New Apple 17" PowerBook Aluminum announced. HARDCORE!

[Siddhartha]

Looks really slick.

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: smp
/me steps in to beat the dead horse some more


If everyone bought cars the way that a lot of people buy computers, there would only be really fast, really cheap cars on the road. You wouldn't have VW buses, you wouldn't have old Cadillacs, you wouldn't have the VW beetle (arguably a useless car), you wouldn't have SUV's etc etc etc
My analogy is sort of weak, but you get what I'm driving at hopefully.

Har de har har har.

well, the terrible pun wasn't intended

I look at it a little differently. You would have Cadillacs (3.06 P4 w/HT + 1gB pc1066 RDRAM), VW Beetles (Shuttle toaster sized machines), SUVs (Xeon or Dual Athlons), Civics (cheap Athlon with cheap motherboard), etc. But they would all be the same color and have roughly the same features. No diversity other than smaller options that you can get with some of these machines. In other words, I would find each one completely boring and would not care what I drove. Thats the way I compare it to cars anyhow...

Either your just pontificating, or I'm a simpleton, but I don't really get that analogy
I know mine is innacurate, but like I said, I hope it communicates the point. Now, why don't we proceed to flame each other about terrible analogies... it'll help keep the thread from turning into a classic mac vs. PC flamefest.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: smp

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: smp
/me steps in to beat the dead horse some more


If everyone bought cars the way that a lot of people buy computers, there would only be really fast, really cheap cars on the road. You wouldn't have VW buses, you wouldn't have old Cadillacs, you wouldn't have the VW beetle (arguably a useless car), you wouldn't have SUV's etc etc etc
My analogy is sort of weak, but you get what I'm driving at hopefully.

Har de har har har.

well, the terrible pun wasn't intended

I look at it a little differently. You would have Cadillacs (3.06 P4 w/HT + 1gB pc1066 RDRAM), VW Beetles (Shuttle toaster sized machines), SUVs (Xeon or Dual Athlons), Civics (cheap Athlon with cheap motherboard), etc. But they would all be the same color and have roughly the same features. No diversity other than smaller options that you can get with some of these machines. In other words, I would find each one completely boring and would not care what I drove. Thats the way I compare it to cars anyhow...

Either your just pontificating, or I'm a simpleton, but I don't really get that analogy
I know mine is innacurate, but like I said, I hope it communicates the point. Now, why don't we proceed to flame each other about terrible analogies... it'll help keep the thread from turning into a classic mac vs. PC flamefest.

Sounds good

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: smp

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: smp
/me steps in to beat the dead horse some more


If everyone bought cars the way that a lot of people buy computers, there would only be really fast, really cheap cars on the road. You wouldn't have VW buses, you wouldn't have old Cadillacs, you wouldn't have the VW beetle (arguably a useless car), you wouldn't have SUV's etc etc etc
My analogy is sort of weak, but you get what I'm driving at hopefully.

Har de har har har.

well, the terrible pun wasn't intended

I look at it a little differently. You would have Cadillacs (3.06 P4 w/HT + 1gB pc1066 RDRAM), VW Beetles (Shuttle toaster sized machines), SUVs (Xeon or Dual Athlons), Civics (cheap Athlon with cheap motherboard), etc. But they would all be the same color and have roughly the same features. No diversity other than smaller options that you can get with some of these machines. In other words, I would find each one completely boring and would not care what I drove. Thats the way I compare it to cars anyhow...

Either your just pontificating, or I'm a simpleton, but I don't really get that analogy
I know mine is innacurate, but like I said, I hope it communicates the point. Now, why don't we proceed to flame each other about terrible analogies... it'll help keep the thread from turning into a classic mac vs. PC flamefest.

Sounds good

Well?
Your mom!

Uh... getting back on topic ..
Thing with macs, is that they are items. Like, you can get a top of the line Dell laptop, it'll be faster than the G4 but it won't be an apple. There are a few PC companies that make very sleek laptops as well, but again, they don't share the same universal appeal that an apple does.... just like a VW bug is a VW bug and nothing else is, or like the Mini.. (again with the car analogies). It's almost like you can get a faster laptop, this and that, but it won't be "an apple". Now, apple has other things going for it too, the fact that no other laptop in the world has a 17" screen, the software and the battery life.... there are other features but bringing them up would invite flames, the ones I mentioned I think are indisputable. Now, some people don't go for that stuff, fine, it doesn't bother me... after owning a fast PC though, I don't mind my relatively slow iBook, infact, I love it and i'm posting from it right now.

Now, nobody quote me on that because if anything, I despise blatant materialism such as I have described with the whole brand image and whatnot.... (that's not why I got a mac )

 

[Eug]

Here's a great plan for Apple: ditch the sluggish Motorola line and move straight to the x86 Intel-AMD camp.

Not a good idea at this juncture. It'd break way too much to go x86 native. Emulation would be extremely difficult, and even if it did work, it'd be slow as h3ll.

But as somebody mentioned, they ARE ditching Motorola. iBooks already use IBM G3 chips (which are faster than the older Motorola ones at the same frequency), and the new PowerMacs will likely use the IBM PPC970. PPC970 is due Q3 2003, to be introduced at 1.4-1.8 GHz.

Initial SPEC int and fp results have the 1.8 GHz PPC970 on par with something like a 2.8 GHz P4. In addition, the PPC970 can be run in multi-processor configs, whereas the P4 cannot. I dunno if the 1.8 will be out by Xmas, but it'd be cool Xmas present to get a dual 1.8 PowerMac. In P4 computing terms, that's over 5 GHz worth of computing goodness. Even if one were to be very conservative and say a 1.8 was only worth about 2.27 GHz in P4 terms, a dual would still be worth 4.5 GHz. (I'm guessing the ultra high-end PowerMacs will be dual, but the lower end ones will all be single processor.)

On a side note, AMD and IBM are teaming up to develop chip technologies, for technology that is slated to be out by 2005.

 

[smp]

What about transmeta's offering? I forget what it's called now .... but I was reading that these little, low power CPU's could be used in SMP systems, even in laptops... but now the info escapes me and I'm at work and shouldn't even be posting... much less scouring google for the info

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: smp
What about transmeta's offering? I forget what it's called now .... but I was reading that these little, low power CPU's could be used in SMP systems, even in laptops... but now the info escapes me and I'm at work and shouldn't even be posting... much less scouring google for the info

Crusoe. It should be able to emulate PPC with some work, but its expensive and they are dying