The New Apple G5's
Oxford
Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
New Powermacs -
Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jun/09powermac.html
http://www.apple.com/powermac/
http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/powermac/architecture.html
http://www.apple.com/g5processor/
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
http://www.apple.com/powermac/expansion.html
http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html
http://www.apple.com/powermac/solutions.html
Developer Pricing, starts at: $1,599.
http://developer.apple.com/membership/hardware.html
Education and Government Pricing, starts at: $1,799.
http://www.apple.com/education/store
Now what is going to happen at WWDC?
This makes it doubly interesting.
Only 20 Days Away!
Steve Mackay
The Dual 2.5 is liquid cooled too! :)
Edwin
"Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06....@hotmail.com...
They managed to bump it up to 128 MB of VRM, but it still only comes with
512 MB of main memory.
When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
What you don't get is that 64-bittedness isn't the only reason for
having a G5 processor.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Snit
ndGxc.21683$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com on 6/9/04 8:42 AM:
Many people have suggested not getting RAM from Apple or Dell or other such
companies... instead, get it from 3rd part companies.
I like that Apple supplies, by default, a low amount of RAM so I can get
better priced RAM on my own.
Of course, it would be better if Apple (or Dell, etc.) offered RAM at a
competitive or even nearly competitive rate. :)
>
> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
No.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
-----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve
Edwin
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-6AF4F...@news.telus.net...
Tell what these extra things are, and explain how they negate the points I
made.
--
Edwin
Steve Mackay
I agree with Snit in respect that I'm glad it does only ship with 512MB.
It's almost always cheaper to buy ram from an aftermarket supplier. But
for the money they are charging for the G5s, I'd expect more. The $2500
Dual 2GHZ *should* come with 1 gig and the Radeon 9600XT IMHO. The $3K
Dual 2.5 *should* come with 1 gig and the radeon 9800XT, and have BTO for
"pro" cards like FireGL, 3D Labs Wildcats, and Quadros.
>
> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
Actually, it's to address MORE than 4GB of ram(you can put 8 gig in the
G5s). The AMD Athlons(not the Athlon 64s) and Intel chips can only access
4GB or ram IIRC.
I'm still disappointed at the lack of more drive bays in the G5s. I was
hoping to see this changed.
Now that all the "pro" machines are using duals, lets hope for an
"inexpensive" single G5 iMac in the near future.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
The G5 is a more powerful processor than the G4; made by a company with
more resources for bringing out speed increases in a timely manner.
So the fact that it also happens to be 64-bit is just a (small) bonus.
Snit
Thank you. Even if Steve C. did agree with me, he is unlikely to ever state
it as such. Perhaps you are pulling out of being tied to the other Steve.
Even though you and I have had our disagreements, and will likely continue
to, I see you as the far more honorable, honest, and well intentioned of the
two Steve's.
> It's almost always cheaper to buy ram from an aftermarket supplier. But
> for the money they are charging for the G5s, I'd expect more. The $2500
> Dual 2GHZ *should* come with 1 gig and the Radeon 9600XT IMHO. The $3K
> Dual 2.5 *should* come with 1 gig and the radeon 9800XT, and have BTO for
> "pro" cards like FireGL, 3D Labs Wildcats, and Quadros.
What do you base this on?
>
>>
>> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
>> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
>> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
>> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
>
> Actually, it's to address MORE than 4GB of ram(you can put 8 gig in the
> G5s). The AMD Athlons(not the Athlon 64s) and Intel chips can only access
> 4GB or ram IIRC.
>
> I'm still disappointed at the lack of more drive bays in the G5s. I was
> hoping to see this changed.
Agreed... though with Firewire drives becoming easier to get this is
*somewhat* alleviated... still, I wish they would do that as well...
>
> Now that all the "pro" machines are using duals, lets hope for an
> "inexpensive" single G5 iMac in the near future.
Again, agreed. And, hopefully, an even less expensive headless iMac.
Edwin
You failed to support your position. Try again, won't you?
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
LOL
(Bravo for figuring out the sig delimiter, BTW. I *knew* you could do
it!)
Edwin
What are you laughing about? Why are you talking about sig delimiters
instead of supporting what you claimed? You're supposed to be telling what
the extra abilities of the G5 are, and how they negate the points I made.
Try again, won't you?
--
Edwin
Edwin
nikoli
> Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>
> Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>
> New Powermacs -
>
> Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>
>
Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
perifs?
I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
$2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
other high end components inside the machine.
This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
LOL
It's a more powerful processor than the one it replaced.
It's being upgraded at a better pace than the one it replaced.
Those two things *alone* make it a far better choice than the 32-bit G4.
Edwin
I didn't ask you to repeat your empty assertions, I asked you to tell what
about it (besides being 64 bit) makes it "more powerful." That's what
supporting your claims would entail.
> It's being upgraded at a better pace than the one it replaced.
Upgraded in what way? Speed? What happened to the "Megahertz Myth?"
> Those two things *alone* make it a far better choice than the 32-bit
> G4.
Those two "things" are nothing at all. Try doing more thinking, and
replying with real answers, and less braying. Thank you.
--
Edwin
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
Ask Louie Armstrong.
>
> > It's a more powerful processor than the one it replaced.
>
> I didn't ask you to repeat your empty assertions, I asked you to tell what
> about it (besides being 64 bit) makes it "more powerful." That's what
> supporting your claims would entail.
No, you didn't. I said that there were reasons other than 64-bittedness
for using the G5 over the G4, and then patiently explained that two of
those reasons were it being more powerful than the G4 *now* and that it
was getting faster at a faster rate than the G4.
You transmuted that to "extra abilities", and then "new features" in a
different post.
Now you want me to provide proof of the reasons I cited. That's a
different thing. Do you really dispute that the G5 is more powerful than
the G4? That it is being upgraded at a quicker pace? Or is this you
simply trying to find some way of weaseling out of the fact that you
couldn't twist my words.
>
> > It's being upgraded at a better pace than the one it replaced.
>
> Upgraded in what way? Speed? What happened to the "Megahertz Myth?"
It still exists. But the myth is that one can decide which is the faster
of two different processors based on megahertz *alone*. Given that the
G5 is the same processor architecture (by and large) as the G4, then it
stands to reason that since it is faster in megahertz than the G4, it is
just faster, period.
>
> > Those two things *alone* make it a far better choice than the 32-bit
> > G4.
>
> Those two "things" are nothing at all. Try doing more thinking, and
> replying with real answers, and less braying. Thank you.
LOL
Jim Polaski
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
So what. *Productivity* is the issue(Note that Intel has dropped speed
from it's processors!) and you're probably running Windows.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Half a Gig is plenty for the average user. Apple's RAM is exepensive
since they stock it and buy in advance I suppose. Then again if you
trade money you lose money(and old biz adage) so Apple's RAM would
*never* be as cheap as 3rd party. So go buy 3rd party what's the diff
since it's so easy to install unlike most PC's?
Then there's Apple's higher RAM limit and the 1.25 Ghz bus....
Edwin
So you're laughing because you're not right in the head I suspected as
much...
>>
>>> It's a more powerful processor than the one it replaced.
>>
>> I didn't ask you to repeat your empty assertions, I asked you to
>> tell what about it (besides being 64 bit) makes it "more powerful."
>> That's what supporting your claims would entail.
>
> No, you didn't. I said that there were reasons other than 64-
> bittedness for using the G5 over the G4, and then patiently explained
> that two of those reasons were it being more powerful than the G4
So explain what makes it more "powerful" than the G4, besides being 64 bit,
which you call only a "small bonus."
> *now* and that it was getting faster at a faster rate than the G4.
>
> You transmuted that to "extra abilities", and then "new features" in a
> different post.
That's what I term being "more powerful." Perhaps you meant it produces
extra heat?
> Now you want me to provide proof of the reasons I cited. That's a
> different thing. Do you really dispute that the G5 is more powerful
> than the G4? That it is being upgraded at a quicker pace? Or is this
> you simply trying to find some way of weaseling out of the fact that
> you couldn't twist my words.
>
>>
>>> It's being upgraded at a better pace than the one it replaced.
>>
>> Upgraded in what way? Speed? What happened to the "Megahertz
>> Myth?"
>
> It still exists. But the myth is that one can decide which is the
> faster of two different processors based on megahertz *alone*. Given
> that the G5 is the same processor architecture (by and large)
I know this is a waste of time, but where's your support for that claim?
> as the
> G4, then it stands to reason that since it is faster in megahertz
> than the G4, it is just faster, period.
You just called the G5 better than the G4 by virtue of speed alone. So
you're just double-talking, as usual.
>>
>>> Those two things *alone* make it a far better choice than the 32-bit
>>> G4.
What "two things?" All you've got is a speed increase, which you equate to
making it better than a G4, even though you denied processors should be
judged by speed alone.
>> Those two "things" are nothing at all. Try doing more thinking,
>> and replying with real answers, and less braying. Thank you.
>
> LOL
What are you laughing about? When are you going to start supporting your
claims instead of just braying?
--
Edwin
Donn Miller
On 2004-06-09, Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:
> Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>
> Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>
> New Powermacs -
>
> Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/
Interesting. But has anyone done any benchmarks with Linux running on
P4 vs. the G5?
-----= 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! =-----
Edwin
Sure, why not? How does that sit with the Maccie claims I wrote about
above?
> Apple's RAM is exepensive
> since they stock it and buy in advance I suppose.
Oh well, then that makes it a good deal! :-P You suppose wrong, BTW.
Apple was one of the first adoptors of JIT manufacturering. I don't
suppose you have any idea what that is?
>Then again if you
> trade money you lose money(and old biz adage) so Apple's RAM would
> *never* be as cheap as 3rd party.
Not with Apple's 25% to 28% margins...
>So go buy 3rd party what's the diff
> since it's so easy to install unlike most PC's?
> Then there's Apple's higher RAM limit and the 1.25 Ghz bus....
How are you justifying the earlier claims by Maccies for the reason to have
a 64 bit processor?
--
Edwin
Snit
6/9/04 10:41 AM:
What tasks do you do with your computer?
Oxford
> Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
> perifs?
>
> I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
> $2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
> other high end components inside the machine.
yeah, but you are STUCK with poor quality linux / windows apps...
remember hardware is only 50% of the equation...
a 2K machine that doesn't have quality software is worth 1K or less to
me...
Sandman
"Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > The Dual 2.5 is liquid cooled too! :)
>
> They managed to bump it up to 128 MB of VRM, but it still only comes with
> 512 MB of main memory.
>
> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
I didn't find that interesting at all. I would hate for Volkswagen to ship a
small football team along if I buy the 12-seat minivan. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
Snit
on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
Thought *that* would be interesting.
:)
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
Put down that pipe:) I agreed with you just yesterday about a headless
iMac or comparable.
> Perhaps you are pulling out of being tied to the other Steve.
> Even though you and I have had our disagreements, and will likely continue
> to, I see you as the far more honorable, honest, and well intentioned of the
> two Steve's.
LOL!
> > It's almost always cheaper to buy ram from an aftermarket supplier. But
> > for the money they are charging for the G5s, I'd expect more. The $2500
> > Dual 2GHZ *should* come with 1 gig and the Radeon 9600XT IMHO. The $3K
> > Dual 2.5 *should* come with 1 gig and the radeon 9800XT, and have BTO for
> > "pro" cards like FireGL, 3D Labs Wildcats, and Quadros.
>
> What do you base this on?
> >
> >>
> >> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
> >> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
> >> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
> >> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
> >
> > Actually, it's to address MORE than 4GB of ram(you can put 8 gig in the
> > G5s). The AMD Athlons(not the Athlon 64s) and Intel chips can only access
> > 4GB or ram IIRC.
> >
> > I'm still disappointed at the lack of more drive bays in the G5s. I was
> > hoping to see this changed.
>
> Agreed... though with Firewire drives becoming easier to get this is
> *somewhat* alleviated... still, I wish they would do that as well...
> >
> > Now that all the "pro" machines are using duals, lets hope for an
> > "inexpensive" single G5 iMac in the near future.
>
> Again, agreed. And, hopefully, an even less expensive headless iMac.
Hey... maybe if I disagree about this with you today, you'll change your
mind and write that I'm a great guy:)
--
Steve C
C Lund
> > Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
> > Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
> > New Powermacs -
> > Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> > Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> > Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
> perifs?
No. Instead you get a very good OS with very few (meaning no) viruses,
trojans, spyware, and similar crap. You also get a bunch of good
software with the OS.
> I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
> $2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
> other high end components inside the machine.
But you also got all the crap associated with Windows (unless you
happen to be running Linux).
> This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
Eh.. no.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
fretwizz-ADF30B...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 1:45 PM:
>>>> They managed to bump it up to 128 MB of VRM, but it still only comes with
>>>> 512 MB of main memory.
>>>
>>> I agree with Snit in respect that I'm glad it does only ship with 512MB.
>>
>> Thank you. Even if Steve C. did agree with me, he is unlikely to ever state
>> it as such.
>
> Put down that pipe:) I agreed with you just yesterday about a headless
> iMac or comparable.
Ok... you and Steve M. are more alike than I thought... and part of the same
Group Think Steve clique.
Sorry if I implied differently.
>> Perhaps you are pulling out of being tied to the other Steve.
>> Even though you and I have had our disagreements, and will likely continue
>> to, I see you as the far more honorable, honest, and well intentioned of the
>> two Steve's.
>
> LOL!
well, he is. Or at least his online persona is. Perhaps his biggest lies
are tied to such silliness as:
Where did I say I had you account terminated? While I had guessed that
they did. I'm sure you got a warning. Do it again, and I'm positive you'll
get your account pulled. I will continually watch you headers. I'm *SURE*
you wont do it again.
Where you tend to get caught in lies far more often, such as the one shown
in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BCE96B23.53CA
1%25snit...@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
And your inability to do find the comparisons you said would be "no big
deal" to do.
>>> Now that all the "pro" machines are using duals, lets hope for an
>>> "inexpensive" single G5 iMac in the near future.
>>
>> Again, agreed. And, hopefully, an even less expensive headless iMac.
>
> Hey... maybe if I disagree about this with you today, you'll change your
> mind and write that I'm a great guy:)
You are closer to being a fungi than a great guy. :)
Snit
clund-240C42....@amstwist00.chello.com on 6/9/04 1:52 PM:
> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
>> Oxford wrote:
>>> Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>
>>> Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>
>>> New Powermacs -
>
>>> Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>> Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>> Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>
>> Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
>> perifs?
>
> No. Instead you get a very good OS with very few (meaning no) viruses,
> trojans, spyware, and similar crap. You also get a bunch of good
> software with the OS.
To some that does not matter... all that matters in determining the value of
a computer is hardware.
Of course, those "some" are either in very specific fields where that is
true or just not that bright. :)
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22...@individual.net
> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
>
> > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> The Dual 2.5 is liquid cooled too! :)
> >>
> >> They managed to bump it up to 128 MB of VRM, but it still only comes with
> >> 512 MB of main memory.
> >>
> >> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was told
> >> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
> >> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple ships
> >> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
> >
> > I didn't find that interesting at all. I would hate for Volkswagen to ship a
> > small football team along if I buy the 12-seat minivan. :)
>
> Thought *that* would be interesting.
>
> :)
I'm telling ya... he's NOT going to answer you, Snit:) Give it up.
--
Steve C
nikoli
Edwin... are you asserting that the current G5s aren't really worth the
cost of upgrading from a G4 if you don't intend to use the benifits of
64 bit processing (i.e. use more than 4 Gigs of RAM) ???
I would agree with this assertion. Though I would say that Apple is
making the right move for the future with the G5 architecture.
BTW, I like how you're making Alan dig up his own thoughts. I can tell
that you could look up all the info yourself for why the G5 is better
than the G4. That is if you don't already know... which I wouldn't
doubt. Hopefully Alan will form his own opinion as a result of your posts.
Tim Smith
>
> Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
Where are the single CPU models? On the G5 page at the Apple store, they
say "Powered by up to two PowerPC G5 processor at speeds of up to 2.5GHz
each, the Power Mac G5 delivers exponential computing power", so I'd expect
from that "up to two" part that you can get them with one CPU. However, the
configuration options only include dual CPU?
--
--Tim Smith
nikoli
unlike "most" PC's ??? Any new highend PC is EASILY upgradeable... not
to mention much less expensive to upgrade. That's a losing argument for
the Mackers.
> Then there's Apple's higher RAM limit and the 1.25 Ghz bus....
>
That is an advantage... though the current 800 MHz busses in high end
PCs ain't to shabby either. But the faster clock speeds tend to make up
for the lack in bus speeds.
nikoli
??? That was dumb man.
nikoli
> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Oxford wrote:
>>
>>>Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>>>
>>>Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>>>
>>>New Powermacs -
>>>
>>>Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
>>perifs?
>>
>>I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
>>$2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
>>other high end components inside the machine.
>>
>>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
>
>
> So what. *Productivity* is the issue(Note that Intel has dropped speed
> from it's processors!) and you're probably running Windows.
>
I am. The machine was built to run Photoshop. This machine is every bit
as powerful and productive as any Mac for the same $$$... plus you get a
monitor... which is kinda nice when you want to be productive.
nikoli
> "nikoli" <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote in PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02 on
> 6/9/04 10:41 AM:
>
>
>>Oxford wrote:
>>
>>>Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>>>
>>>Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>>>
>>>New Powermacs -
>>>
>>>Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
>>perifs?
>>
>>I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
>>$2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
>>other high end components inside the machine.
>>
>>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
>
>
> What tasks do you do with your computer?
>
Mostly Photoshop editing.
nikoli
You're an Apple guy talking about poor quality apps ??? LOL
Snit
Just like Edwin will not and you will not answer for your lies referenced in
this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BCE96B23.53CA
1%25snit...@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
-----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve C.
-----
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Steve C.
nikoli
> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
>
>>Oxford wrote:
>>
>>>Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>
>
>>>Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>
>
>>>New Powermacs -
>
>
>>>Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>
>
>>Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
>>perifs?
>
>
> No. Instead you get a very good OS with very few (meaning no) . You also get a bunch of good
> software with the OS.
That's great man. No "viruses, trojans, spyware, and similar crap" here
either. And I don't need a bunch of software I'll never use on here either.
>
>
>>I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
>>$2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
>>other high end components inside the machine.
>
>
> But you also got all the crap associated with Windows (unless you
> happen to be running Linux).
Nope, I'm a smart user that doesn't open every email attachment and
visit every compromised pr0n site. Sorry to burst your bubble.
>
>
>>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
>
>
> Eh.. no.
>
Yes, actually it does. Apple was charging the same price for an
infinitely less powerful machine.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
What lies?
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Snit
--
Steve C
Steve Carroll
wrote:
What do you think of the G5 duals?
Snit
6/9/04 2:08 PM:
>> So what. *Productivity* is the issue(Note that Intel has dropped speed
>> from it's processors!) and you're probably running Windows.
>>
>
> I am. The machine was built to run Photoshop. This machine is every bit
> as powerful and productive as any Mac for the same $$$... plus you get a
> monitor... which is kinda nice when you want to be productive.
Well, the Apple color picker is better than either the XP or Adobe ones.
Also, I have heard that professional color matching is better on the Mac as
well...
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
-----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve C.
-----
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Steve C.
Donn Miller
>
> I am. The machine was built to run Photoshop. This machine is every bit
> as powerful and productive as any Mac for the same $$$... plus you get a
> monitor... which is kinda nice when you want to be productive.
You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
Snit
>>>> Thought *that* would be interesting.
>>>
>>> I'm telling ya... he's NOT going to answer you, Snit:) Give it up.
>>
>> Just like Edwin will not and you will not answer for your lies referenced in
>> this post:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BCE96B23.53CA
>> 1%25snit...@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
>
> What lies?
With so many I can see where you would be confused as to which I mean. I
meant the ones references in the quote - where you have yet to explain what
you were in reference to after suggesting I was being dishonorable to
suggest it was Bush.
You lie about your reference to Bush, you lie about your comments about due
process, and, since then, have lied about being able to easily find
comparisons to support your bias of computer comparisons.
You do little but lie.
Then there is the attribution of a quote from *you* that you try to push off
as coming from me... look down... that is exactly what you have done there.
That is a lie from you... unless you want to admit it was an error and admit
claim the quote is yours.
> "I did post as s****** and create that s** webpage starring e*******...
> what of it?" - Snit
You once, in reference to an accusation against me, wrote: "Hell, you
probably have never even rewritten a quote and subsequently posted it in an
attempt to pretend someone wrote something they didn't write."
And, in reference to attributing your own quotes to someone else, you once
stated "With the exception of Josh McKee,(who WAS on heavy prescription
meds) I have never seen anyone, I mean ANYONE... make an error to THIS
degree."
Seems you are doing the exact things you blame me of.
And just think, all because you can not answer for your lies referenced in
this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BCE96B23.53CA
1%25snit...@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
or find a link to a relevant non-csma comparison that supports your view
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
-----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve C.
-----
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Steve C.
Seeker1
don't like it done to them.
> Now what is going to happen at WWDC?
Zardoz declares:
Tiger 10.4 preview.
XCode 2.0.
Quicktime 7.
New displays unveiled before or during.
iTMS Europe discussed.
If a new iMac is unveiled, it will still be a G4.
NO: PDA, tablet, phone, or any other DLD/gadget, other than maybe some
hyping for Airport Express.
THERE IS NO G6, VIRGINIA.
Thus I have spoken.
nikoli
> "nikoli" <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote in %%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02 on
> 6/9/04 2:08 PM:
>
>
>>>So what. *Productivity* is the issue(Note that Intel has dropped speed
>>>from it's processors!) and you're probably running Windows.
>>>
>>
>>I am. The machine was built to run Photoshop. This machine is every bit
>>as powerful and productive as any Mac for the same $$$... plus you get a
>>monitor... which is kinda nice when you want to be productive.
>
>
> Well, the Apple color picker is better than either the XP or Adobe ones.
> Also, I have heard that professional color matching is better on the Mac as
> well...
>
>
>
I've heard the same, but I have yet to actually any difference. Even if
there was a difference, I doubt it'd be worth the price difference.
Besides, monitor calibration and 3rd party photo viewers do the job.
nikoli
Is that a joke?
nikoli
I think they're super cool... would love to have one. But I don't have
the extra money.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? This entire post is so full of
mouth foam I can't make heads or tails out of it.
--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Snit
--
Steve C
Snit
> What the hell are you talking about? This entire post is so full of
> mouth foam I can't make heads or tails out of it.
The fact that you can not make heads or tails of my comments is a sign of
your lack of reading comprehension.
The fact remains, you have now clearly and openly admitted to being Sigmond
and to making the offensive page about Elizabot (see the quote, from *you*
in my sig).
In addition, once you admitted it, you tried to dishonestly push the quote
onto me... something you have claimed you had seen only someone on "heavy
prescription meds" do before.
You also have been unwilling or unable to find evidence to contradict me on
my view about computer comparisons, though you said it would be "no big
deal" to do.
And, of course, you have not answered for your lies referenced in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BCE96B23.53CA
1%25snit...@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
-----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve C.
-----
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Steve C.
Snit
At least this time there was a good conclusion:
Steve has finally admitted to being sigmond.
He still has a number of recent lies to comment on... but I think that one
admission from him is a big deal considering how long that whole mess was
pushed around csma.
In any case, a short repost that covers some of his recent trolling...
"Steve Carroll" <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-AAFE2B...@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 2:59 PM:
> What the hell are you talking about? This entire post is so full of
> mouth foam I can't make heads or tails out of it.
The fact that you can not make heads or tails of my comments is a sign of
your lack of reading comprehension.
The fact remains, you have now clearly and openly admitted to being Sigmond
and to making the offensive page about Elizabot (see the quote, from *you*
in my sig).
In addition, once you admitted it, you tried to dishonestly push the quote
onto me... something you have claimed you had seen only someone on "heavy
prescription meds" do before.
You also have been unwilling or unable to find evidence to contradict me on
my view about computer comparisons, though you said it would be "no big
deal" to do.
And, of course, you have not answered for your lies referenced in this post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=UTF-8&as_umsgid=BCE96B23.53CA
1%25snit...@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
--
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve C.
-----
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Steve C.
Steve Carroll
Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
> Ok, I have got caught up in polluting csma with Steve again.
>
> At least this time there was a good conclusion:
>
> Steve has finally admitted to being sigmond.
>
> He still has a number of recent lies to comment on... but I think that one
> admission from him is a big deal considering how long that whole mess was
> pushed around csma.
>
> In any case, a short repost that covers some of his recent trolling...
>
Wow... the crack must be excellent today:) LOL!
--
Steve C
Panama Red
> LOL
>
> (Bravo for figuring out the sig delimiter, BTW. I *knew* you could do
> it!)
Lets see if either of you clowns can figure out how to trim a post.
--
"I think the best possible social program is a job."
--Ronald Reagan
Steve Carroll
> Ok, I have got caught up in polluting csma with Steve again.
>
> At least this time there was a good conclusion:
>
> Steve has finally admitted to being sigmond.
>
Are you aware that too much crack will kill you? :)
--
Steve C
Snit
At this point I am not interested in hearing your excuses.
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot...
what of it?" - Steve C.
--
Jim Polaski
wrote:
How many PC's have a "Door"?
>
> > Then there's Apple's higher RAM limit and the 1.25 Ghz bus....
> >
>
> That is an advantage... though the current 800 MHz busses in high end
> PCs ain't to shabby either. But the faster clock speeds tend to make up
> for the lack in bus speeds.
That's a 1.25G bus on *each* processor you know.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Jim Polaski
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Sure, why not? How does that sit with the Maccie claims I wrote about
> above?
>
> > Apple's RAM is exepensive
> > since they stock it and buy in advance I suppose.
>
> Oh well, then that makes it a good deal! :-P You suppose wrong, BTW.
> Apple was one of the first adoptors of JIT manufacturering. I don't
> suppose you have any idea what that is?
>
> >Then again if you
> > trade money you lose money(and old biz adage) so Apple's RAM would
> > *never* be as cheap as 3rd party.
>
> Not with Apple's 25% to 28% margins...
Not that you would, but you're confused. Apple's margin is on the whole
line, etc. When I said "if you trade money, you lose money" specfically
meant RAM. If Apple sold RAM at a price you'd like it would be the same
price or cheaper than say, OTC,CRUCIAL, etc. trading money. I don't
blame Apple for wanting to make money on RAM, some folks just find it
easier to buy it with the box. However, no one said you had to buy it.
>
> >So go buy 3rd party what's the diff
> > since it's so easy to install unlike most PC's?
> > Then there's Apple's higher RAM limit and the 1.25 Ghz bus....
>
> How are you justifying the earlier claims by Maccies for the reason to have
> a 64 bit processor?
Not at all. But a 1.25 bus on each processor is impressive and huge
bandwidth.
Jim Polaski
wrote:
And you still don't have system level color management to match Color
sync. And you still have to run Windows.
Jim Polaski
wrote:
Monitor calibration is not enough for professional publishing. Without
system level color management you have no assurance that the image
displayed on your monitor looks as close as possible to what was on your
clients monitor, the printers, the SB and so on.
Jim Polaski
Panama Red <complaintde...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I believe it was Alan Baker who said...
> > LOL
> >
> > (Bravo for figuring out the sig delimiter, BTW. I *knew* you could do
> > it!)
>
> Lets see if either of you clowns can figure out how to trim a post.
Edlost is having too much fun seeing past his clown nose on the real one.
nikoli
So now the defacto standard is that a case has to have a door to be
considered "easy to upgrade"?
Are you trying to say it's hard and laborous to open the case and plug
in a stick of RAM ?
It's plenty easy on any new high end PC. Not that they have to be high
end...
oh, and you forgot to say something about the expense.
>
>
>>>Then there's Apple's higher RAM limit and the 1.25 Ghz bus....
>>>
>>
>>That is an advantage... though the current 800 MHz busses in high end
>>PCs ain't to shabby either. But the faster clock speeds tend to make up
>>for the lack in bus speeds.
>
>
> That's a 1.25G bus on *each* processor you know.
>
yes, it's an advantage... I acknowledged that. It's undeniably
impressive. It's something other mobo manufacturers should shoot for.
nikoli
Well, I'll just have to take my PC back and tell them you said it's not
good enough.
nikoli
And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open
minded for 2 seconds.
DFS
news:PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02...
> Oxford wrote:
> > Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
> >
> > Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
> >
> > New Powermacs -
> >
> > Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> > Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> > Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >
> >
>
> Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
> perifs?
>
> I built a dual AMD MP machine (2 GHz each) with 2 Gigs of RAM for
> $2,300... and that included a 21" Trinitron not too mention all the
> other high end components inside the machine.
That's a good price. If you don't mind, can you give exact
maker/model/price specs, and where you got the components?
case/power supply:
mobo:
CPU:
RAM:
hard disk(s):
video:
sound:
monitor:
Snit
I do not care what it was that finally inspired you to confess, I am just
glad you did.
--
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
-----
Alan Baker
"Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thor...@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>> "Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DC...@news.telus.net...
> >>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A3...@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F...@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06....@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> New Powermacs -
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What you don't get is that 64-bittedness isn't the only reason
> >>>>>>>>> for having a G5 processor.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Tell what these extra things are, and explain how they negate
> >>>>>>>> the points I made.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The G5 is a more powerful processor than the G4; made by a
> >>>>>>> company with more resources for bringing out speed increases in
> >>>>>>> a timely manner.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So the fact that it also happens to be 64-bit is just a (small)
> >>>>>>> bonus.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You failed to support your position. Try again, won't you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LOL
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (Bravo for figuring out the sig delimiter, BTW. I *knew* you could
> >>>>> do it!)
> >>>>
> >>>> What are you laughing about? Why are you talking about sig
> >>>> delimiters instead of supporting what you claimed? You're
> >>>> supposed to be telling what the extra abilities of the G5 are, and
> >>>> how they negate the points I made. Try again, won't you?
> >>>
> >>> LOL
> >>
> >> What are you laughing about?
> >
> > Ask Louie Armstrong.
>
> So you're laughing because you're not right in the head I suspected as
> much...
It's a quote, Edwin. Ask around.
>
> >>
> >>> It's a more powerful processor than the one it replaced.
> >>
> >> I didn't ask you to repeat your empty assertions, I asked you to
> >> tell what about it (besides being 64 bit) makes it "more powerful."
> >> That's what supporting your claims would entail.
> >
> > No, you didn't. I said that there were reasons other than 64-
> > bittedness for using the G5 over the G4, and then patiently explained
> > that two of those reasons were it being more powerful than the G4
>
> So explain what makes it more "powerful" than the G4, besides being 64 bit,
> which you call only a "small bonus."
It's a *faster* processor, Edwin. The slowest G5s/PPC970s used by Apple
at the time of the introduction of the PowerMac G5s were faster in
*processing* (not just clockspeed) than the fastest available G4s.
>
> > *now* and that it was getting faster at a faster rate than the G4.
> >
> > You transmuted that to "extra abilities", and then "new features" in a
> > different post.
>
> That's what I term being "more powerful." Perhaps you meant it produces
> extra heat?
I mean more powerful as in does more processing per second.
>
> > Now you want me to provide proof of the reasons I cited. That's a
> > different thing. Do you really dispute that the G5 is more powerful
> > than the G4? That it is being upgraded at a quicker pace? Or is this
> > you simply trying to find some way of weaseling out of the fact that
> > you couldn't twist my words.
Well?
> >
> >>
> >>> It's being upgraded at a better pace than the one it replaced.
> >>
> >> Upgraded in what way? Speed? What happened to the "Megahertz
> >> Myth?"
> >
> > It still exists. But the myth is that one can decide which is the
> > faster of two different processors based on megahertz *alone*. Given
> > that the G5 is the same processor architecture (by and large)
>
> I know this is a waste of time, but where's your support for that claim?
That the two use the same processor architecture? Are you serious? How
about the fact that they both can run the same binaries?
>
> > as the
> > G4, then it stands to reason that since it is faster in megahertz
> > than the G4, it is just faster, period.
>
> You just called the G5 better than the G4 by virtue of speed alone. So
> you're just double-talking, as usual.
Actual processing speed, Edwin, not megahertz.
>
> >>
> >>> Those two things *alone* make it a far better choice than the 32-bit
> >>> G4.
>
> What "two things?" All you've got is a speed increase, which you equate to
> making it better than a G4, even though you denied processors should be
> judged by speed alone.
The second thing is the pace at which future improvements were going to
be release. The G4 was almost moribund in its improvements; the G5 has
been upped by 20% in six months.
>
> >> Those two "things" are nothing at all. Try doing more thinking,
> >> and replying with real answers, and less braying. Thank you.
> >
> > LOL
>
> What are you laughing about? When are you going to start supporting your
> claims instead of just braying?
LOL
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Alan Baker
Well?
LOL
P.S.
I'm sure you'll be braying about how I ran away this evening, or
something, but I was just out playing softball. I'm sorry your life is
too empty to understand things such as that. <g>
Snit
> I'm sure you'll be braying about how I ran away this evening, or
> something, but I was just out playing softball. I'm sorry your life is
> too empty to understand things such as that. <g>
I will bet you de"based" your self by running then, too. Admit it, you ran
all the way home.
Oxford
> I am. The machine was built to run Photoshop. This machine is every bit
> as powerful and productive as any Mac for the same $$$... plus you get a
> monitor... which is kinda nice when you want to be productive.
you are using a PC to run Photoshop? how tacky...
how do you deal with the clunkiness of the windowing system / poor
graphic support? that's a very primitive way to use an Adobe product,
that's for sure.
ZnU
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 2004-06-09, Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:
> > New Powermacs -
> >
> > Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> > Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> > Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>
> Where are the single CPU models? On the G5 page at the Apple store, they
> say "Powered by up to two PowerPC G5 processor at speeds of up to 2.5GHz
> each, the Power Mac G5 delivers exponential computing power", so I'd expect
> from that "up to two" part that you can get them with one CPU. However, the
> configuration options only include dual CPU?
There don't seem to be any single-CPU models. I think we all expected
that sooner or later, right? It probably makes things easier for Apple
in terms of inventory management and possibly also in terms of cooling;
they no longer need a modular cooling system which can work with either
one or two processors. It's also very desirable in terms of market
segmentation. It opens a space for a G5 iMac still well differentiated
from the cheapest tower (even for people who aren't interested in
expansion). I would say it even opens a space for a headless consumer
G5, though Apple might decline to fill that space.
--
"In my judgment, when the United States says there will be serious consequences,
and if there isn't serious consequences, it creates adverse consequences."
-- George W. Bush on Meet the Press, Feb. 8, 2004
C Lund
> > In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> > nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>>Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
> >>>Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
> >>>Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >>>Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >>>Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
> >>perifs?
> > get a bunch of good
> > software with the OS.
> That's great man. No "viruses, trojans, spyware, and similar crap" here
> either.
Not that you know of anyway. But very many of your fellow Winserfs
*have* had problems with viruses, trojans, etc.
> > But you also got all the crap associated with Windows (unless you
> > happen to be running Linux).
> Nope, I'm a smart user that doesn't open every email attachment and
> visit every compromised pr0n site. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Too bad so many of your fellow Winserfs do, then.
> >>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
> > Eh.. no.
> Yes, actually it does. Apple was charging the same price for an
> infinitely less powerful machine.
Less powerful, how?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
> > a 2K machine that doesn't have quality software is worth 1K or less to
> > me...
>
> You're an Apple guy talking about poor quality apps ??? LOL
Want to elaborate?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
> Donn Miller wrote:
> > nikoli wrote:
> >> I am. The machine was built to run Photoshop. This machine is every
> >> bit as powerful and productive as any Mac for the same $$$... plus you
> >> get a monitor... which is kinda nice when you want to be productive.
> Is that a joke?
Why would it be? I ran Photoshop on my Performa 6400, and it wasn't
exactly a "powerful machine" - esp when compared with today's
computers.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Snit
6/9/04 11:36 PM:
> In article <zVKxc.19496$Yd3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2004-06-09, Oxford <cs...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> New Powermacs -
>>>
>>> Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>> Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>> Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>
>> Where are the single CPU models? On the G5 page at the Apple store, they
>> say "Powered by up to two PowerPC G5 processor at speeds of up to 2.5GHz
>> each, the Power Mac G5 delivers exponential computing power", so I'd expect
>> from that "up to two" part that you can get them with one CPU. However, the
>> configuration options only include dual CPU?
>
> There don't seem to be any single-CPU models. I think we all expected
> that sooner or later, right? It probably makes things easier for Apple
> in terms of inventory management and possibly also in terms of cooling;
> they no longer need a modular cooling system which can work with either
> one or two processors. It's also very desirable in terms of market
> segmentation. It opens a space for a G5 iMac still well differentiated
> from the cheapest tower (even for people who aren't interested in
> expansion). I would say it even opens a space for a headless consumer
> G5, though Apple might decline to fill that space.
I personally hope for a headless consumer G4 - assuming that they can make
(and sell) these cheaper than G5's... they can also have the headless G5,
but I would love to see Apple hit the $550 to $650 mark for computers... I
think this would help their market share.
Hmmm, I wonder if they did do that if the people in here who try to compare
the lowest end Macs with the lowest end Dells would suddenly admit they had
new computers to add to the mix?
C Lund
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
> > Half a Gig is plenty for the average user. Apple's RAM is exepensive
> > since they stock it and buy in advance I suppose. Then again if you
> > trade money you lose money(and old biz adage) so Apple's RAM would
> > *never* be as cheap as 3rd party. So go buy 3rd party what's the diff
> > since it's so easy to install unlike most PC's?
>
> unlike "most" PC's ??? Any new highend PC is EASILY upgradeable... not
> to mention much less expensive to upgrade. That's a losing argument for
> the Mackers.
How so?
Or to be more specific: What do you mean by "upgrade"? I've had no
trouble adding more RAM, more HDs, or various cards to my macs. And
apparently it's not that difficult to do processor upgrades either. So
what do you mean?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
George Graves
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
It's NOT good enough. Not for professional publishing work, anyway. When
an advertising client (for instance) gives you artwork, he expects not
only the proofs, but the final printed output, to look EXACTLY like the
artwork he gave you. If it doesn't, you have an unhappy client - maybe
one who won't work with you again. Windows doesn't have a strong
system-level color calibration system that allows you calibrate
everything from the scanner through the monitor to the output
devices(s), so it's impossible to insure accurate, repeatable color from
input to final lithographic output. Not saying that it cannot be done,
you understand, its just that if you get it right, its an accident of
trial-and-error and very costly in terms of time and effort. Sorry,
that's just the way it is. Oh, and don't bother to bring-up ICM 2.0 for
Windows. Comparing it to ColorSync is like comparing the Spirit of St.
Louis to the Space Shuttle. M$ has tried to license ColorSync from Apple
for Longhorn, but Apple has finally figured out that you don't sell the
secret of smart-bomb targeting to the enemy.
--
George Graves
------------------
"This election is shaping up great. Our choices
are a guy who has a lot of second thoughts, or
a guy who has never had a first thought."
-- Jay Leno
George Graves
wrote:
I know what ICM 2.0 is and what it encompasses, and I know what
ColorSync is and what it encompasses, and I'll tell you that comparing
ICM 2.0 to ColorSync is like comparing The Spirit of St. Louis to the
Space Shuttle. The are worlds apart in capability. I'd hate to have to
rely on ICM to ensure the printed result of MY color work.
nikoli
Easy in terms of cost. It's not easy to upgrade if you don't have the
change. Mac parts cost more, therefore are (in one sense) harder to upgrade.
nikoli
then what do you mean by "impossible" ???
of coarse it can be done... and it's done every day all day long
> you understand, its just that if you get it right, its an accident of
> trial-and-error and very costly in terms of time and effort. Sorry,
> that's just the way it is. Oh, and don't bother to bring-up ICM 2.0 for
> Windows. Comparing it to ColorSync is like comparing the Spirit of St.
> Louis to the Space Shuttle. M$ has tried to license ColorSync from Apple
> for Longhorn, but Apple has finally figured out that you don't sell the
> secret of smart-bomb targeting to the enemy.
>
I'm not gonna sit here and tell you PCs are just as good as Apples for
professional publishing work. Even if they were, you probably wouldn't
care. But they're not, so I'll end that debate right here.
nikoli
STFU already.
Snit
6/10/04 12:53 AM:
Macs generally use the same Hard drives, the same memory, the same PCI
cards, the same AGP devices, the same USB devices, the same Firewire
devices... for the most part the prices are the exact same. When I got a
new HD for a Mac not too long ago, nobody at the store even asked me if I
was getting it for a Mac or a PC... so how could they have charged me
differently for the two as you suggest?
nikoli
there are other calibrators out there ya know (aside from ICM 2.0)?
http://www.digitalmediadesigner.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=25291
http://www.lacie.com/caen/products/product.htm?id=10036
haven't tried either... just looked them up to see what else is
available... and I'm NOT trying to say they're as good as ColorSync
nikoli
I've seen it in action litterally right next to my friends G4. My
machine smoked his.
nikoli
> In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>,
> nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>a 2K machine that doesn't have quality software is worth 1K or less to
>>>me...
>>
>>You're an Apple guy talking about poor quality apps ??? LOL
>
>
> Want to elaborate?
>
aren't you the same tool that says you don't need a powerful machine to
run Photoshop?
nikoli
> In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>,
> nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
>
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Oxford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Surprise Number 2 from Apple this Week.
>>>>>Looks like everyone has some reading to do!
>>>>>New Powermacs -
>>>>>Dual 1.8 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>>>Dual 2.0 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>>>Dual 2.5 GHz 64-bit PowerPC G5
>>>>
>>>>Still way too expensive. $2k and you don't get 1 GB RAM or a monitor, or
>>>>perifs?
>>>
>>>No. Instead you get a very good OS with very few (meaning no) . You also
>>>get a bunch of good
>>>software with the OS.
>>
>>That's great man. No "viruses, trojans, spyware, and similar crap" here
>>either.
>
>
> Not that you know of anyway. But very many of your fellow Winserfs
> *have* had problems with viruses, trojans, etc.
Sucks to be them.
>
>
>>>But you also got all the crap associated with Windows (unless you
>>>happen to be running Linux).
>>
>>Nope, I'm a smart user that doesn't open every email attachment and
>>visit every compromised pr0n site. Sorry to burst your bubble.
>
>
> Too bad so many of your fellow Winserfs do, then.
agreed
>
>
>>>>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
>>>
>>>Eh.. no.
>>
>>Yes, actually it does. Apple was charging the same price for an
>>infinitely less powerful machine.
>
>
> Less powerful, how?
>
if my calculations are correct... One 1.8 Ghz CPU is less powerful as
TWO 1.8 Ghz CPUs.
brilliant, I know
Oxford
> Easy in terms of cost. It's not easy to upgrade if you don't have the
> change. Mac parts cost more, therefore are (in one sense) harder to upgrade.
you are deluded when you speak about mac parts... everything except
perhaps the processor can be upgraded with the very same parts pc's use.
i think you may be thinking of macs made 10 years ago... but apple uses
standard parts like anyone else...
sure they maybe higher quality parts when you get them from apple, thus
more expensive but that's true in the pc world when you buy from HP or
Sun... no one is stopping you from putting in cheap hard drives, dvd
burners, ram, video cards, keyboards, mice, screens, wireless routers,
printers, on and on if you want to...
again, you are using partially true mindset from 10 years ago, not mac
made in the last 5 years or so...
nikoli
I would consider getting a G4 at that price... only if they offered some
more on top of the box though
>
> Hmmm, I wonder if they did do that if the people in here who try to compare
> the lowest end Macs with the lowest end Dells would suddenly admit they had
> new computers to add to the mix?
>
Certainly. Not gonna hold my breath though.
nikoli
HDs are one thing. We're talking about RAM here. You're gonna pay more
for it than RAM when you have a Mac.
http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator/memtype.asp
the 2nd link has a very wide variety... look through it and you'll see
that you can knock off $60 from the price of what it costs to upgrade
the Mac.
nikoli
see my reply to snit
George Graves
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
If they can't do what ColorSync can do, then they aren't very useful.
George Graves
wrote:
The repeatablility is what's impossible
>
> of coarse it can be done... and it's done every day all day long
Why would anybody want to do that just to save a few bucks on the
hardware? That makes ZERO sense. Anybody who would try to use a PC for
this kind of work is as stupid as a CAD designer who runs AutoCAD day-in
and day-out on a Mac under VPC. In both instances it's simply the wrong
tool for the job.
>
> > you understand, its just that if you get it right, its an accident of
> > trial-and-error and very costly in terms of time and effort. Sorry,
> > that's just the way it is. Oh, and don't bother to bring-up ICM 2.0 for
> > Windows. Comparing it to ColorSync is like comparing the Spirit of St.
> > Louis to the Space Shuttle. M$ has tried to license ColorSync from Apple
> > for Longhorn, but Apple has finally figured out that you don't sell the
> > secret of smart-bomb targeting to the enemy.
> >
>
>
> I'm not gonna sit here and tell you PCs are just as good as Apples for
> professional publishing work. Even if they were, you probably wouldn't
> care. But they're not, so I'll end that debate right here.
OK. Glad to see you're not one of those Windows boosters who believes
that Windows can do anything a Mac can do and do it just as well as a
Mac, because it can't. Just like a Mac is the wrong tool for some tasks
(imagine using a Mac to run a numerically controlled machine tool, or a
manufacturing process or imagine a serious "gamer" buying a Mac as game
platform) the PC is the wrong tool for other tasks.
Sandman
Steve Carroll <fret...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-...@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> > "Sandman" <m...@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22...@individual.net
> > on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
> >
> > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thor...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> The Dual 2.5 is liquid cooled too! :)
> > >>
> > >> They managed to bump it up to 128 MB of VRM, but it still only comes
> > >> with
> > >> 512 MB of main memory.
> > >>
> > >> When I posted a few months about about 64 bit Wintel processors, I was
> > >> told
> > >> by many that the only reason for 64 bits is to address 4 GB of RAM, and
> > >> others berated 64 bit Wintel PCs for having a 2 GB limit, yet Apple
> > >> ships
> > >> Macs with only half a gig. Interesting, no? ;-)
> > >
> > > I didn't find that interesting at all. I would hate for Volkswagen to
> > > ship a
> > > small football team along if I buy the 12-seat minivan. :)
> >
> > Thought *that* would be interesting.
> >
> > :)
>
> I'm telling ya... he's NOT going to answer you, Snit:) Give it up.
Is Snit STILL trying to troll me? Amazing.
--
Sandman[.net]
George Graves
wrote:
Kingston is super expensive
Try OWC
>
> the 2nd link has a very wide variety... look through it and you'll see
> that you can knock off $60 from the price of what it costs to upgrade
> the Mac.
The 512 Meg DDRAM for as G5 that Kingston wants $172 for can be had for
$124 from OWC. The 2 Gig that Kingston wants $929 for can be had from
OWC for $529. If you want to pay even more, buy these from Apple. But I
think you'll find that these prices are the same for both PC and Mac. So
you are wrong RAM is not more expensive for Mac than PC, what it is, is
more expensive at the most expensive source than it is at the least
expensive source.
George Graves
wrote:
What do you do about adware and spyware that gets installed on your
computer by I.E. and other browsers that you don't even know about, and
which acts as a back door to trojan horses? Most people have dozens of
pieces of malware on their computers and they got them without EVER
opening an attachment.
Oxford
> HDs are one thing. We're talking about RAM here. You're gonna pay more
> for it than RAM when you have a Mac.
>
> http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator/modelsinfo.asp?SysID=+15735+&dist
> ributor=0&submit1=Search
>
> http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator/memtype.asp
>
> the 2nd link has a very wide variety... look through it and you'll see
> that you can knock off $60 from the price of what it costs to upgrade
> the Mac.
totally wrong... just because you don't know where to buy ram, does NOT
mean it's more expensive on the mac... nobody in their right mind would
buy from kingston or crucial, those are just companies with enough
"marketing" to lure people uneducated about the ram market.
ram is a commodity even more so than hard drives...
you need to go to http://www.ramseeker.com --- that way you see all the
lowest prices for ram, then choose what quality / price you want.
ram is sold like corn and soybeans... it makes zero difference if it
goes into a pc or a mac...
a 1GB kit of 3200 DDR goes for $158, why is kingston selling it for $343?
mac / pc components are the same...
Alan Baker
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
That you think that those products do what Colorsync does tell anyone
who does professional level work that you don't.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
C Lund
nikoli <sp...@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> >>That's great man. No "viruses, trojans, spyware, and similar crap" here
> >>either.
> > Not that you know of anyway. But very many of your fellow Winserfs
> > *have* had problems with viruses, trojans, etc.
> Sucks to be them.
How do you know you're not one of them?
> >>>But you also got all the crap associated with Windows (unless you
> >>>happen to be running Linux).
> >>Nope, I'm a smart user that doesn't open every email attachment and
> >>visit every compromised pr0n site. Sorry to burst your bubble.
> > Too bad so many of your fellow Winserfs do, then.
> agreed
Again - how do you know you're not one of them?
> >>>>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
> >>>Eh.. no.
> >>Yes, actually it does. Apple was charging the same price for an
> >>infinitely less powerful machine.
> > Less powerful, how?
> if my calculations are correct... One 1.8 Ghz CPU is less powerful as
> TWO 1.8 Ghz CPUs.
Yeah well.. this year's model is always more powerful than last year's
model, no matter what year it is. Isn't that also the case in the
Wintel world?
> brilliant, I know
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
I'm the guy who ran Photoshop on a 6400 Performa.
What does that have to do with poor quality apps?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
What's that supposed to mean?
Oh, I know: http://home.socal.rr.com/gbaker/troll.jpg
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund