Its all about balance, and code optimizations and memory tasking and wait states etc etc etc....

Please lets not let Intel brainwash us all into thinking that CPU cycles are all that. There is more to chip design than making pipes deeper and cranking up the clock crystals. For instance, the R10k MIPS chip in my SGI will never be able to work in a laptop design as the G4 chip can. The MIPS chip would start a fireball in anything without a heat sink the size of a VCR cassette and big fans, whereas I expect to be working with the G4 in a Powerbook some time next month without using clock pacing tricks like Intel has had to implement in the Pentium portables. (a trick by the way implemented by Apple sometime back in 1991 for their powerbooks at the time). The chips are obviously designed for different purposes, but it is pretty cool that the G4 chip has the legs to run in a workstation, while at the same time having low enough power consumption/heat production to be used in a portable configuration.

Companies like Transmeta, Motorola, IBM, and ARM will show the way to more elegant chip designs and somehow they will have to compete with Intels marketing juggernaut. (I know, I know, Intel now owns a part of ARM. Perhaps this is a good thing?)

My point is simply that we should not buy in to Intels marketing thus making it harder for better/more efficient chip designs to come to market. So lets not let this misconception last much longer O.K.?

Re:Hopefully? (2)

deander2 (26173) | more than 13 years ago | (#532641)

(a year late but hey, Win95 was supposed to come in 93 and we know NT 5 was supposed to come out in 95.:)

that would have been quite a trick considering WinNT 4.0 came out in 1996! :-)

i think the original target date for NT5 was late 1998/early 1999.

Re:Hopefully? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 13 years ago | (#532643)

oh please. Firstly, the majority of Mac users have heard so much bad news about OS X that they don't want to go near it and secondly, Photoshop users are not the exception, they're the core market!

Re:Damn! We want dual processor G4s! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#532644)

It's not their choice. Motorola can't make the faster CPU in quanties which would allow for dual-processor sales. (Yet.) This is a considerable limitation for Apple since Motorola owns the IP rights to the Alti-Vec core of the G4 and won't allow IBM to license it (or make their G3's run at faster MHz's). (Yet.)

I know you are upset at Apple. But the real party to blame in this fiasco is Motorola -- squarely and entirely. When Motorola gets it together and gets more G4s (and beyond) out the door at higher MHz and in quantity, we'll see a healthy Apple again. The comeback is starting right now, though. The pent up demand is about to be satisfied and we'll all be feeling a lot better about Apple, even if we can't get quite as fast a machine as we would like or with an MP in the title. These machines are going to seriously kick butt & the PowerBook G4 will leave the laptop PC camp drooling in the dust.

Hope OS X doesn't blow it (1)

green pizza (159161) | more than 13 years ago | (#532645)

Welcome to the crowd... but I just hope the next generation OS doesn't cripple all of that. (The core OS may be great, but that doesn't mean anything if the GUI atop it requires too many resources). OS 9.04 may be "bloated", but ANYTHING can happen with OS X.

Re:Still losing the speed race (1)

cjhui (301368) | more than 13 years ago | (#532648)

Winamp shows up as o% percent on my computer, so it can't be for music. Anyway, I actually find that most people are rather impatient with computers, and that the response time of the system. While arguably this can be increase by using a better OS, most people are going to be using Windows. While it may only be one second, people have a tendency to recognize the slow down and exagerate the difference. True, it isn't worth $1000 for most people, but that's the only thing I could think of other than the majority of programs getting less efficient, and stupid web pages that use every plugin under the sun.

Re:All I can say is... (1)

MasterOfDisaster (248401) | more than 13 years ago | (#532650)

In clock speed, yes

Those of us who don't know clock speed from speed need to be beaten with a large stick (no offence)

as some of us may allready know, steve jobs showed us all the true power of the macintosh by puting a single CPU g4/500 against a p3/1GHz
Guess who won? thats right. the g4, then they did a dual cpu g4/500 and made that little p3 look silly =P

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...