Apple, Jobs, and the irony of it
Supertimer
Apple and his obsession with the anti-IBM
crusade. Remeber the 1984 commercial with
the hammer being thrown at "Big Brother" and
the intro of the Mac.
Remember when Jobs pitted the Mac division
against the Apple II division because he felt
the Apple II represented the old school of
thought like IBM.
Now it is 2003 and things have turned come
back full circle. Now IBM is the savior of
Apple. Funny how in the latest issue of PC
Magazine is a two page advertisement for
the G5 Mac extolling the virtues of the G5,
bragging about how IBM designed it based
on their Power4 architecture.
Hmm. Now IBM is the good guy.
Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC
64-bit processor is also wrong. That title
belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
released in April, several months ahead of
the G5.
Declan MacLeod
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> Remember back in 1983-1984. Steve Jobs at
> Apple and his obsession with the anti-IBM
> crusade. Remeber the 1984 commercial with
> the hammer being thrown at "Big Brother" and
> the intro of the Mac.
>
> Remember when Jobs pitted the Mac division
> against the Apple II division because he felt
> the Apple II represented the old school of
> thought like IBM.
>
> Now it is 2003 and things have turned come
> back full circle. Now IBM is the savior of
> Apple. Funny how in the latest issue of PC
> Magazine is a two page advertisement for
> the G5 Mac extolling the virtues of the G5,
> bragging about how IBM designed it based
> on their Power4 architecture.
>
> Hmm. Now IBM is the good guy.
>
Better still, I remember seeing Steve Jobs and Bill Gates together on
stage, with Steve saying something to the effect of, "Together, Apple
and Microsoft can beat IBM."
--
Hey spambots! Harvest this! .!..
Unsolicited commercial email (uce) should be sent to: u...@ftc.gov
Ron Maxwell
One minute you are at war with Eastasia the next minute
you are at peace with Eastasia.Yet nothing has changed
because you are still at war.
Microsof tells us "this is the most secure operating system ever!"
and people believe them, and go out and buy it. Why because they say
so. Deep down in our hearts people know it is not true but they still
buy it.
Would that make Linus Torvalds (sp?) the Emmanuel Goldstein
of the Operating System war? The open Source Programming
community the Proletariat (Proles)?
Better yet we already use a programming language called 'C Double Plus'
(C++).
Forgive me my Newspeak is a little rusty.
Hmmmmmmm.
Looks to me double plus ungood!
Unperson Ron #4711
Richard Kilpatrick
<super...@aol.com> writes
>Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC
>64-bit processor is also wrong. That title
>belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>released in April, several months ahead of
>the G5.
With a 64-bit bus? And in fact, can you even use it in a desktop machine
yet?
Richard
--
Richard Kilpatrick, long haired prophet of doom. |\ _,,,---,,_
Musical suicide - www.mp3.com/RichardKilpatrick /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
Work: Icon Publications, Group Sales Manager |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Homepage: http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
Sheldon Simms
> In message <20030817041138...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Supertimer
> <super...@aol.com> writes
>>Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC
>>64-bit processor is also wrong. That title
>>belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>>released in April, several months ahead of
>>the G5.
>
> With a 64-bit bus? And in fact, can you even use it in a desktop machine
> yet?
Yes, and yes. In fact Apple is using AMD's "HyperTransport" bus to
connect their PCI and I/O controllers.
However, I wouldn't say that Apple is just flat out lying. They are
playing the kind of word game dance-around-the-truth that characterizes
marketing weasels. I'm sure if you confronted them with previously existing
Opteron desktops they would claim that the Opteron systems are
"workstations" and not "desktops".
However, considering the prices are about the same (the Opteron systems
are actually a little bit cheaper), I can't see how there's really any
difference.
-SHeldon
Scott Alfter
Hash: SHA1
In article <unbDbeC3Y7P$Ew...@dmc12.demon.co.uk>,
Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <20030817041138...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Supertimer
><super...@aol.com> writes
>>Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC
>>64-bit processor is also wrong. That title
>>belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>>released in April, several months ahead of
>>the G5.
>
>With a 64-bit bus?
A 64-bit bus is nothing new...the Pentium had a 64-bit external data bus.
(It's still a 32-bit processor, but the wider bus increases available memory
bandwidth.)
>And in fact, can you even use it in a desktop machine yet?
I could drive down to Fry's right now, buy a board and one or two Opterons,
and rip out the dual Athlon MP board and processors I'm using. The board
they carry is optimized more for server use than workstation/PC use,
though...dual Gigabit Ethernet, no AGP slot, and onboard ATI Rage Pro PCI
graphics, IIRC. I suspect you could install a PCI video card for better
performance and disable the onboard graphics...bought a no-name PCI Radeon
VE a month or so ago and flashed it for my beige G3, so the cards are still
out there.
_/_ Scott Alfter
/ v \ sal...@salfter.dyndns.org
(IIGS( http://alfter.us Top-posting!
\_^_/ pkill -9 /bin/laden >What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/P91RVgTKos01OwkRAuNBAKDWQre6yFkYaXgmC7ddWhthHzMicgCg6reS
82GUCSreKdB+lUr94/eXvkY=
=mYaQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Supertimer
>Supertimer <super...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC
>>64-bit processor is also wrong. That title
>>belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>>released in April, several months ahead of
>>the G5.
>
>With a 64-bit bus? And in fact, can you even use it in a desktop machine
>yet?
Yes, the Opteron is a full 64-bit processor that can
also run 32-bit code and it can access the same
amount of memory the G5 can. Not quite sure
what you mean by a 64-bit bus. The Athlon K7
had a 64-bit bus when it was introduced in 2000
and that was a 32-bit chip.
You can get a nForce3 board for it right now
starting at about $220 for single processor
desktop setup or an AMD chipset board for
two way processor operation.
The nForce3 boards and some of the AMD ones
are standard ATX boards that fit right home in
desktop cases.
Benchmarks at AMDZone.com and Anandtech
put the 2Ghz Opteron well ahead of the 3.2Ghz
HyperThreading enabled P4. Also, see the
bulletin board at AMDZone for user posts on
their Opteron machines.
Yes, it is expensive, but it is quite possible to
build an Opteron machine today.
Supertimer
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 18:07:03 +0100, Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>>And in fact, can you even use it in a desktop machine
>>yet?
>
>Yes, and yes. In fact Apple is using AMD's "HyperTransport" bus to
>connect their PCI and I/O controllers.
One thing I find really funny about Apple these days is
how they try to deny AMD out of existence. In 2000,
when the Athlon K7 was introduced, it was the same
thing. All you heard from Apple was G3 vs. PIII even
though the highest performing PC processor at the
time was an AMD part.
In fact, for the G5 motherboard I have read from
the AMD sites that Apple actually worked quite
closely with AMD to implement the HyperTransport
and the G5 being an IBM part and IBM being a
partner of AMD, the G5 and Opteron bear many
similarities.
Meanwhile, on the marketing side AMD does not
exist to Apple.
Maybe in another 5 to 10 years, we'll see the AMD
logo in an Apple advertisement just like suddenly,
we see the IBM logo now. ;-)
Greg Buchner
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> One thing I find really funny about Apple these days is
> how they try to deny AMD out of existence. In 2000,
> when the Athlon K7 was introduced, it was the same
> thing. All you heard from Apple was G3 vs. PIII even
> though the highest performing PC processor at the
> time was an AMD part.
I don't find it funny...the people who do the comparisions are always
using the multi-gigahertz Pentium processors when they try to put down
Apple.
The people I know (in person) who use AMD usually don't care about Apple
and who's faster or has the higher hertz rating.
Most of the people I know (again, in person) who are into the Intel
world are always pushing the hertz...
So, why should Apple bother with AMD, AMD isn't a problem for Apple.
Greg B.
--
There's just one 2 in my e-mail address, so delete one to e-mail me.
Supertimer
>super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>> One thing I find really funny about Apple these days is
>> how they try to deny AMD out of existence. In 2000,
>> when the Athlon K7 was introduced, it was the same
>> thing. All you heard from Apple was G3 vs. PIII even
>> though the highest performing PC processor at the
>> time was an AMD part.
>
>I don't find it funny...the people who do the comparisions are always
>using the multi-gigahertz Pentium processors when they try to put down
>Apple.
>
>The people I know (in person) who use AMD usually don't care about Apple
>and who's faster or has the higher hertz rating.
Are you kidding? The very reason AMD folks choose
AMD is because they understand the power of AMD
processors. We believe AMD processors are better
than the ones used in Macs and also better than
Intel processors.
In May of 2001, when the Athlon hit 1Ghz, the
hottest news in the PC world was how Athlon PCs
were trouncing both Intel and Apple units in all
disciplines.
Recently, AMD has joined Apple in terms of falling
behind in performance compared to the P4. This
happened around the time the P4 hit 3Ghz.
The Opteron has changed this for AMD. Thanks
to, ironically, "Big Brother" IBM, the G5 has done
the same for Apple.
>Most of the people I know (again, in person) who are into the Intel
>world are always pushing the hertz...
>
>So, why should Apple bother with AMD, AMD isn't a problem for Apple.
Well, for one thing Apple should not lie about the
G5 being the first PC (ie. personal computer, not
PC as in "IBM PC") 64-bit processor.
If you call spreading that lie not bothering with
AMD, I don't know what you would call it. It is like
the American and British storming the beaches of
Normandy to free Europe and the one of the two
denying the other contributed.
MagerValp
S> Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC 64-bit processor is
S> also wrong. That title belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
S> released in April, several months ahead of the G5.
Sun UltraSPARC IIi, available in a sub $1500 system since autumn 2000
or something like that, and it's a full 64-bit design. UltraSPARC I
chips were available even earler than that (97?), but only in
"workstation" machines.
--
___ . . . . . + . . o
_|___|_ + . + . + . Per Olofsson, arkadspelare
o-o . . . o + Mage...@cling.gu.se
- + + . http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
Scott Alfter
Hash: SHA1
In article <p14smnz...@panini.cling.gu.se>,
MagerValp <Mage...@cling.gu.se> wrote:
>>>>>> "S" == Supertimer <super...@aol.com> writes:
>S> Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC 64-bit processor is
>S> also wrong. That title belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>S> released in April, several months ahead of the G5.
>
>Sun UltraSPARC IIi, available in a sub $1500 system since autumn 2000
>or something like that, and it's a full 64-bit design.
Suns != PCs...they're not exactly something you'll find on the shelf at the
local Best Buy/CompUSA/whatever.
_/_ Scott Alfter
/ v \ sal...@salfter.dyndns.org
(IIGS( http://alfter.us Top-posting!
\_^_/ pkill -9 /bin/laden >What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/QPitVgTKos01OwkRAiKEAJ4vgLMMbc3YZvkPZUxcJcQiKG+ktACgpcUZ
3srMtv9iiDESf7SqTx5TxgQ=
=oqS3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Greg Buchner
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> Greg Buchner <app...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> >
> >> One thing I find really funny about Apple these days is
> >> how they try to deny AMD out of existence. In 2000,
> >> when the Athlon K7 was introduced, it was the same
> >> thing. All you heard from Apple was G3 vs. PIII even
> >> though the highest performing PC processor at the
> >> time was an AMD part.
> >
> >I don't find it funny...the people who do the comparisions are always
> >using the multi-gigahertz Pentium processors when they try to put down
> >Apple.
> >
> >The people I know (in person) who use AMD usually don't care about Apple
> >and who's faster or has the higher hertz rating.
>
> Are you kidding? The very reason AMD folks choose
> AMD is because they understand the power of AMD
> processors. We believe AMD processors are better
> than the ones used in Macs and also better than
> Intel processors.
OK, upon reading back, I should have left out the faster part. They
aren't interested in who has the highest GigaHertz rating, just
interested in getting what they consider the best deal for their money.
> >Most of the people I know (again, in person) who are into the Intel
> >world are always pushing the hertz...
> >
> >So, why should Apple bother with AMD, AMD isn't a problem for Apple.
>
> Well, for one thing Apple should not lie about the
> G5 being the first PC (ie. personal computer, not
> PC as in "IBM PC") 64-bit processor.
Well, looking around this morning, I can't find any Opteron based
personal computers. Just servers. Only mention of personal computers
based on an AMD 64-bit processor were Athlon64 machines coming out at
the end of September. So, could you point me out to some? Meanwhile,
Apple is shipping PPC970 based PowerMacs today. The two low-end models
should be in the stores.
Phil Abel
double take because apple.com/G5 looks a lot like apple.com/GS :)
"Supertimer" <super...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030817041138...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Franke
Well, Greg, I tried to avoide jumping in, but right this mail is
written on an AMD 64 bit system. Jup, it's an Opteron, but Opteron
and Athlon64 are just different Version of the same processor. It's
a marketing game. And what's a personal computer or a server is defined
where the machine ends, and not what 'segment' the seller tries to
reach.
My Dual 244 stands right beside me and doesn't serve anybody but me.
For the stores, AMD64 boards are showing up at Munich shops since a
few weeks, so you may just go and buy one.
Then again, it doesn't matter who got the first or fastest, as long as
the speed is sufficient to do the job (*1). In fact, just two hours ago
I convinced a long time Windows User to switch for a 17" iMac. iPhoto
and the Superdrive did all the needed argueing.
Gruss
H.
(*1) And here we get the way back to the good IIgs - a Computer fast
enough to do the job - I still cant type faster :)
Sheldon Simms
> Well, looking around this morning, I can't find any Opteron based
> personal computers. Just servers. Only mention of personal computers
> based on an AMD 64-bit processor were Athlon64 machines coming out at
> the end of September. So, could you point me out to some? Meanwhile,
> Apple is shipping PPC970 based PowerMacs today. The two low-end models
> should be in the stores.
http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&Product_Code=80140
for example.
Matthew Russotto
Scott Alfter <sal...@salfter.dyndns.org> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In article <p14smnz...@panini.cling.gu.se>,
>MagerValp <Mage...@cling.gu.se> wrote:
>>>>>>> "S" == Supertimer <super...@aol.com> writes:
>>S> Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC 64-bit processor is
>>S> also wrong. That title belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>>S> released in April, several months ahead of the G5.
>>
>>Sun UltraSPARC IIi, available in a sub $1500 system since autumn 2000
>>or something like that, and it's a full 64-bit design.
>
>Suns != PCs...they're not exactly something you'll find on the shelf at the
>local Best Buy/CompUSA/whatever.
The IIi is crippled anyway.
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
Greg Buchner
Franke <hans....@mch20.sbs.de> wrote:
> Well, Greg, I tried to avoide jumping in, but right this mail is
> written on an AMD 64 bit system. Jup, it's an Opteron, but Opteron
> and Athlon64 are just different Version of the same processor. It's
> a marketing game. And what's a personal computer or a server is defined
> where the machine ends, and not what 'segment' the seller tries to
> reach.
> My Dual 244 stands right beside me and doesn't serve anybody but me.
In article <pan.2003.08.18....@yahoo.com>,
Sheldon Simms <sheldo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=M&
> Product_Code=80140
>
> for example.
Thanks both of you...
I'd have to guess then that Apple is basing their information on what
the machines are intended for, not what they're being used for by end
users. And they're probably considering stuff labeled as workstations
as different than 'personal computers.'
I guess it's no different than someone using an IBM Power4 series
computer for personal use.
Supertimer
>I'd have to guess then that Apple is basing their information on what
>the machines are intended for, not what they're being used for by end
>users. And they're probably considering stuff labeled as workstations
>as different than 'personal computers.'
>
>I guess it's no different than someone using an IBM Power4 series
>computer for personal use.
The difference is this:
Macs are almost always (99%) bought as a complete
computer. Half of the time, PCs are built.
Right now, I can build an Opteron machine using
processors and motherboard of my choosing. Just
like I have bought Athlon MP processors and a
motherboard to support them, both processors and
motherboard were "intended" by the manufacturers
for server/workstation duties BUT who ultimately
gets to decide this? The builder.
Look, it is great for Apple that IBM developed the
G5 chip. Hey, technologically I even like it. Very
Opteron like and that is high praise from an AMD
fan. But the fact is, Apple is trying to claim that
the G5 came out as the first 64-bit chip for PC
use and that it is not.
When I was a new Apple IIGS user, I really had
a lot of respect for Apple. Then I saw what they
did to us Apple II users and that respect dried
up.
It seems to me that Apple and AMD are both
rebel companies but the difference is that the
latter one does what it says and the former
plays with words.
Richard Kilpatrick
<super...@aol.com> writes
>Look, it is great for Apple that IBM developed the
>G5 chip. Hey, technologically I even like it. Very
>Opteron like and that is high praise from an AMD
>fan. But the fact is, Apple is trying to claim that
>the G5 came out as the first 64-bit chip for PC
>use and that it is not.
Apple are the first Personal Computer manufacturer to offer a 64-bit
personal computer, i.e., not workstation.
Not the chip. Not the bits to make it. Not things to license to other
people. The whole package.
Personally, I think Apple are doing brilliantly right now for buyers and
themselves. The G5 is excellent value, and it's the first time in ages
that Apple can seriously claim to have a cutting edge hardware base,
instead of merely trying to argue that the OS makes their 2 or 3-year
old hardware faster.
Greg Buchner
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> Right now, I can build an Opteron machine using
> processors and motherboard of my choosing. Just
> like I have bought Athlon MP processors and a
> motherboard to support them, both processors and
> motherboard were "intended" by the manufacturers
> for server/workstation duties BUT who ultimately
> gets to decide this? The builder.
Well, from what I've read here and seen online, and after sleeping on
it, I'm more convinced than ever that Apple is doing nothing wrong.
They see AMD 64-bit machines offered as servers and workstations with a
processor designed for servers and workstations. Apple can't be taken
to task for what the end users are doing with those machines. I know
there had been some questions about this online, but you all have now
convinced me that Apple is selling the first 64-bit 'personal computer'.
Thank you...
Sheldon Simms
> Apple are the first Personal Computer manufacturer to offer a 64-bit
> personal computer, i.e., not workstation.
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:31:28 +0000, Greg Buchner wrote:
> They see AMD 64-bit machines offered as servers and workstations with a
> processor designed for servers and workstations.
Perhaps you two would care to elaborate the differences between a
"personal computer" and a "workstation" because, frankly, I can't
think of any.
Richard Kilpatrick
<sheldo...@yahoo.com> writes
>Perhaps you two would care to elaborate the differences between a
>"personal computer" and a "workstation" because, frankly, I can't
>think of any.
Level of security offered.
Ease of use of the Operating System - and the operating system provided.
You can't get the average muppet in the street to use Solaris or IRIX,
or even the advanced features of NT, but they'll deal with Mac OS X
fine.
Marketing. That's the real biggie, of course; my PC is technically a
server, but it's actually a pretty lame PC.
Either way, it's fairly pointless as an argument. I just don't
understand why people feel the need to knock Apple for producing a
Really Good Computer. There will always be something faster somewhere.
Why not bring in supercomputers, or $15,000 workstations?
Greg Buchner
Sheldon Simms <sheldo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Wordnet:
workstation
n : a desktop digital computer that is conventionally considered
to be more powerful than a microcomputer
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02)
workstation
<computer> A general-purpose computer designed to be used by
one person at a time and which offers higher performance than
normally found in a {personal computer}, especially with
respect to graphics, processing power and the ability to carry
out several tasks at the same time.
(1995-05-04)
The new PowerMacs could be classified as workstations, but they're being
sold as personal computers. The Opteron based computers could be
classified as personal computers, but they're being sold as
workstations/servers. That's enough of a distinction for me.
Paul Grammens
> Apple and his obsession with the anti-IBM
> crusade. Remeber the 1984 commercial with
> the hammer being thrown at "Big Brother" and
> the intro of the Mac.
>
I recently ran across this info on Steve Jobs. Apparently he's the most
over-paid executive in the country. If's from an article by Graef Crystal,
a guy who analyzes CEO pay.
"A review of total pay from 2000 through 2002 for 243 CEOs running companies
with 2002 revenue of $5 billion or more also shows that total pay ranged
from a low of $336,000 a year received by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Warren
Buffett to $219 million a year for Steve Jobs of Apple Computer Inc. "
"Most ludicrous
Besides having the group’s highest three-year average annual pay, Jobs also
wins my Most-Ludicrous-Pay-Package trophy, which isn’t awarded every year.
When Jobs returned to Apple in August 1997 to run the company he co-founded,
he started out with a pay package of precisely one element–$1 a year in
salary.
Then, in a stunning display of love gone out of control, Jobs’ board in 2000
gave him title to a free Gulfstream 5 jet for his personal use and also
history’s most valuable stock option grant, one covering 20 million shares,
equal to about 6 percent of all outstanding shares.
The jet, including reimbursing Jobs for all of his taxes on the gift, as
well as the taxes on the taxes on the taxes, set back the shareholders $84
million.
In fiscal 2002, after it became clear his 20 million option shares weren’t
likely to rise out of the muck of San Francisco Bay, Jobs’s board gave him
options on another 7.5 million shares.
In March 2003, after the end of my study period, Jobs gave up the ghost
entirely on stock options. He turned in his 27.5 million option shares for a
grant of five million free shares worth $74.6 million."
Exegete
Typical.
"Thou shalt not covet."
Roy
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Paul Schlyter
Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Apple are the first Personal Computer manufacturer to offer a 64-bit
> personal computer, i.e., not workstation.
server? Or an embedded system?
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/
http://home.tiscali.se/pausch/
Paul Grammens
"Exegete" <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote
>
> Typical.
>
> "Thou shalt not covet."
>
> Roy
>
Typical.
'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
-Paul
Kelly Hall
"Paul Grammens" <gram...@svn.net> wrote in message
news:vk53613...@corp.supernews.com...
> Typical.
>
> 'Ye cannot serve God and Mammon."
Typical.
And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then,
shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou
shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou
not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to
three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be
reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy
foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'
Kelly
Richard Kilpatrick
<gram...@svn.net> writes
>"A review of total pay from 2000 through 2002 for 243 CEOs running companies
>with 2002 revenue of $5 billion or more also shows that total pay ranged
>from a low of $336,000 a year received by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s Warren
>Buffett to $219 million a year for Steve Jobs of Apple Computer Inc. "
So? It's his company. He co-founded it. Without Jobs, Apple wouldn't
exist. Without Jobs' return, Apple would not be the company it is today.
He has, IMO, earned every penny he makes, no matter how little he really
does now, because it is his baby.
If I'd done it, I'd hardly be saying 'no, don't give me that much
money'.
Paul Grammens
"Richard Kilpatrick" <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+1Vn$1AzipQ$Ew...@dmc12.demon.co.uk...
> In message <vk4iq1q...@corp.supernews.com>, Paul Grammens
> <gram...@svn.net> writes
> >"A review of total pay from 2000 through 2002 for 243 CEOs running
companies
> >with 2002 revenue of $5 billion or more also shows that total pay ranged
> >from a low of $336,000 a year received by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s
Warren
> >Buffett to $219 million a year for Steve Jobs of Apple Computer Inc. "
>
> So? It's his company. He co-founded it. Without Jobs, Apple wouldn't
> exist. Without Jobs' return, Apple would not be the company it is today.
>
> He has, IMO, earned every penny he makes, no matter how little he really
> does now, because it is his baby.
>
> If I'd done it, I'd hardly be saying 'no, don't give me that much
> money'.
>
It isn't "his company" any more and hasn't been for a long time. It
literally belongs to the shareholders. They're getting a very poor value
for their CEO dollar, where Bershire Hathaway shareholders are getting an
excellent value for their CEO dollar. That's the whole point of the
article.
I think it's quite newsworthy that Jobs is #1 on the list of overpaid CEO's.
-Paul
Bill Garber
"Kelly Hall" <ha...@priest.com> wrote in message
news:OKw0b.1381$hD....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
" Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. "
Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprises };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - will...@comcast.net
---
This email ain't infected, dude!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/4/03
Sheldon Simms
> In message <pan.2003.08.19....@yahoo.com>, Sheldon Simms
> <sheldo...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Perhaps you two would care to elaborate the differences between a
>>"personal computer" and a "workstation" because, frankly, I can't
>>think of any.
>
> Level of security offered.
Mac OS X isn't secure?
> Ease of use of the Operating System - and the operating system provided.
> You can't get the average muppet in the street to use Solaris or IRIX,
> or even the advanced features of NT, but they'll deal with Mac OS X
> fine.
The link I posted was for systems that included your choice of Red Hat
Linux, Mandrake Linux, or Windows 2000
> Marketing. That's the real biggie, of course; my PC is technically a
> server, but it's actually a pretty lame PC.
IOW, the seller calls it a PC? What has that got to do with how one
uses it?
> Either way, it's fairly pointless as an argument. I just don't
> understand why people feel the need to knock Apple for producing a
> Really Good Computer. There will always be something faster somewhere.
> Why not bring in supercomputers, or $15,000 workstations?
Well we wouldn't want to do that, but since the Opteron workstations
are cheaper than G5s, I think it's fair to make the comparison.
I don't want to knock Apple anyway. Their claims don't bother me, although
they aren't really true. The only people who are actually impressed by
Apple's claims are the people who would buy a Mac anyway.
Paul Grammens
"Kelly Hall" <ha...@priest.com> wrote in message
news:OKw0b.1381$hD....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
Atypical:
"Blessed are the Cheesemakers."
-Paul
Liam Busey
Ni.
- Liam
Exegete
IF they agreed with you, they could vote him, and the board, out of office.
Or, they could sell their stock. But then that means that others would
think that, at a certain price, the stock is worth it, and Jobs is worth it.
The problem is, as you've complained many times, you aren't making
enough to make a living, and he's making tons of money.
You are complaining because you don't think that's fair.
But what you are really saying is: you wish that you were valuable
enough that someone would pay you that much money.
>
> I think it's quite newsworthy that Jobs is #1 on the list of overpaid CEO's.
> -Paul
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Paul Grammens
"Exegete" <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:3F4388B1...@noneofyourbusiness.com...
>
>
> Paul Grammens wrote:
> >
> > It isn't "his company" any more and hasn't been for a long time. It
> > literally belongs to the shareholders. They're getting a very poor
value
> > for their CEO dollar, where Bershire Hathaway shareholders are getting
an
> > excellent value for their CEO dollar. That's the whole point of the
> > article.
>
> IF they agreed with you, they could vote him, and the board, out of
office.
>
> Or, they could sell their stock. But then that means that others would
> think that, at a certain price, the stock is worth it, and Jobs is worth
it.
>
Compare the performance of Apple stock to Berkshire Hathaway stock. That's
what's happening.
> The problem is, as you've complained many times, you aren't making
> enough to make a living, and he's making tons of money.
>
How would you know how much money I'm making? True, I got layed off from my
high tech job in March ( I actually volunteered to be among those layed off.
I had other things I could be doing.), but I make a lot more money from my
investments than I did from that job. Which is why I'm interested in
avoiding investing in companies like Apple that have irrational
"compensation" packages for their CEO's.
Nor do I envy Jobs in the slightest. I'm quite happy with my life. I
learned long ago that the best things in life (like a happy marriage) are
free, and the next best things (like Apple II's found at thrift shops) don't
cost much.
YOU seem to be the one obsessed with money.
That article was about comparing CEO pay to results. Jobs was compared with
OTHER CEO's, you dolt. He was judged the most overpaid COMPARED WITH HIS
PEERS, based on pay vs results.
> You are complaining because you don't think that's fair.
>
> But what you are really saying is: you wish that you were valuable
> enough that someone would pay you that much money.
>
Nothing of the sort. You're a nut case.
-Paul
Exegete
Paul Grammens wrote:
> "Exegete" <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:3F4388B1...@noneofyourbusiness.com...
>
>>
>>Paul Grammens wrote:
>
>
>>>It isn't "his company" any more and hasn't been for a long time. It
>>>literally belongs to the shareholders. They're getting a very poor
>>
> value
>
>>>for their CEO dollar, where Bershire Hathaway shareholders are getting
>>
> an
>
>>>excellent value for their CEO dollar. That's the whole point of the
>>>article.
>>
>>IF they agreed with you, they could vote him, and the board, out of
>
> office.
>
>>Or, they could sell their stock. But then that means that others would
>>think that, at a certain price, the stock is worth it, and Jobs is worth
>
> it.
>
>
> Compare the performance of Apple stock to Berkshire Hathaway stock. That's
> what's happening.
>
>
>>The problem is, as you've complained many times, you aren't making
>>enough to make a living, and he's making tons of money.
>>
>
>
> How would you know how much money I'm making? True, I got layed off from my
> high tech job in March ( I actually volunteered to be among those layed off.
> I had other things I could be doing.), but I make a lot more money from my
> investments than I did from that job.
Then why have you been crying about the economy, and how you can't
afford to do some of the things you'd like to do?
Which is why I'm interested in
> avoiding investing in companies like Apple that have irrational
> "compensation" packages for their CEO's.
>
> Nor do I envy Jobs in the slightest. I'm quite happy with my life. I
> learned long ago that the best things in life (like a happy marriage) are
> free, and the next best things (like Apple II's found at thrift shops) don't
> cost much.
This is not the first time you've mentioned this piece.
Sounds like a fixation to me.
>
> YOU seem to be the one obsessed with money.
Oh really? And why do you say that?
What posts have I made complaining about how much/little I make, how
some people are over/under paid, etc?
I'll answer that for you: None.
>
> That article was about comparing CEO pay to results. Jobs was compared with
> OTHER CEO's, you dolt. He was judged the most overpaid COMPARED WITH HIS
> PEERS, based on pay vs results.
>
>
>
>>You are complaining because you don't think that's fair.
>>
>>But what you are really saying is: you wish that you were valuable
>>enough that someone would pay you that much money.
>>
>
>
> Nothing of the sort. You're a nut case.
Tsk, tsk. A personal attack. Typical of one who has reason to be touchy.
Roy
Paul Grammens
"Exegete" <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote
>
> Then why have you been crying about the economy, and how you can't
> afford to do some of the things you'd like to do?
>
There's 2.6 million Americans who've lost their jobs since January of 2001.
And I never said I couldn't afford to do anything. The things I enjoy doing
don't cost much anyway.
You're a nut case.
-Paul
Bill Garber
Does anybody hear an echo in HERE, HERe, HEre, Here, here.
Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - will...@comcast.net
---
This email ain't infected, dude!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.507 / Virus Database: 304 - Release Date: 8/5/03
Eric Smith
> belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
> the G5.
No, the 21066 "Low Cost Alpha" (LCA45) chip was the first 64-bit
processor specifically designed for use in PCs, such as the DEC Multia,
and was released in 1992 if memory serves, eleven years before the AMD
Opteron and IBM G5. It was based on the 21064 design (the first
released Alpha chip) with an added memory controller. The memory
controller had fairly poor performance, though.
DEC made a number of PCs using the 21066. They could run Windows NT,
OSF1 Unix (which became Digital Unix then Tru64), and Linux. OpenVMS
could run on some of them, though it wasn't officially supported on the
PC-class hardware and patches were needed to run it on the Multia.
Eric Smith
> Apple are the first Personal Computer manufacturer to offer a 64-bit
> personal computer, i.e., not workstation.
Wrong. DEC offered 64-bit Alpha-based personal computers starting
around 1992 or 1993. The Multia was one example.
Eric Smith
> Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC 64-bit processor is also
> wrong. That title belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was released in
> April, several months ahead of the G5.
Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> writes:
> With a 64-bit bus?
No, the Opteron doesn't have a 64-bit bus. It has a 144-bit data bus
(128 data bits and 8 ECC bits). Although it can be configured to
64 bits if you only want to use one DIMM and no ECC.
Eric Smith
> So? It's his company. He co-founded it.
Wrong. It's the shareholders' company, of which he owns only a small
fraction. The board of directors is responsible for appointing top
executives and compensating them so as to maximize shareholder value.
If the board members fail to do this, they can be voted out, or in some
cases may be personally liable for breach of fiduciary responsibility.
> He has, IMO, earned every penny he makes, no matter how little he
> really does now, because it is his baby.
Your opinion and a share of stock will get you about a hundred millionth
of the say in running the company. I think it's safe to say that most
shareholders think he should be paid the minimum necessary to retain his
services (without compromising the value of those services). I doubt
that very many shareholders think he should be paid big piles of cash
because the company "owes" him anything for founding it. If they think
he should be paid big piles of cash at all, it's for what he's doing
now, not what he did more than 25 years ago.
Richard Kilpatrick
<eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> writes
>Wrong. DEC offered 64-bit Alpha-based personal computers starting
>around 1992 or 1993. The Multia was one example.
Oddly enough, I've used the Multia as an example as to why Apple's tech
wasn't new. But it was a workstation. It ran NT, or something horrid,
and you couldn't exactly walk into Best Buy or Futureshop and buy one...
Richard Kilpatrick
<eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> writes
>Wrong. It's the shareholders' company, of which he owns only a small
>fraction.
And those shareholders wouldn't, at this point, own those shares were it
not for the existence of the company.
>The board of directors is responsible for appointing top
>executives and compensating them so as to maximize shareholder value.
>If the board members fail to do this, they can be voted out, or in some
>cases may be personally liable for breach of fiduciary responsibility.
And he hasn't been voted out, neither have his board members. Clearly,
the shareholders recognise the contribution that Jobs made and makes to
Apple.
>Your opinion and a share of stock will get you about a hundred millionth
>of the say in running the company.
Eh? I don't own Apple shares.
>I think it's safe to say that most
>shareholders think he should be paid the minimum necessary to retain his
>services (without compromising the value of those services).
Maybe he is.
*shrugs*
It's not my business. I just see people whinging. I thought it was us
Brits who were supposed to do that.
Regardless of what people in this thread may want to complain about,
Apple's CEO is paid what he is paid. That's his, and his company, and
his shareholder's business. I think he deserves it. He turned Apple
around when it was making some of the worst computers it had ever
produced - things like the IIsi, the 5200, and the Performa range - and
introduced stylish 'lifestyle' appliances that also delivered reasonable
performance - and he marketed them successfully /despite/ the
performance shortfall over PCs and the lack of software in stores
(especially in the UK). The G5 is 'insanely great' - it is the most
powerful computer /anyone/ should be able to buy over the shelf, use
right away - no assembly required, no shopping for cases, motherboards
and such. In real terms it is probably cheaper than a Multia was.
Suck it up guys. Apple is as great now as it ever was. It won me back
with the iMac and now I have a G4 and an iBook, and plan to get a G5
next year. Whilst as a geek, I'm interested in the tech and the claims,
as a consumer, I think that Apple /are/ offering something new and more
accessible, and it's the consumers that count for the shareholders.
Maybe /that's/ why Jobs is worth the cash.
Supertimer
>super...@aol.com (Supertimer) writes:
>> Also, the claim that the G5 is the first PC
>> 64-bit processor is also wrong. That title
>> belongs to AMD's Opteron chip which was
>> released in April, several months ahead of
>> the G5.
>
>No, the 21066 "Low Cost Alpha" (LCA45) chip was the first 64-bit
>processor specifically designed for use in PCs, such as the DEC Multia,
>and was released in 1992 if memory serves, eleven years before the AMD
>Opteron and IBM G5. It was based on the 21064 design (the first
>released Alpha chip) with an added memory controller. The memory
>controller had fairly poor performance, though.
My mistake.
I should have stated the first mainstream 64-bit
processor as in a 64-bit processor that can run
a mainstream OS natively. The current
mainstream operating system platforms are
mainly MacOS and Windows. Although it can
be argued "what is mainstream" I consider
mainstream to mean walk into Best Buy and
walk out with software applications of your
choice.
Supertimer
>So? It's his company. He co-founded it. Without Jobs, Apple wouldn't
>exist. Without Jobs' return, Apple would not be the company it is today.
Going back to IBM's G5 chip, I have nothing against
the chip. Like I have said before, it is a fine piece
of engineering just like the Opteron is.
It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
was the big evil "Big Brother." The very Big
Brother that Steve Jobs is now glorifying for
providing the G5. In 2003, Apple ads glorify
IBM's contribution. In 1984, an Apple commercial
showed a hammer being thrown at "Big Brother"
which represented IBM.
Just goes to show you how warped things were
at Apple back then (1983-1984). Those warped
crusades were also part of the reason for what
Apple did to the Apple II line.
Richard Kilpatrick
<super...@aol.com> writes
>It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
>In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
>remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
>was the big evil "Big Brother."
Recently being 1992ish, of course - IBM had a lot of input into the
original Power architecture with Motorola. We're all familiar with the
hammer thrown at the screen, and at the time it was accurate. Now IBM
has had to move with the times. Apple isn't a garage company, IBM isn't
a monopoly.
In many ways, Apple did defeat Big Brother. It's a shame that it wasn't
paying attention to cousin Bill at the same time. At least Apple are
sensible enough not to bear a grudge; Microsoft would rather grind firms
out of existence than find ways of working with them to mutual benefit,
and would do it by stealing, lying and cheating whilst pretending to be
their friend.
I don't think the ][ range was hard done by. Whilst it's a shame that
Mac development took precedence at Job's insistence, they still did a
better job of bridging the gap than anyone else, and still produced
their 1970s 'line' up to the 1990s. I dare say that if the Apple IIgs
had been developed, we'd have much the same machines we do now - GS/OS,
ProDOS, and the Macintosh, share common roots.
Of course, I could just complain that Apple dropped the Apple ///, and
it was Insanely Great, and why did they kill such a superior platform ;)
Greg Buchner
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
> In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
> remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
> was the big evil "Big Brother." The very Big
> Brother that Steve Jobs is now glorifying for
> providing the G5. In 2003, Apple ads glorify
> IBM's contribution. In 1984, an Apple commercial
> showed a hammer being thrown at "Big Brother"
> which represented IBM.
Ummm...it hasn't been 'until recently'. Apple started a partnering with
IBM well over 10 years ago. The PowerPC chip design from the start was
an Apple/IBM/Motorola thing.
The 1984 commercial may have represented IBM at the time, but watching
the commercial now, I definitely think of Microsoft.
Greg B.
--
There's just one 2 in my e-mail address, so delete one to e-mail me.
Exegete
Oh, I'm so DEEPLY hurt.
Like a personal attack by you matters at all.
Exegete
Supertimer wrote:
> Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>So? It's his company. He co-founded it. Without Jobs, Apple wouldn't
>>exist. Without Jobs' return, Apple would not be the company it is today.
>
>
> Going back to IBM's G5 chip, I have nothing against
> the chip. Like I have said before, it is a fine piece
> of engineering just like the Opteron is.
>
> It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
The whole PowerPC line is based on IBM designs. This is *old* news. The
only really "new" news is that Motorola is now out of the loop.
> In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
> remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
> was the big evil "Big Brother."
1984 isn't really "recently"
NeXT worked with IBM. Apple's been working with IBM since the early 90s.
Again, *old* news.
The very Big
> Brother that Steve Jobs is now glorifying for
> providing the G5. In 2003, Apple ads glorify
> IBM's contribution. In 1984, an Apple commercial
> showed a hammer being thrown at "Big Brother"
> which represented IBM.
>
> Just goes to show you how warped things were
> at Apple back then (1983-1984). Those warped
> crusades were also part of the reason for what
> Apple did to the Apple II line.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <20030821061922...@mb-m28.aol.com>, Supertimer
><super...@aol.com> writes
>>It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
>>In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
>>remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
>>was the big evil "Big Brother."
>Recently being 1992ish, of course - IBM had a lot of input into the
>original Power architecture with Motorola.
Err, not quite.
IBM *designed* the Power architeture, and it was already in production.
IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together to implement it as PowerPC
>Of course, I could just complain that Apple dropped the Apple ///, and
>it was Insanely Great, and why did they kill such a superior platform ;)
Fear of litigation. They were afraid that the Workman's Comp carriers
would sue them for all the injuries from lifting the machine two inches
off the desk to drop it and reseat the chips every week :)
hawk
--
Richard E. Hawkins, Asst. Prof. of Economics /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
doc...@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings.
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Charlie
"Supertimer" <super...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030821060533...@mb-m28.aol.com...
Intel and Hewlett-Packard introduced the Itanium processor (64 bit registers
and 64 bit data bus) in May of 2001. The Itanium 2 processor (64 bit registers
and 128 bit + 8 bit ECC data bus) came out in June of 2002. The Itanium
processors run Window XP (64 bit Edition), Linux (4 distributions) and 2 Unix
versions (HP-UX and AIX). The Itaniums also have a 32 bit compatibility mode
so that it can run old operating systems.
Charlie
Sheldon Simms
> Intel and Hewlett-Packard introduced the Itanium processor (64 bit registers
> and 64 bit data bus) in May of 2001. The Itanium 2 processor (64 bit registers
> and 128 bit + 8 bit ECC data bus) came out in June of 2002. The Itanium
> processors run Window XP (64 bit Edition), Linux (4 distributions) and 2 Unix
> versions (HP-UX and AIX). The Itaniums also have a 32 bit compatibility mode
> so that it can run old operating systems.
Yes, but they are such worthless pieces of crap that we like to pretend
that they don't exist.
Charlie
"Sheldon Simms" <sheldo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.08.21....@yahoo.com...
Well, I am no expert on the relative crappiness of various processors, but I
guess the original poster is correct about AMD being first if we pretend that
all the other 64 bit processors don't exist.
Charlie
Richard Kilpatrick
<ha...@slytherin.ds.psu.edu> writes
>Err, not quite.
>
>IBM *designed* the Power architeture, and it was already in production.
>IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together to implement it as PowerPC
Well, I phrased it badly, but that's essentially what I meant. Doh!
>Fear of litigation. They were afraid that the Workman's Comp carriers
>would sue them for all the injuries from lifting the machine two inches
>off the desk to drop it and reseat the chips every week :)
They could have bought the MacAlly 'dropper', a bent bit of cast iron
with a lever that you merely pushed to lift and drop your Apple ///.
I once had to move 5 of the buggers in my car. The tail was dragging...
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <bi2r5e$1dpk$6...@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
><ha...@slytherin.ds.psu.edu> writes
>>Err, not quite.
>>IBM *designed* the Power architeture, and it was already in production.
>>IBM, Apple, and Motorola got together to implement it as PowerPC
>Well, I phrased it badly, but that's essentially what I meant. Doh!
:)
>>Fear of litigation. They were afraid that the Workman's Comp carriers
>>would sue them for all the injuries from lifting the machine two inches
>>off the desk to drop it and reseat the chips every week :)
>They could have bought the MacAlly 'dropper', a bent bit of cast iron
>with a lever that you merely pushed to lift and drop your Apple ///.
Was that really built? It would make sense . . .
>I once had to move 5 of the buggers in my car. The tail was dragging...
Ouch. From the days of armor plating to block RF interference . . .
Ever take apart an Atari 800 (and I presume, 400?). It was designed to
use a 50 pin bus (of a pre-existing type, already in use). The whole
board, including the bus edge connector, ended up encased in a metal pot
when the new FCC regs game out, and it ended up with that idiotic serial
connection to its disks.
o.b. dragging tails of cars:
After my father in law died, we rented a 6x12 trailer to haul some of
the stuff back from San Diego area to Las Vegas. My poor crown victoria
ended up with it's nose higher and higher in the air, while I had that
sensation of not packing things right--you know, the feeling that you're
missing just the right way to turn things to fit to get a lot more in.
It finally dawned on me: we were carrying everything past his one tone
pickup, rigged for a fifth wheel . . . we ened up using railroad ties
and a jack, alternating from pile of ties to pile, to get the trailer
off the car . . .
Eric Smith
> processor specifically designed for use in PCs, such as the DEC Multia,
> and was released in 1992 if memory serves, eleven years before the AMD
> Opteron and IBM G5. It was based on the 21064 design (the first
> released Alpha chip) with an added memory controller. The memory
> controller had fairly poor performance, though.
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) writes:
> I should have stated the first mainstream 64-bit
> processor as in a 64-bit processor that can run
> a mainstream OS natively.
You're saying that Windows NT wasn't a mainstream OS???
Eric Smith
> Wrong. DEC offered 64-bit Alpha-based personal computers starting
> around 1992 or 1993. The Multia was one example.
Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Oddly enough, I've used the Multia as an example as to why Apple's
> tech wasn't new. But it was a workstation. It ran NT, or something
> horrid,
It ran NT, but it was most certainly NOT a workstation in the conventional
sense of that work. It was marketed as a personal computer (or, in some
cases, as a thin client).
> and you couldn't exactly walk into Best Buy or Futureshop and
> buy one...
A lot of PC companies have made a lot of PC models that you couldn't buy
at Best Buy. That doesn't make them workstations.
Supertimer
The Itanium runs 32-bit applications under emulation
and it does so slower than a good 32-bit Athlon XP
or Intel's own 32-bit P4 for that matter.
Note I said "a 64-bit processor that can run a
mainstream OS natively" with NATIVE being the
key.
Opteron is the first x86 64-bit processor that can
do this. G5 does this for Macintosh. Intel has
nothing comparable at the moment although they
may have to rethink their stategy if Opteron is a
success (or even if G5 is a success considering
it will demonstrate the importance of migration).
Opteron can run 32-bit applications faster than
AMD's 32-bit processor. G5 can run 32-bit Mac
apps faster than the fastest G4. Itanium runs
32-bit apps under emulation slower than a P4.
There IS a difference.
Supertimer
>You're saying that Windows NT wasn't a mainstream OS???
It wasn't. Microsoft's mainstream OS was always based
on the Win95 kernal.
This didn't change until Windows XP when Microsoft
built the OS with Win95/98/ME compatibility based on
the NT kernal.
Supertimer
>Supertimer <super...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
>>In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
>>remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
>>was the big evil "Big Brother."
>
>Recently being 1992ish, of course - IBM had a lot of input into the
>original Power architecture with Motorola. We're all familiar with the
>hammer thrown at the screen, and at the time it was accurate. Now IBM
>has had to move with the times. Apple isn't a garage company, IBM isn't
>a monopoly.
IBM was never a monoply in the sense that Microsoft
was. Even fiercest competition between Apple II and
IBM PC in the very early 80s, the market was close
to 50/50 between the two if you don't count the Ataris
and Commodores.
The difference between IBM's part in the development
of the PowerPC processor line and IBM's part as
Apple's savior now is that for the first time, Apple not
only acknowledges IBM's contribution but glorifies it.
When was the last time you saw IBM's logo so
proudly displayed in a two page Apple ad?
Yes, around 1992 IBM was already a partner in the
PowerPC line. But that is the same as Apple now
implementing AMD's HyperTransport technology in
the G5 platform. Like IBM then, AMD's contribution
is invisible.
The irony is not that IBM played a role in the G5.
The irony is that Apple is bragging by claiming IBM
as such a great partner, an entity it once "threw the
hammer" at.
>In many ways, Apple did defeat Big Brother. It's a shame that it wasn't
>paying attention to cousin Bill at the same time. At least Apple are
>sensible enough not to bear a grudge; Microsoft would rather grind firms
>out of existence than find ways of working with them to mutual benefit,
>and would do it by stealing, lying and cheating whilst pretending to be
>their friend.
I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
the Mac clone fiasco. If Apple were dominant and
Microsoft did not exist, I have no doubt that it will
be a monopoly and all PCs will be built by Apple
at an exorbitant price. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates
were cut from the same cloth.
>I don't think the ][ range was hard done by. Whilst it's a shame that
>Mac development took precedence at Job's insistence, they still did a
>better job of bridging the gap than anyone else, and still produced
>their 1970s 'line' up to the 1990s. I dare say that if the Apple IIgs
>had been developed, we'd have much the same machines we do now - GS/OS,
>ProDOS, and the Macintosh, share common roots.
The case of the Apple IIGS was nothing less than
infanticide by Apple. It was a case of neglect of a
successful line (the Apple II), keeping prices high,
removing all advertisement, leaving development at
a standstill, and blaming the product when the axe
fell even though the product was so good it sold
ITSELF for six years after funding for advertisement
had stopped.
Better job at bridging the gap? Give me a break.
That was the worse bridging job I have ever seen
and the reason I am a PC user today. 68k Mac
to PPC Mac was a good bridging job but the
Apple II to Mac one was a disaster and I have
no doubt that a great many Apple II user turned
PC for this reason.
Charlie
How does the Opteron run 32-bit applications? The AMD website and the Opteron
data sheet are vague about how it is done.
32-bit applications on an Itanium 2 run in "compatibility mode" which is a mode
that is NATIVE to the processor.
> and it does so slower than a good 32-bit Athlon XP
> or Intel's own 32-bit P4 for that matter.
True, but that still doesn't make the Opteron first <grin>.
> Note I said "a 64-bit processor that can run a
> mainstream OS natively" with NATIVE being the
> key.
Yes, and "native" is one of those words with various meanings when it comes to
computers. To me, native, in this case, means that the ability to run 32-bit
software was built into the chip hardware.
By the way, the idea of emulating 32-bit software in a 64-bit chip, reminds me
that we really should be talking about the 65816 in the Apple IIgs emulating
8-bit software in a 16-bit processor, since this is CSA2.
Anyway, I am not trying to put down AMD's processors. If fact my next computer
(I intend to build my own) will probably have a AMD processor. I just don't
like when AMD (and for that matter most major companies) play loose with the
facts when marketing their products.
> Opteron is the first x86 64-bit processor that can
> do this. G5 does this for Macintosh. Intel has
> nothing comparable at the moment although they
> may have to rethink their stategy if Opteron is a
> success (or even if G5 is a success considering
> it will demonstrate the importance of migration).
>
> Opteron can run 32-bit applications faster than
> AMD's 32-bit processor. G5 can run 32-bit Mac
> apps faster than the fastest G4. Itanium runs
> 32-bit apps under emulation slower than a P4.
>
> There IS a difference.
Certainly, the Opteron was meant to be a transition chip (to make the
transition from 32-bit to 64-bit easier) and from what I've read they have
succeeded, but in my opinion it is not the first 64-bit processor to run a
mainstream operating system.
By the way, AMD says the Opteron is meant to be used in workstations and
servers (whatever that means) and they will have a 64-bit Athlon out in
September, 2003.
Charlie
Greg Buchner
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
> world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
> the Mac clone fiasco.
Yea, but also take a look at what the Mac cloners were doing to Apple.
The clone companies got Apple to agree on cloning based on the fact that
they would work towards expanding the Mac market. They didn't do that,
they just went after the market Apple already had. Splitting up an
already small percentage amongst more companies just didn't work.
Sheldon Simms
> "Supertimer" <super...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030823174449...@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> "Charlie" <char...@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Itaniums also have a 32 bit compatibility mode
>>
>> The Itanium runs 32-bit applications under emulation
>
> How does the Opteron run 32-bit applications? The AMD website and the Opteron
> data sheet are vague about how it is done.
Well it just runs them, since the Opteron instruction set is basically
the same as the Athlon x86 instruction set. It works pretty much exactly
like a 65816 running 8 bit applications.
Like the 65816, the Opteron has an "long" mode, that uses long (16/24 bit
for the 65816, 64-bit for the Opteron) addresses and operands with some
new instructions thrown in and a "compatibility" mode that works just
like a legacy CPU.
> 32-bit applications on an Itanium 2 run in "compatibility mode" which is a mode
> that is NATIVE to the processor.
Yes, but the Itanium's instruction set is completely, utterly different
than the x86 instruction set. The Itanium's compatibility mode is
really just a hardware-assisted software emulation of x86 in which
x86 instructions are translated to Itanium-native instructions on the
fly. This is better than pure software emulation, but it's not really
good enough to use for any real purpose (i.e., no one is going to buy
an Itanium to run primarily x86 software).
>> and it does so slower than a good 32-bit Athlon XP
>> or Intel's own 32-bit P4 for that matter.
>
> True, but that still doesn't make the Opteron first <grin>.
There was/is x86 software emulation for 64-bit Alpha CPUs as well.
>> Note I said "a 64-bit processor that can run a
>> mainstream OS natively" with NATIVE being the
>> key.
>
> Yes, and "native" is one of those words with various meanings when it comes to
> computers. To me, native, in this case, means that the ability to run 32-bit
> software was built into the chip hardware.
Itanium does not natively execute x86 code in this sense, as
it requires low-level software to emulate an x86. The Itanium
processor provides hardware support for the emulation, but
that's not the same as native execution.
> Certainly, the Opteron was meant to be a transition chip (to make the
> transition from 32-bit to 64-bit easier) and from what I've read they have
> succeeded, but in my opinion it is not the first 64-bit processor to run a
> mainstream operating system.
People have been defining "mainstream operating system" to mean
whatever they want. I would call Windows NT mainstream for every
versions 4.0 and later. That would make Alpha the first 64-bit processor
to run a mainstream operating system.
> By the way, AMD says the Opteron is meant to be used in workstations and
> servers (whatever that means)
It means it's SMP certified and they charge too much for it.
> and they will have a 64-bit Athlon out in September, 2003.
Yes. The Athlon 64 and Opteron were originally scheduled to launch
much more closely together. I suspect the Athlon 64 was delayed because
the Opteron has some fabrication problems that AMD wanted to fix before
they did a mass-market launch. I expect the Athlon 64 will be a new
revision of the x86-64 architecture.
-Sheldon
Exegete
Greg Buchner wrote:
> In article <20030823180234...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
> super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>
>>I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
>>world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
>>the Mac clone fiasco.
>
>
> Yea, but also take a look at what the Mac cloners were doing to Apple.
> The clone companies got Apple to agree on cloning based on the fact that
> they would work towards expanding the Mac market. They didn't do that,
> they just went after the market Apple already had. Splitting up an
> already small percentage amongst more companies just didn't work.
Well, that isn't totally true.
The clones did expand the market... and stole market share from Apple
too... by making better/faster Macs than Apple did.
Roy
>
> Greg B.
Supertimer
>"Supertimer" <super...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> The Itanium runs 32-bit applications under emulation
>
>How does the Opteron run 32-bit applications? The AMD website and the Opteron
>data sheet are vague about how it is done.
The Opteron runs 32-bit applications in a 32-bit mode
natively. That is, it can crunch x86 code. Opteron
was built upon the Athlon K7 but has been extended
to 64-bits (x86-64). G5 does the same thing with
32-bit code designed to run on the G4 processor.
This is no less emulation than a IIGS 65C816 chip
running 8-bit 65C02 instructions. In all cases (G5,
Opteron, 65C816), the code is run natively.
Itanium2 has a completely new instruction set.
It is a VLIW chip and it runs x86 32-bit software
the same way that the Transmeta chip does,
translating x86 instructions in real-time into the
native IA-64 instructions. If you have every seen
a Transmeta based PC, you will know how much
more slowly this kind of emulation works than
the native processing an Opteron, G5, or 65C816
can perform for older code.
>32-bit applications on an Itanium 2 run in "compatibility mode" which is a
mode
>that is NATIVE to the processor.
Itanium2 is not processing the x86 instructions
natively. It runs in 32-bit mode similar to a
Transmeta chip and not even Transmeta claims
that this is native.
>> and it does so slower than a good 32-bit Athlon XP
>> or Intel's own 32-bit P4 for that matter.
>
>True, but that still doesn't make the Opteron first <grin>.
It makes the Opteron the first 64-bit x86 processor
capable of running existing 32-bit apps natively.
I guess there are many firsts. Alpha being the
first 64-bit processor in something some people
would call a personal computer. Itanium being
the first Intel 64-bit procesor. Opteron being the
first x86 64-bit processor. And, from this
discussion, I can see how Apple can claim the
G5 Mac computer (not processor) being the
first 64-bit computer (not processor) sold as a
personal computer rather than with the badge
of workstation.
>Anyway, I am not trying to put down AMD's processors. If fact my next
computer
>(I intend to build my own) will probably have a AMD processor. I just don't
>like when AMD (and for that matter most major companies) play loose with the
>facts when marketing their products.
My original intention was to point this out with
regard to Apple's advertisement of the G5. But the
discussion has brought out that basically, all these
companies do it although I still maintain that
sometimes, Apple's claims are the most
exaggerated. Remember them calling the G3 a
supercomputer on a chip. Now THAT one was
funny.
Meanwhile, Cray is building a supercomputer
called Redstorm for the Department of Energy's
Sandia National Laboratories using Opteron
processors.
>By the way, AMD says the Opteron is meant to be used in workstations and
>servers (whatever that means) and they will have a 64-bit Athlon out in
>September, 2003.
It is marketing strategy. AMD wants to crack
the workstation and server market that Intel
has traditionally dominated. It has more or less
succeeded in the enthusiast market. Apple
is pushing the G5 as a PC rather than a
workstation because it wants to go after the
enthusiast market, the same market that
the Athlon succeeded in.
The Athlon-64 is an Opteron with some of the
features removed. Two instead of three
HyperTransport links and one instead of two
DDR memory controllers. Certainly more
powerful than a 32-bit Athlon but I'd rather have
the Opteron.
Supertimer
>> and they will have a 64-bit Athlon out in September, 2003.
>
>Yes. The Athlon 64 and Opteron were originally scheduled to launch
>much more closely together. I suspect the Athlon 64 was delayed because
>the Opteron has some fabrication problems that AMD wanted to fix before
>they did a mass-market launch. I expect the Athlon 64 will be a new
>revision of the x86-64 architecture.
AMD claims that they are waiting for the release of
Microsoft's 64-bit Windows XP but it would not
surprise me if what you say is closer to the truth.
It is better for a company to fix such issues rather
than rushing a product to market. Intel did this
with the 1.1Ghz PIII if I recall (when they panicked
after the release of the 1Ghz Athlon) and ended
up recalling the chip. Only an entrenched leader
like Intel can make a mistake like that and survive.
Apple certainly could not revive the Apple III after
similar problems.
Granville Waiters' Ghost
> Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Supertimer <super...@aol.com> writes:
> >
> >>It is just that it is very funny that IBM designed it.
> >>In the PC world, this is no surprise at all. But
> >>remember, in the Apple world until recently IBM
> >>was the big evil "Big Brother."
> >
> >Recently being 1992ish, of course - IBM had a lot of input into the
> >original Power architecture with Motorola. We're all familiar with the
> >hammer thrown at the screen, and at the time it was accurate. Now IBM
> >has had to move with the times. Apple isn't a garage company, IBM isn't
> >a monopoly.
>
<snip>
> Yes, around 1992 IBM was already a partner in the
> PowerPC line. But that is the same as Apple now
> implementing AMD's HyperTransport technology in
> the G5 platform. Like IBM then, AMD's contribution
> is invisible.
>
> The irony is not that IBM played a role in the G5.
> The irony is that Apple is bragging by claiming IBM
> as such a great partner, an entity it once "threw the
> hammer" at.
Ugh! Please stop already!
Do you not remember the big press conference with Sculley
and IBM's CEO Guy? They not only "cooperated" on PowerPC,
they formed two spin-off companies that they entirely
funded together (though later brought in other partners):
Kaleida Labs and Taligent.
Taligent was intended for nothing less than to write an
entirely new operating system based on object-oriented
principles.
If you haven't seen the last ten or fifteen years, yes,
the IBM-Apple partnership is quite strange. But they've
cooperated in multi-million dollar deals, met each
other at big-time press conferences, shook hands, and
announced that they were proud to be in bed together.
Supertimer
>super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>> I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
>> world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
>> the Mac clone fiasco.
>
>Yea, but also take a look at what the Mac cloners were doing to Apple.
>The clone companies got Apple to agree on cloning based on the fact that
>they would work towards expanding the Mac market. They didn't do that,
>they just went after the market Apple already had. Splitting up an
>already small percentage amongst more companies just didn't work.
It is called competition and it would have made
the Mac a more viable alternative to the PC by
infusing competition based innovation into a
stagnant platform.
Want to see what good clones can do? Look
at Palm. Palm was stagnating. Like Apple,
Palm made the hardware (PalmPilot PDAs)
and software (PalmOS). The market was
shrinking against the onslaught of PocketPC
WindowsCE based machines. Then Palm
licensed the PalmOS to Handspring and
Sony. Handspring and Sony innovated. Yes,
their superior hardware meant that Palm
lost a great many users to Sony and
Handspring. But Palm saw beyond that,
something Apple was unable to. Palm saw
how Handspring's Treo cellphones were
also expanding the market and how Sony's
Clie palmtops smashed the PocketPC's
grip on handheld multimedia. Palm lost
some market to Handspring and Sony but
the PalmOS platform benefitted and held.
Today, Palm has revised its lineup to have
many of the multimedia features Sony has
and will buy Handspring and continue to
sell its successful Treo line.
THAT's what clones can do for you. Instead,
Apple smashed its clone partners and in
at least one case, bought out a company
to shut down the line rather than expanding
the strength of that company like Palm will
do with Handspring.
Can you imagine what would have happened
to the Palm platform if Palm had looked at
the successes of the Sony Clie and said
"you are TOO successful, your product is
TOO good, we're going to shut you down
simply because your product is better than
ours." As a PalmOS licensee, Palm could
very well have pulled off such an Apple
maneuver.
Supertimer
>The G5 is 'insanely great' - it is the most
>powerful computer /anyone/ should be able to buy over the shelf, use
>right away - no assembly required, no shopping for cases, motherboards
>and such. In real terms it is probably cheaper than a Multia was.
You are obviously an Apple person. I am a PC user
but I too consider myself an Apple person. But I
am a devotee of the OTHER Apple.
You see, there are two groups of Apple followers.
The children of Woz and the children of Jobs. You
appear to be a child of Jobs.
Jobs has always pushed for the "no assembly
required" model. You seem to view building a
computer from the ground up as some kind of
weakness.
The children of Woz will disagree. Apple was
born from a garage around a computer that Woz
built by hand. He put the chips on the boards
and coded the ROMs himself. Then he sold
his creation, the Apple I, and the world was
changed. The Apple II was a direct extension
of the Apple I.
The beauty of the Apple II was that it was NOT
a fully packaged deal. You had to configure it,
was free to add a multitude of cards and
indeed NEEDED to add a Disk2 card to make
it fully functional. When I got my first Apple
IIe, I had to crack open the case to install the
DuoDisk controller and Extended 80 column
card. Yes, not all of us are born with the gift
of Woz, able to create computers from chips,
but the experience of working with the IIe
motherboard and expansion cards gave each
Apple II users a feeling of direct link to Woz's
creation.
Now the children of Jobs slams the PCs for
being so configurable. Indeed, makes it seem
like the fact that so many PCs are built by
end users who select their own components
is a flaw. But this is not the weakness of
PCs as Jobs sees it. It is the very strength
of the PC, the same strength that Woz'
Apple II computer had. YOU as the user
decides. I did this with my IIe, creating a
very unique configuration. I did this with my
IIGS, pushing it far the limits the IIGS
motherboard could support, exanding it with
the best third party hardware I could find.
And every time I build a PC, assembling my
AMD processor, Crucial memory, motherboard
with chipset and design of my choice, getting
into the guts of the hardware and bringing a
new computer system to life, I reach connect
with my experience of owning an Apple II
computer.
The PC is the computer the Apple II would
have become had it been allowed to continue,
not the Mac.
Yes, you can buy a G5 cheaper than the Multia
was, being a child of Jobs. But I, being a
child of Woz, can assemble an Opteron
system with motherboard, case, memory,
video, and sound of my choosing for less.
Jobs has succeeded in killing off the Apple II
and erased remnants of its past success but
he has not extinguished the spirit of the Apple II.
Every former Apple II user who now builds and
uses PCs knows this.
Greg Buchner
Exegete <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
> Greg Buchner wrote:
> > In article <20030823180234...@mb-m02.aol.com>,
> > super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> >
> >>I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
> >>world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
> >>the Mac clone fiasco.
> >
> > Yea, but also take a look at what the Mac cloners were doing to Apple.
> > The clone companies got Apple to agree on cloning based on the fact that
> > they would work towards expanding the Mac market. They didn't do that,
> > they just went after the market Apple already had. Splitting up an
> > already small percentage amongst more companies just didn't work.
>
> Well, that isn't totally true.
> The clones did expand the market... and stole market share from Apple
> too... by making better/faster Macs than Apple did.
Well, from my experience, I don't know anyone who bought a Mac clone who
wasn't already a Mac user. I currently know several people who have
switched to Macs based on the new Macs/OS X.
As for the making better/faster Macs, that's easy when you're only doing
a couple of thousand of them at a time. That's not something that Apple
could do without being slammed for not having have machines for the
demand. That's something else I've seen firsthand.
The clones probably did expand the market, but it probably wasn't by all
that much...not enough to make up for what Apple was losing.
Greg Buchner
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> Greg Buchner <app...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> >
> >> I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
> >> world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
> >> the Mac clone fiasco.
> >
> >Yea, but also take a look at what the Mac cloners were doing to Apple.
> >The clone companies got Apple to agree on cloning based on the fact that
> >they would work towards expanding the Mac market. They didn't do that,
> >they just went after the market Apple already had. Splitting up an
> >already small percentage amongst more companies just didn't work.
>
> It is called competition and it would have made
> the Mac a more viable alternative to the PC by
> infusing competition based innovation into a
> stagnant platform.
But Apple couldn't compete against both the cloners and the dominance of
the Wintel world. As for innovation, I think Apple innovates more than
just about everyone else these days. It's taken them a while.
I think that the only way the Mac clones could have really succeeded was
if the company that was trying to 'clean room' the Mac ROMs/OS had done
it...following how the PC world did clones.
> Want to see what good clones can do? Look
> at Palm.
It's easier to do with a device that people are more likely to pick up
on a whim. And the world is a many varied place...you can't take what
one companies done and say it should apply to another. Reality doesn't
work that way.
Laine Houghton
That was a wonderful acceptance speech.
http://tinyurl.com/l0uj
http://businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2003/tc2003085_3215_tc112.htm
"Supertimer" <super...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030824023539...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Sheldon Simms
> Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The G5 is 'insanely great' - it is the most
>>powerful computer /anyone/ should be able to buy over the shelf, use
>>right away - no assembly required, no shopping for cases, motherboards
>>and such
I agree that the G5 is the best computer Apple has built in
years, You probably have to go back to the Mac II to find
a Macintosh that is as technologically advanced as the
G5. Apple has spent years, almost decades, one generation
behind PC technology. The G5 isn't ahead of current PCs,
but at least it's approximately level. And, amazingly for
Apple, the price isn't extortionate. Sure it's expensive,
but the Apple of the 1990s would have charged $1999/$2999/
$4999 for the three models instead of $1999/$2399/$2999.
The best thing Apple has done recently, however, is to
bring out Mac OS X. With OS X I finally feel like I control
the Mac instead of the Mac controlling me. A Mac Centris
650 was my main computer for several years and it always
bugged the hell out of me when a program hung the computer,
or, even worse, the OS started seemingly ignoring menu
selections. With OS X I can "force quit" or, even better,
pull up a terminal and "kill -9 -1" bwahahaha!
> And every time I build a PC, assembling my
> AMD processor, Crucial memory, motherboard
> with chipset and design of my choice, getting
> into the guts of the hardware and bringing a
> new computer system to life, I reach connect
> with my experience of owning an Apple II
> computer.
Some people wonder why I built my computer instead of
buying a prefab ("they're so inexpensive!"). Sure you can
buy a good computer with a 2.5 Ghz Pentium / 256 Mb RAM /
60 Gb Hdd for $700, but they're usually junk inside.
(So were Macs before the G5)
My computer is an Athlon XP 1800+ that I built two years
ago. I recently acquired a prefab Athlon XP 1600+ incidently
at an auction. It has a no-name motherboard, inadequate cooling,
PC-133 SDRAM, etc. The nominal difference in processor speed
between my computer and the prefab is 133Mhz, so mine is
nominially 9.5% faster. However my computer is actually
approximately twice as fast as the prefab at performing
actual tasks, such as finishing a "folding at home" work unit.
The difference is that I did some research and made sure that
I bought a good mainboard with a fast chipset, lots of low-
latency DDR memory, and set my BIOS settings appropriately.
Although it doesn't affect performance, I also got a good CPU
heat sink and lots of quiet fans. The result is that my CPU
usually runs at less than 45C under a full load and won't die
of heat anytime soon.
Eric Smith
> How does the Opteron run 32-bit applications? The AMD website and the
> Opteron data sheet are vague about how it is done.
In a compatability mode. However, since the AMD64 architecture is mostly
a superset of the x86-32 architecture (with a few minor changes to instruction
encoding), allmost all of the fancy hardware they designed into the Opteron
actually is used to get great performance in 32-bit mode.
> 32-bit applications on an Itanium 2 run in "compatibility mode" which
> is a mode that is NATIVE to the processor.
It's native to the processor, but it's implemented as a bag on the side,
because the native IA64 architecture is *completely* different than the
x86-32. Itanium 2 performance for x86-32 code is *terrible*.
> Certainly, the Opteron was meant to be a transition chip (to make the
> transition from 32-bit to 64-bit easier) and from what I've read they have
> succeeded, but in my opinion it is not the first 64-bit processor to run a
> mainstream operating system.
Quite true, that was the Alpha running Windows NT.
Michael J. Mahon
<snip>
>The Opteron runs 32-bit applications in a 32-bit mode
>natively. That is, it can crunch x86 code. Opteron
>was built upon the Athlon K7 but has been extended
>to 64-bits (x86-64). G5 does the same thing with
>32-bit code designed to run on the G4 processor.
>This is no less emulation than a IIGS 65C816 chip
>running 8-bit 65C02 instructions. In all cases (G5,
>Opteron, 65C816), the code is run natively.
>
>Itanium2 has a completely new instruction set.
>It is a VLIW chip and it runs x86 32-bit software
>the same way that the Transmeta chip does,
>translating x86 instructions in real-time into the
>native IA-64 instructions. If you have every seen
>a Transmeta based PC, you will know how much
>more slowly this kind of emulation works than
>the native processing an Opteron, G5, or 65C816
>can perform for older code.
There is a certain irony here, in that both AMD and Intel
implementations of the IA-32 architecture, in their current
32-bit chips, do not run the IA-32 instructions "as written".
All modern implementations of the decidedly non-modern
IA-32 architecture gain speed by translating the IA-32
instructions into something much like non-optimalVLIW
code, to get better execution parallelism.
The reason that IA-64 makes sense is that it eliminates
the "middle man" of obsolete IA-32 code in this process,
removing architectural and implementation bottlenecks
and permitting much faster program execution (in native
IA-64 mode). (BTW, the first Itanium processor was the
first of a new kind, and, like the first waffle, is not the
exemplar of what will follow. Itanium 2 is much better,
even in a non-cutting-edge technology. Future versions
will reveal the architecture's potential.)
Running IA-32 code is a "transition" problem, which will
vanish just as the problem of running Mac 68K code has
vanished as a performance issue.
The IA-32 instruction set architecture is very long in the
tooth and is a serious obstacle to obtaining the highest
possible performance from a given amount of silicon.
Although it may seem convenient at the moment to
compromise a chip's performance to obtain "native"
compatibility with old code, this is, in fact, mortgaging
future performance forever, when in a few years the
value of "compatibility mode" performance will be nil.
Evolutionary solutions to problems seem better until
you consider the cumulative effect of many layers of
"evolution" versus designing a new solution which is
more nearly optimal for near-future technology.
Computer scientist Brian Randell remarked many years
ago that "A philosophy of evolution, not revolution, is
actually a philosophy of fewer and bloodier revolutions."
When the compromises to retain compatibility with a
20-year-old architecture become so onerous that they
decrease execution efficiency by a sizable factor, it's
time to reconsider the architecture.
Virtually all applications today are coded in high-level
languages, so the cost of recompiling them for another
architecture is very low. In fact, the biggest cost is in
simply _having_ two versions during the transition period.
Apple managed their transition with a far-suboptimal 68K
compatibility mode, but they made it just fine within 2-3
years, and I think most Mac users would agree that the
pain was well worth it. I believe that PC users will be
just as pleased when given the chance.
-michael
Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page: http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/
Richard Kilpatrick
<super...@aol.com> writes
>You see, there are two groups of Apple followers.
>The children of Woz and the children of Jobs. You
>appear to be a child of Jobs.
I'm a child of neither. The Apple G5 and G4 is no more a Job's vision
than the Apple IIgs. If the G5 were Jobs' vision, it wouldn't have
PCI-X, for a start. The G5 is the ROM-03 Apple IIgs to the iMac's Apple
//c+.
I am a true Apple person, in that I'm more than prepared to accept that
Woz's creativity and Jobs' marketing is what made Apple great. Not one
or the other.
Eric Smith
> There is a certain irony here, in that both AMD and Intel
> implementations of the IA-32 architecture, in their current
> 32-bit chips, do not run the IA-32 instructions "as written".
Huh? There have been processors for more than forty years that have not
been hardwired to execute the documented user-level instruction set.
The microarchitectures have gotten a lot more complex over those forty
years [*], but I don't think it's fair to claim that a Pentium Pro/2/3/4
or Athlon doesn't execute IA-32 instructions "as written". If AMD,
Intel, Nexgen, and Transmeta hadn't bragged about how clever their
microarchitectures are, you wouldn't even be thinking about making such
a statement.
The fact is that these chips DO execute IA-32 instructions "as written".
The way they execute them just happens to be very complex.
Eric
[*] It took until the 1990s for microprocessors to catch up with the
implementation techniques IBM invented in the 1950s and 1960s with
machines like Stretch (7030) and the 360/91, such as speculative
execution and register renaming. So complex microarchitectures are
actually nothing new.
Eric Smith
> If the G5 were Jobs' vision, it wouldn't have PCI-X, for a start.
How did you reach that conclusion? If you're thinking about Job's vision
of 1983, it wouldn't have any slots at all. But it's a safe bet that he
has a somewhat different vision today than he did twenty years ago.
I'm told by current Apple employees that Mr. Jobs does in fact wield
a *lot* of control over what features go into the systems.
Richard Kilpatrick
<eric-no-s...@brouhaha.com> writes
>How did you reach that conclusion? If you're thinking about Job's vision
>of 1983, it wouldn't have any slots at all. But it's a safe bet that he
>has a somewhat different vision today than he did twenty years ago.
One that may have been influenced by the philosophy that Woz supported,
of user expansion... Honestly, Jobs' vision now is of computers as
appliances and Apple as an Appliance maker - no different in many ways
to the Mac. The iMac and iBook are Jobs' vision, the desktops are what
the market desires, as most Macs with slots have been.
There is no issue here. Why does anyone need to feel the need to
question each little point? The G5 is good. It may not be first, or
best, or fastest, but it's the best Apple personal computer ever. What
on earth is there to argue about? ;)
Of course Jobs has a lot of control over the company and products. He is
the CEO. He is paid to have a lot of control.
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
Sheldon Simms <sheldo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 06:35:39 +0000, Supertimer wrote:
>
>> Richard Kilpatrick <ric...@dmc12.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The G5 is 'insanely great' - it is the most
>>>powerful computer /anyone/ should be able to buy over the shelf, use
>>>right away - no assembly required, no shopping for cases, motherboards
>>>and such
>I agree that the G5 is the best computer Apple has built in
>years, You probably have to go back to the Mac II to find
>a Macintosh that is as technologically advanced as the
>G5.
The IIfx?
And another missed apple opportunity. The appletalk on it was run by a
dedicated 6502 derivative at a time that Apple was trying to get into
home appliaces. They should have licenced that thing high and low, and
run appletalk around the house on the outer pair of regular phone
sockets . . .
*sigh*
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins
>> I should have stated the first mainstream 64-bit
>> processor as in a 64-bit processor that can run
>> a mainstream OS natively.
>You're saying that Windows NT wasn't a mainstream OS???
Wasn't NT on the alpha only a 32 bit OS, however? Something at the back
of my mind says that it never really was extended to 64 bits (or was it
extended later?)
Michael J. Mahon
>mjm...@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon) writes:
>> There is a certain irony here, in that both AMD and Intel
>> implementations of the IA-32 architecture, in their current
>> 32-bit chips, do not run the IA-32 instructions "as written".
>
>Huh? There have been processors for more than forty years that have not
>been hardwired to execute the documented user-level instruction set.
>The microarchitectures have gotten a lot more complex over those forty
>years [*], but I don't think it's fair to claim that a Pentium Pro/2/3/4
>or Athlon doesn't execute IA-32 instructions "as written". If AMD,
>Intel, Nexgen, and Transmeta hadn't bragged about how clever their
>microarchitectures are, you wouldn't even be thinking about making such
>a statement.
>
>The fact is that these chips DO execute IA-32 instructions "as written".
>The way they execute them just happens to be very complex.
Yes, but the point I was making is that the actual execution
machinery on the chip is _not_ IA-32 machinery--only the fetch/
decode/translate-to-internal-code part even knows about IA-32.
(And yes, I realize that _all_ IA-32 implementations have actually
been microcoded simulations of IA-32 on simpler hardware.)
Further, the IA-32 code analysis/translation parts are needed
only because of IA-32 compatibility, and could be dispensed with
in a more modern design. These parts of the implementation
1) represent additional complexity not required at execution
time, and 2) are doing a partial parallization job on-the-fly with
very limited knowledge and resources, compared to what a
modern optimizing compiler can bring to bear.
As just one example, the IA-32 architecture has a very small
register set, leading to very frequent false dependencies between
IA-32 instructions. Modern implementations attempt to remove
many of these dependencies by renaming the IA-32 registers into
a much larger set of general registers actually used by the
execution engine. This dynamic renaming requires pipeline stage(s)
and silicon which could be better employed if the compiled code
were not restricted to the IA-32 instruction set architecture, so
that renaming was not required.
One of the reasons that Itanium I and II implement IA-32 compatibility
"on the side" is so that the compatibility capability does not distort
the design of the chip excessively from its native VLIW-like intent
(which is capable of much greater performance).
Considering that the "typical" PC in use is a 500MHz Pentium III,
the need for extreme compatibility-mode performance during the
architecture transition is dubious.
Sheldon Simms
> Further, the IA-32 code analysis/translation parts are needed
> only because of IA-32 compatibility, and could be dispensed with
> in a more modern design. These parts of the implementation
> 1) represent additional complexity not required at execution
> time, and 2) are doing a partial parallization job on-the-fly with
> very limited knowledge and resources, compared to what a
> modern optimizing compiler can bring to bear.
And yet it seems that people are having trouble writing compilers
that generate good code for the Itanium. There are even voices
starting to be heard suggesting that the next Itanium generation
may be an out of order processor.
I don't have enough knowledge of CPU engineering to make authoritative
statements, but I have heard people who do design CPUs say that the
cost of decoding x86 instructions is only a very small part of the
transistor and power budgets on todays CPUs. Removing the x86
decoders might do no more than reduce power dissipation by 5%,
die area by 2% and 1 or 2 pipeline stages.
comp.arch is a good newsgroup for this type of discussion. They
talk about this sort of thing all the time.
Eric Smith
> Wasn't NT on the alpha only a 32 bit OS, however?
The commercially released versions only supported 32-bit addressing,
though it was possible (and easy) to take advantage of the 64-bit registers
and data path. I used it for simulations before Linux/Alpha was stable
(which happened pretty quickly), and it was much better for 64-bit
arithmetic than any other platform running an MS operating system.
> Something at the back
> of my mind says that it never really was extended to 64 bits (or was it
> extended later?)
Certainly it was. That was in fact the first Microsoft 64-bit OS.
Betas shipped to some customers, but the product was cancelled.
Microsoft continued development internally because they knew they
would need the code for the IA64.
Supertimer
>Evolutionary solutions to problems seem better until
>you consider the cumulative effect of many layers of
>"evolution" versus designing a new solution which is
>more nearly optimal for near-future technology.
My bet is still on evolution. Jobs thought the
same thing when he drew the line between
the Apple II and the Mac and the result was
Apple losing much of its existing user base
(we went to the PC).
In contrast, the PC has evolved rather than
breaking from the past and its user base
has grown tremendously. No doubt this has
to do with many reasons, one of them being
the competitive effect of the clones (which
were what really made the PC successful
with IBM all but bowing out). But the fact
that the platform was an unbroken line of
evolution from the first IBM PC no doubt
has contributed to its success.
Evolution does not mean hanging on to all
aspects of the architecture forever. It is
possible to hang on to the last two or three
layers and shed the older ones. This gives
time for users to adjust. This was what
happened with the ISA bus in the transition
to PCI. First there was ISA. Then there
was ISA and PCI on the same boards. Now
there is only PCI or PCI and PCI-X.
Supertimer
>super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>> Greg Buchner <app...@mn.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> >super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>> >
>> >> I would argue that Apple is the Microsoft of the Mac
>> >> world. Look what they did to their "partners" during
>> >> the Mac clone fiasco.
>> >
>> >Yea, but also take a look at what the Mac cloners were doing to Apple.
>> >The clone companies got Apple to agree on cloning based on the fact that
>> >they would work towards expanding the Mac market. They didn't do that,
>> >they just went after the market Apple already had. Splitting up an
>> >already small percentage amongst more companies just didn't work.
>>
>> It is called competition and it would have made
>> the Mac a more viable alternative to the PC by
>> infusing competition based innovation into a
>> stagnant platform.
>>
>> Want to see what good clones can do? Look
>> at Palm.
>
>It's easier to do with a device that people are more likely to pick up
>on a whim. And the world is a many varied place...you can't take what
>one companies done and say it should apply to another. Reality doesn't
>work that way.
What I am saying is that it has done much good
for Palm even though they have had to compete
with both Sony/Handspring and the Windows
driven PocketPCs. The comparison is accurate
because Sony and Handspring were licensees
of Palm just like the Mac cloners were of Apple.
These devices are not something users would
pick up on a whim, by the way. The good
models with higher resolution displays, MP3
and MPEG playback, and 400 to 500Mhz ARM
processors go $400 to $500, as much as a
low end PC.
Look at the Palm Tungstens. It is safe to say
that Palm got a pretty good return for letting
Sony innovate on the Clie. Gave them good
ideas.
If Palm were Apple, the response would not
have been to improve the Apple product but
to shut down the clone.
Supertimer
>Supertimer <super...@aol.com> writes
>
>>You see, there are two groups of Apple followers.
>>The children of Woz and the children of Jobs. You
>>appear to be a child of Jobs.
>
>I am a true Apple person, in that I'm more than prepared to accept that
>Woz's creativity and Jobs' marketing is what made Apple great. Not one
>or the other.
I am a true Apple II person in that I was dedicated
the platform. I believed and still truly believe that
the Apple II and Apple IIGS were some of the best
personal computers ever built and the Apple IIGS
in particular had an evolutionary potential that
was never tapped.
However, I do not blindly follow the company that
made the product. I was an Apple II user. Jobs
"vision" at Apple resulted in a great many of us
defecting to the PC.
It is a free market. When consumers are not
happy with a company, they switch.
So yes, I am a fan of Woz because I am a fan
of his creation. Jobs destroyed that creation so
I am no fan of HIS Apple.
As I have said, the modern PC with an nVidia
nForce2 chipset and a high end Athlon CPU
has more Apple II soul than any Macintosh.
Given that, I do agree that the G5 Mac is a
move in the right direction but not enough to
bring me back to Apple.
anonymous
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> As I have said, the modern PC with an nVidia
> nForce2 chipset and a high end Athlon CPU
> has more Apple II soul than any Macintosh.
Huh? Your comment would lead one to believe you are grasping at straws
that were never there to begin with.
> Given that, I do agree that the G5 Mac is a
> move in the right direction but not enough to
> bring me back to Apple.
Oh boo hoo. You have Apple up against the ropes now. Seeing as how you
haven't purchased a new Apple branded computer since when....the early to
mid-80's (ie. one of the Apple II computers), they probably don't miss you
as a customer since it's been about 20 years since any of your paltry sums
of money went their way.
The way you post makes it seem like you single handedly financially
propped up Apple Computer Corporation up until now by purchasing that
Apple ][ Plus on clearance sale back in 1983.
We can all see (by your past posts) that you are married to the hip with
AMD, so go off to a PC newsgroup to do your AMD advocacy bidding, and keep
it to Apple II (not Mac) related material in this newsgroup.
Thank you.
Sheldon Simms
My, my, aren't you the angry little canadian!
Supertimer
>The way you post makes it seem like you single handedly financially
>propped up Apple Computer Corporation up until now by purchasing that
>Apple ][ Plus on clearance sale back in 1983.
It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
platform. My Apple IIGS was a ROM 03 unit
released by Apple in 1989 and bought from them
about a year later.
The Apple II line was better than you seem to give
it credit for. The user base was almost fanatically
devoted to the platform.
That good will was squandered. Anyone who
subscribed to A+ and InCider and A+/InCider
over those years knows the letters that came in
from users who defected to the PC.
Joe Kohn who I still see posts here from time to
time was a columnist in those magazines. I
am sure he remembers.
Yes, this is an Apple II forum and blasting Apple
for what they did to that platform is every bit on
topic. csa2 is not comp.sys.apple. Not all of
us blindly follow the company. We follow the
hardware. And that does not mean Macintosh.
>super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
>
>> As I have said, the modern PC with an nVidia
>> nForce2 chipset and a high end Athlon CPU
>> has more Apple II soul than any Macintosh.
>
>Huh? Your comment would lead one to believe you are grasping at straws
>that were never there to begin with.
Look beyond the Apple badge for a moment.
You will see that Macintosh has no heritage
with the Apple II. In contrast, when IBM
designed the PC, some of the design criteria
were that it have expansions slots and the
like. So yes, the modern PC has inherited
more from the Apple II than the Macintosh
has from it.
Those who pushed the Mac at Apple were
responsible for the destruction of the Apple II.
Exegete
Supertimer wrote:
> anon...@anonymous.anet (anonymous) wrote:
>
>
>>The way you post makes it seem like you single handedly financially
>>propped up Apple Computer Corporation up until now by purchasing that
>>Apple ][ Plus on clearance sale back in 1983.
>
>
> It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
> platform.
It's obvious that you didn't READ what was written. He never indicated
that the Apple II line ended in 1983.
Roy
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Garber
"Exegete" <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:3f5b29bb$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> Supertimer wrote:
> > anon...@anonymous.anet (anonymous) wrote:
> >
> >>The way you post makes it seem like you single handedly financially
> >>propped up Apple Computer Corporation up until now by purchasing that
> >>Apple ][ Plus on clearance sale back in 1983.
> >
> > It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
> > platform.
>
> It's obvious that you didn't READ what was written. He never indicated
> that the Apple II line ended in 1983.
>
> Roy
Roy,
Once again I see that you are the misinterpreter of what
others are saying. I have read all the posts in this thread,
and I see no indication of any implication that the Apple II
line ended in 1983. To the contrary, all that was stated was
that they purchased one in 1983. No one said it ended then.
You'd better take a course in the interpretation of the English
language.
Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
Email - will...@comcast.net
---
This email ain't infected, dude!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/2/03
anonymous
super...@aol.com (Supertimer) wrote:
> It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
> platform. My Apple IIGS was a ROM 03 unit
> released by Apple in 1989 and bought from them
> about a year later.
All I did was take a wild guess as to the last time you purchased an Apple
II model. So you purchased a ROM 3 (note there is no zero before the 3),
so congratulations, I have to give you more credit than I originally gave
you. But still, that was back in 1989. This is 2003 going on 2004. I still
hardly think Apple cares what you think. Nothing you say will make them
resurrect the Apple II family of computers, it's been about 10 years since
any Apple II was even on their price lists, more years than that since one
could have probably walked into a dealership and actually seen an Apple II
on display.
> The Apple II line was better than you seem to give
> it credit for. The user base was almost fanatically
> devoted to the platform.
What the? Where did I not give the Apple II line credit? Where are you
getting your delusional ideas from?
> Yes, this is an Apple II forum and blasting Apple
> for what they did to that platform is every bit on
> topic. csa2 is not comp.sys.apple. Not all of
> us blindly follow the company. We follow the
> hardware. And that does not mean Macintosh.
Since Apple only makes Macintosh computers now, one would think blasting
them in comp.sys.mac.advocacy would make more sense.
As you say, this is comp.sys.apple2, so stick to the subject, the Apple II.
Not AMD advocacy, not Mac bashing, *just* Apple II related info. See, do
you see?
> Look beyond the Apple badge for a moment.
> You will see that Macintosh has no heritage
> with the Apple II. In contrast, when IBM
> designed the PC, some of the design criteria
> were that it have expansions slots and the
> like. So yes, the modern PC has inherited
> more from the Apple II than the Macintosh
> has from it.
Again, grasping for straws are we?
With one of my Macs, I can hook up and Apple II 5.25" drive, Apple II
joystick, and use Apple II software under hardware emulation, and
read/write Apple II disks. I can't do that with my PC.
Most Macs have expansion slots, often between 3 to 6 slots each, not to
mention the myriad of already built in ports on the back. You seem to be
stuck in the 1984 to 1986 era (before Macintosh II) when in those two
years, certain models lacked expansion slots.
> Those who pushed the Mac at Apple were
> responsible for the destruction of the Apple II.
Boo Hoo. Get over it.
Why should you care....you claim your AMD Decapitated has an Apple II
soul, so you should be as happy as a pig in his own filth.
I say you're a kook who is so single minded, you have the blinders on.
Can't you see you're just as bad as die hard Mac people who denounce
everything about the Wintel platform? As a matter of fact, you are worse.
Go back to talking about Apple II machines. This is comp.sys.apple2.
anonymous
<mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
> It's obvious that you didn't READ what was written. He never indicated
> that the Apple II line ended in 1983.
> Roy
What the?
I never claimed the Apple II line ended in 1983.
I just hazarded a guess as to when the last time it was when he purchased
a brand new Apple II system.
So it turns out it was 1989 as he claims, instead of 1983.
I still say Apple could care less about him constantly whineing about them
dropping the Apple II.....like TEN years ago, more than that if you go
beyond *just* their price list sheets.
This is comp.sys.apple2.
Lets leave out the constant AMD advocacy and/or Mac bashing.
Exegete
anonymous wrote:
> In article <3f5b29bb$1...@corp.newsgroups.com>, Exegete
> <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
>
>>It's obvious that you didn't READ what was written. He never indicated
>>that the Apple II line ended in 1983.
>>Roy
>
>
>
> What the?
> I never claimed the Apple II line ended in 1983.
Exactly!
Which is why Supertimer is full of manure in his statement that you know
nothing of the Apple II platform BECAUSE of what you did say.
Roy
> I just hazarded a guess as to when the last time it was when he purchased
> a brand new Apple II system.
>
> So it turns out it was 1989 as he claims, instead of 1983.
>
> I still say Apple could care less about him constantly whineing about them
> dropping the Apple II.....like TEN years ago, more than that if you go
> beyond *just* their price list sheets.
>
>
> This is comp.sys.apple2.
>
> Lets leave out the constant AMD advocacy and/or Mac bashing.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Exegete
Bill Garber wrote:
> "Exegete" <mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:3f5b29bb$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>>Supertimer wrote:
>>
>>>anon...@anonymous.anet (anonymous) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The way you post makes it seem like you single handedly financially
>>>>propped up Apple Computer Corporation up until now by purchasing that
>>>>Apple ][ Plus on clearance sale back in 1983.
>>>
>>>It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
>>>platform.
>>
>>It's obvious that you didn't READ what was written. He never indicated
>>that the Apple II line ended in 1983.
>>
>>Roy
>
>
> Roy,
>
> Once again I see that you are the misinterpreter of what
> others are saying. I have read all the posts in this thread,
> and I see no indication of any implication that the Apple II
> line ended in 1983. To the contrary, all that was stated was
> that they purchased one in 1983. No one said it ended then.
> You'd better take a course in the interpretation of the English
> language.
Bill,
You didn't read very well yourself.
Supertimer's comment:
> It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
>platform.
Was addressed to the following statement:
> The way you post makes it seem like you single handedly financially
> propped up Apple Computer Corporation up until now by purchasing that
> Apple ][ Plus on clearance sale back in 1983.
Now, how does the above show that anonymous obviously knows nothing
about the Apple II platform?
Here is Supertimer's full comment:
> It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
> platform. My Apple IIGS was a ROM 03 unit
> released by Apple in 1989 and bought from them
> about a year later.
Now, what could that two part statement mean OTHER than an accusation
that the anonymous thought the Apple II line ended in 1983? Hmm? And IF
it does indeed mean that (authorial intent disregarded because it is
unknown, perhaps even to the author), then Supertimer did indeed misread
as anonymous makes clear in his response.
But don't worry too much Bill, anonymous evidently didn't read my post
very carefully himself.
Roy
>
> Bill @ GarberStreet Enterprizez };-)
> Web Site - http://garberstreet.netfirms.com
> Email - will...@comcast.net
>
>
>
> ---
> This email ain't infected, dude!
>
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/2/03
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
anonymous
<mil...@noneofyourbusiness.com> wrote:
> Here is Supertimer's full comment:
>
> > It is obvious you have no knowledge of the Apple II
> > platform. My Apple IIGS was a ROM 03 unit
> > released by Apple in 1989 and bought from them
> > about a year later.
Heh, although this does not necessarily prove how much I know about the
Apple II platform, I do have to comment that there never was a "ROM 03"
Apple IIgs, but there was a "ROM 3" Apple IIgs.
But then again, I'm just nitpicking. If I was Supertimer, I'd be using
this as proof positive that Supertimer knows absolutely nothing about the
Apple II family of computers, according to his logic.
Then (still going with the train of thought that I am Supertimer), I would
proceed to spout off a long list of drivel about the glories of AMD
processors in PC's and go on to grumble about how Apple is evil because of
the Macintosh platform. Then I would proceed to post in every single
thread, bringing up AMD and/or programs that barely remotely resemble the
Apple II version of AppleWorks which run only on AMD equipped PC's and not
Intel based PC's, while giving myself a hand shandy, grinning proudly
because I'm a total dinkmash who's opinions are worth less than a bucket
of old horse piss behind the barn.
I would also proceed to accuse everyone who doesn't agree 100% with
everything I say as being Apple II illiterate, knowing nothing about the
platform and accusing them of being modern day Apple Mac advocates, spies
if you will, to bring down the hope of resurrecting the A2 platform, which
is on the verge of happening if only AMD buys up the rights from Apple for
all Apple II technologies.
I think that about sums up what Supertimer is all about.
Why he just doesn't go hang out in comp.sys.amd.advocacy is still a mystery.