The New Apple G5's

COMPGROUPS.NET |

Search |

Post Question |

Groups |

Stream |

About | Register

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/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.

http://www.apple.com/wwdc

Only 20 Days Away!

csma (1175)

6/9/2004 2:42:27 PM

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
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> 
> Only 20 Days Away!


The Dual 2.5 is liquid cooled too! :)

steve_mackay (42)

6/9/2004 3:36:16 PM

"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >
> > Only 20 Days Away!
>
>
> 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?  ;-)

-- 
Edwin

thorne251 (4)

6/9/2004 3:42:11 PM

In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > >
> > > Only 20 Days Away!
> >
> >
> > 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?  ;-)

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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/9/2004 3:50:10 PM

"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com on 6/9/04 8:42 AM:

> 
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>> 
>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>> 
>> 
>> 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.

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

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 3:50:22 PM

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:42:11 +0000, Edwin wrote:

> 
> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>> >
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>> >
>> > Only 20 Days Away!
>>
>>
>> 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.

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.

steve_mackay (42)

6/9/2004 3:53:34 PM

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > > >
> > > > Only 20 Days Away!
> > >
> > >
> > > 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?  ;-)
>
> 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.

-- 
Edwin

thorne251 (4)

6/9/2004 3:54:59 PM

In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > > > >
> > > > > Only 20 Days Away!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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?  ;-)
> >
> > 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.

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/9/2004 4:03:30 PM

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only 20 Days Away!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?  ;-)
> > >
> > > 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?

-- 
Edwin

thorne251 (4)

6/9/2004 4:23:21 PM

In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> > In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> > > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only 20 Days Away!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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?  ;-)
> > > >
> > > > 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!)

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/9/2004 4:31:12 PM

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> > > In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> > > > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Only 20 Days Away!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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?  ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?

-- 
Edwin

thorne251 (4)

6/9/2004 4:55:35 PM

Edwin wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?

thorne25 (2589)

6/9/2004 5:36:10 PM

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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 5:41:45 PM

In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> > In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> > > > In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> > > > > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > > >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Only 20 Days Away!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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?  ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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

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.

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/9/2004 6:02:14 PM

On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@mac.com> blubbered:
> Surprise Number 2....this Week.......

The surprise is that the Oxtard organism is still somewhat above room
temperature. But the IQ still is not.

-- 
CodeRed: An original Microsoft web crawler.

stinkfoot (315)

6/9/2004 6:02:21 PM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?

> 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.

> 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

thorne25 (2589)

6/9/2004 6:11:49 PM

In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@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.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do 
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/9/2004 6:25:20 PM

In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.

> 
> > 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

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/9/2004 6:25:22 PM

In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> > >
> > > Only 20 Days Away!
> >
> >
> > 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?  ;-)

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....

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do 
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/9/2004 6:28:15 PM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 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

thorne25 (2589)

6/9/2004 6:42:26 PM

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@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! =-----

dmmiller1 (4)

6/9/2004 6:51:05 PM

Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>
>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>> ;-)
>
> Half a Gig is plenty for the average user.

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

thorne25 (2589)

6/9/2004 6:52:03 PM

"nikoli" <spam@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?

-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
            -----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 7:37:06 PM

"Donn Miller" <dmmiller@daemonstar.zoominternet.net> wrote in
slrnccemt7.ss2.dmmiller@daemonstar.zoominternet.net on 6/9/04 11:51 AM:

> ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
> On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@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?

Good question... seems benchmarks can show roughly whatever the person doing
the benchmarks wants them to show - the tests my be fairly objective, but
which tests get done is subjectively decided, what is considered a
comparable set up is subjectively decided, what benchmarks are used is
subjectively decided... etc.

I used to tease people that my Apple IIgs  was faster then the then-current
P100's... I would use boot time and WP launch times as "bench marks".

Hmmmm, here is an old post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pentium+boot+author:snit&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&c2coff=1&scoring=d&selm=480fqt%24pk8%40news.nevada.edu&rnum=5&filter=0

"I am still waiting to see him post the boot time, application launch
time, and print time on his P5100.  I am willing to bet my Apple ][gs
gives it a good fight (equal or better in at least 2 of the 3
categories).  Adam, fill in these numbers for us:

Task                   Time in Seconds on P5100
Boot  
Launch MS Word (or whatever you use)
Print

Time each one from the time it takes from the double-click or the
return key or whatever until the time the task is completely done.
I have yet to time my GS.  I will wait until I see your times so that
it can not be said that I already have times mine against a P5.  If
ppeople request it, I will time it, but just send my answer to them
by e-mail to keep in non-public.

Any Pentium users out there brave enough to pit you machine against my
2.5 MHz Apple ][gs?

I do this also just out of a bit of curiosity and after noticing to my
own subjective view that my GS was faster than a Pentium 75."

-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
            -----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 7:44:58 PM

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> 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...

csma (1175)

6/9/2004 7:49:29 PM

In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@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]

mr249 (3247)

6/9/2004 8:25:32 PM

"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:

> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@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.

:)


-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
            -----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 8:30:33 PM

In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@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.

> 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

clund (603)

6/9/2004 8:52:32 PM

"C Lund" <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in
clund-240C42.22523209062004@amstwist00.chello.com on 6/9/04 1:52 PM:

> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> nikoli <spam@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.  :)




-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh
            -----
"OK... so I'm here to troll." - Steve

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 8:55:07 PM

In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
> 
> > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@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

fretwizz4 (57)

6/9/2004 9:00:59 PM

Edwin wrote:
> Alan Baker wrote:
> 
>>In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>><ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>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?  ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>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 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... 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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:01:40 PM

On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@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?

-- 
--Tim Smith

reply_in_group (10240)

6/9/2004 9:02:23 PM

Jim Polaski wrote:

> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>
>>>>Only 20 Days Away!
>>>
>>>
>>>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?  ;-)
> 
> 
> 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.

> 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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:04:53 PM

Sandman wrote:

> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@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. :)
> 

??? That was dumb man.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:06:44 PM

Jim Polaski wrote:

> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:08:52 PM

Snit wrote:

> "nikoli" <spam@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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:09:15 PM

Oxford wrote:

> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>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...

You're an Apple guy talking about poor quality apps ??? LOL

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:09:54 PM

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 2:00 PM:

> In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
>> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
>> 
>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@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.

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-nospam@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-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 9:12:52 PM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:13:48 PM

In article <BCECCB64.54239%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 2:00 PM:
> 
> > In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> > Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in 
> >> mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
> >> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
> >> 
> >>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>> "Edwin" <thorne25@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.
> 
> 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-nospam@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en

What lies?

--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... 
what of it?" - Snit

-- 
Steve C

fretwizz4 (57)

6/9/2004 9:16:18 PM

In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> C Lund wrote:
> 
> > In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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.

What do you think of the G5 duals?

--
"I did post as sigmond and create that sex webpage starring elizabot... 
what of it?" - Snit

-- 
Steve C

fretwizz4 (57)

6/9/2004 9:17:41 PM

"nikoli" <spam@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...



-- 
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-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 9:19:13 PM

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.

You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?

dmmiller (910)

6/9/2004 9:24:48 PM

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-38B998.15162209062004@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 2:16 PM:

>>>> 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-nospam@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-nospam@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.

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 9:37:07 PM

Snit wrote:

> "nikoli" <spam@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.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:49:06 PM

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.
> 
> 
> You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?

Is that a joke?

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:49:18 PM

Steve Carroll wrote:

> In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@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.
> 
> 
> What do you think of the G5 duals?
> 


I think they're super cool... would love to have one. But I don't have 
the extra money.

spam7769 (280)

6/9/2004 9:50:18 PM

In article <BCECD113.54247%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
> fretwizz-38B998.15162209062004@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 2:16 PM:
> 
> >>>> 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=BCE96B23.53C
> >> A
> >> 1%25snit-nospam@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-nospam@cableone.net&lr=&num=100&hl=en
> 
> or find a link to a relevant non-csma comparison that supports your view

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

fretwizz4 (57)

6/9/2004 9:59:19 PM

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-AAFE2B.15591709062004@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-nospam@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-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 10:17:16 PM

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...



"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-AAFE2B.15591709062004@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-nospam@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.

snit-nospam (82)

6/9/2004 10:49:56 PM

In article <BCECE224.5426C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@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

fretwizz4 (57)

6/9/2004 10:54:20 PM

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.

-- 
"I think the best possible social program is a job."
        --Ronald Reagan

complaintdepartment2002 (407)

6/10/2004 12:23:05 AM

In article <BCECE224.5426C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@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.
> 

Are you aware that too much crack will kill you? :)

-- 
Steve C

fretwizz4 (57)

6/10/2004 2:35:48 AM

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-4D4658.20354709062004@netnews.comcast.net on 6/9/04 7:35 PM:

> In article <BCECE224.5426C%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@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.
>> 
> 
> Are you aware that too much crack will kill you? :)


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.



-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh

snit-nospam (82)

6/10/2004 2:48:02 AM

In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> 
> > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>
> >>>>Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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?  ;-)
> > 
> > 
> > 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 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!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/10/2004 4:02:49 AM

In article <n%Ixc.21763$eH1.9860078@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>
> >>>> Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Half a Gig is plenty for the average user.
> 
> 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.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do 
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/10/2004 4:07:12 AM

In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> 
> > In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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.

And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
sync. And you still have to run Windows.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do 
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/10/2004 4:08:26 AM

In article <IBLxc.14523$1L4.9259@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
> > "nikoli" <spam@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.

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.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do 
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/10/2004 4:11:58 AM

In article <4flkp1-2fr.ln1@ralph.homelinux.net>,
 Panama Red <complaintdepartment2002@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.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do 
while expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

jpolaski2 (87)

6/10/2004 4:13:10 AM

Jim Polaski wrote:

> In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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?  ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>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 many PC's have a "Door"?


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.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 4:52:05 AM

Jim Polaski wrote:

> In article <IBLxc.14523$1L4.9259@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"nikoli" <spam@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.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 


Well, I'll just have to take my PC back and tell them you said it's not 
good enough.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 4:54:25 AM

Jim Polaski wrote:

> In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@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.
> 
> 
> And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
> sync. And you still have to run Windows.
> 


And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
minded for 2 seconds.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 4:55:37 AM

In article <mSIxc.21760$eH1.9858740@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/10/2004 5:56:24 AM

In article <mSIxc.21760$eH1.9858740@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>> In article <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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

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>

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/10/2004 5:59:08 AM

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in
alangbaker-7038ED.22590709062004@news.telus.net on 6/9/04 10:59 PM:

> 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.  



-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh

snit-nospam (82)

6/10/2004 6:03:58 AM

<spam@spamsux.com> 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.

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.

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 6:30:06 AM

In article <zVKxc.19496$Yd3.1258@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
 Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@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

znu2 (353)

6/10/2004 6:36:36 AM

In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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.

> > 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

clund (603)

6/10/2004 6:37:15 AM

In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@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

clund (603)

6/10/2004 6:37:57 AM

In article <UBLxc.14524$1L4.7403@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@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.
> > You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
> 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

clund (603)

6/10/2004 6:39:41 AM

"ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in znu-1C8405.02363510062004@individual.net on
6/9/04 11:36 PM:

> In article <zVKxc.19496$Yd3.1258@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@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?

-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh

snit-nospam (82)

6/10/2004 6:42:22 AM

In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@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

clund (603)

6/10/2004 6:45:18 AM

In article <yQRxc.14643$1L4.13785@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> 
> > In article <IBLxc.14523$1L4.9259@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"nikoli" <spam@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.
> > 
> > 
> > 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.

> Well, I'll just have to take my PC back and tell them you said it's not 
> good enough.

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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 7:04:52 AM

In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Jim Polaski wrote:
> 
> > In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >>> nikoli <spam@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.
> > 
> > 
> > And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
> > sync. And you still have to run Windows.
> > 
> 
> 
> And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
> minded for 2 seconds.

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.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 7:08:35 AM

C Lund wrote:
> In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@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?
> 

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.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 7:53:23 AM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <yQRxc.14643$1L4.13785@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <IBLxc.14523$1L4.9259@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"nikoli" <spam@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.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
> 
> 
>>Well, I'll just have to take my PC back and tell them you said it's not 
>>good enough.
> 
> 
> 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,

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.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 7:58:02 AM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <UBLxc.14524$1L4.7403@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@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.
>>>
>>>You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
>>
>>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.
> 


STFU already.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 7:58:36 AM

"nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
6/10/04 12:53 AM:

> C Lund wrote:
>> In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
>>  nikoli <spam@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?
>> 
> 
> 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.

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?


-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh

snit-nospam (82)

6/10/2004 8:00:42 AM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>>>>nikoli <spam@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.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
>>>sync. And you still have to run Windows.
>>>
>>
>>
>>And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
>>minded for 2 seconds.
> 
> 
> 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.
> 


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

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:05:23 AM

Oxford wrote:

> <spam@spamsux.com> 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.
> 
> 
> 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.


I've seen it in action litterally right next to my friends G4. My 
machine smoked his.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:06:07 AM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@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?

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:06:45 AM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@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

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:08:45 AM

Snit wrote:

> "ZnU" <znu@acedsl.com> wrote in znu-1C8405.02363510062004@individual.net on
> 6/9/04 11:36 PM:
> 
> 
>>In article <zVKxc.19496$Yd3.1258@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>>Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2004-06-09, Oxford <csma@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.

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.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:10:48 AM

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> 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...

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 8:11:06 AM

Snit wrote:

> "nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
> 6/10/04 12:53 AM:
> 
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@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?
>>>
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 

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+&distributor=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.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:21:58 AM

Oxford wrote:

> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>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...

see my reply to snit

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 8:22:47 AM

In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >>>>>nikoli <spam@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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
> >>>sync. And you still have to run Windows.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
> >>minded for 2 seconds.
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 
> 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

If they can't do what ColorSync can do, then they aren't very useful.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 9:20:28 AM

In article <EwUxc.14653$1L4.2146@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <yQRxc.14643$1L4.13785@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <IBLxc.14523$1L4.9259@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Snit wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"nikoli" <spam@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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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.
> > 
> > 
> >>Well, I'll just have to take my PC back and tell them you said it's not 
> >>good enough.
> > 
> > 
> > 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,
> 
> then what do you mean by "impossible" ???

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.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 9:31:35 AM

In article <fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net>,
 Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:

> In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> > "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
> > on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
> > 
> > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > "Edwin" <thorne25@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]

mr249 (3247)

6/10/2004 9:39:35 AM

In article <4TUxc.14661$1L4.919@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Snit wrote:
> 
> > "nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
> > 6/10/04 12:53 AM:
> > 
> > 
> >>C Lund wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
> >>> nikoli <spam@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?
> >>>
> >>
> >>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.
> > 
> > 
> > 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?
> > 
> > 
> 
> 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

Kingston is super expensive

Try OWC

http://tinyurl.com/3h2w5
> 
> 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
------------------

"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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 9:46:03 AM

In article <HGUxc.14659$1L4.9390@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> C Lund wrote:
> 
> > In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> > 
> >>C Lund wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >>> nikoli <spam@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.

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.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 9:50:09 AM

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> 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...

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 10:00:31 AM

In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >>>>>nikoli <spam@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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
> >>>sync. And you still have to run Windows.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
> >>minded for 2 seconds.
> > 
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> 
> 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

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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/10/2004 10:03:03 AM

In article <HGUxc.14659$1L4.9390@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@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

clund (603)

6/10/2004 12:58:42 PM

In article <PEUxc.14657$1L4.6523@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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?

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

clund (603)

6/10/2004 12:59:51 PM

In article <9xUxc.14654$1L4.12690@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <UBLxc.14524$1L4.7403@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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.
> >>>You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
> >>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.
> STFU already.

What's that supposed to mean?

Oh, I know: http://home.socal.rr.com/gbaker/troll.jpg

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/10/2004 1:01:39 PM

In article <hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> 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.

What's a "mac part"? Apart from the CPU, the parts are largely the 
same as in the Wintel world.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/10/2004 1:04:16 PM

"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-60E167.11393510062004@individual.net
on 6/10/04 2:39 AM:

> In article <fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net>,
> Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
>>> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
>>> 
>>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@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.

Steve... you were wrong... while the answer was not direct, he *did* answer.

-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh

snit-nospam (82)

6/10/2004 1:14:35 PM

In article <mr-60E167.11393510062004@individual.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net>,
>  Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in 
> > > mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
> > > on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
> > > 
> > > > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> > > > "Edwin" <thorne25@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.

Snit is a real masochist's masochist... it just drives him nuts that you 
refuse to beat him up any longer:)

-- 
Steve C

fretwizz4 (57)

6/10/2004 1:22:33 PM

In article <BCEDACCB.5431E%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-60E167.11393510062004@individual.net
> on 6/10/04 2:39 AM:
> 
> > In article <fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net>,
> > Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> >>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in 
> >>> mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
> >>> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
> >>> 
> >>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@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.
> 
> Steve... you were wrong... while the answer was not direct, he *did* answer.

And like clockwork, your inability to comprehend what you've read makes 
it's scheduled appearance. Are you SO narcissistic that the mere mention 
of your name in a conversation equates to him answering you?

-- 
Steve C

fretwizz4 (57)

6/10/2004 1:37:43 PM

"Steve Carroll" <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in
fretwizz-E66325.07374410062004@netnews.comcast.net on 6/10/04 6:37 AM:

> In article <BCEDACCB.5431E%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
> Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in mr-60E167.11393510062004@individual.net
>> on 6/10/04 2:39 AM:
>> 
>>> In article <fretwizz-36B6CD.15005909062004@netnews.comcast.net>,
>>> Steve Carroll <fretwizz@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <BCECC179.54212%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>>>>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> "Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in
>>>>> mr-F71369.22253209062004@individual.net
>>>>> on 6/9/04 1:25 PM:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@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.
>> 
>> Steve... you were wrong... while the answer was not direct, he *did* answer.
> 
> And like clockwork, your inability to comprehend what you've read makes
> it's scheduled appearance. Are you SO narcissistic that the mere mention
> of your name in a conversation equates to him answering you?

No more than my replying to him equates to trolling.  :)

Speaking of trolling:

Steve, did you author the following comment / confession:

    "OK... so I'm here to troll."

If not, can you provide any evidence as to who did?



-- 
See responses to flames
news://alt.flame.macintosh

snit-nospam (82)

6/10/2004 1:39:35 PM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <mSIxc.21760$eH1.9858740@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.

Okay, I asked around, and everyone said you're not right in the head.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

You just equated speed to power.  In short, you said if the G4 were made as
fast as the G5, it they would be equally powerful.   How like Maccies to
yell abot a "Megahertz Myth" while PowerPC chips were stuck at lower speeds
than Wintel processors, and then start yelling about how much more PPC
processors became due to an increase in Megahertz!

IOW, you're just talking out of your arse, as usual.

>>
>>> *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.

Faster clock speed doesn't automatically mean more processing per second.
You were throwing words around that gave the impression you understood that,
but we can readily see you were just playing the part of a parrot.

>>
>>> 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?

WTF do you mean "well?"   I've addressed those questions all through this
post and this thread.

You've failed to show what about the G5 makes it more powerful than the G4.
Clock speed differences won't do it.   If they could increase the G5 to 2.5
GHz, they coud do the same for the G4.  Upgrade schedule is no reason
either.  They could have done the same for the G4.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?

If you think a 32 bit architecture is the "same" as a 64 bit one, you're
really a lot dumber than everyone thinks you are.

> How about the fact that they both can run the same binaries?

Does the 64 bit Athlon have the same architecture as the 32 bit version?

The upshot of everything you've said is that is that clock speed is more
important than going from 32 bits to 64 bits, and that performance increases
are the result of clock speed increases, not archtectural improvements.  In
short, you've gone back on Maccie dogma and vindicated Wintel.   All to save
face because you wouldn't back down from an insult you tried to give me.
Instead you've made a fool of yourself and your fellow Maccies.

>>> 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.

You only cited an increase in clock speed.   You have yet to demonstrate
anything about "actual processing speed" and show how it is a result of
anything other than mere clock speed.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.

So what?   They could have done the same thing for the G4.   What are the
"improvements" anyway?   So far all you've done is cite clock speed, as
Maccies have so often accused Wintel Advocates of doing.

>>
>>>> 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
>
> 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>

Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about my life.   Bray on, Alan.

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 2:56:44 PM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <4TUxc.14661$1L4.919@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
>>>6/10/04 12:53 AM:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>C Lund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
>>>>>nikoli <spam@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?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>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
> 
> 
> Kingston is super expensive
> 
> Try OWC
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/3h2w5

I used Kingston because they make high quality RAM. I wanted to use high 
quality RAM because were talking about high quality machines. I wouldn't 
put anything but high quality RAM in my $3,000 MAC... if I owned one 
that is.

> 
>>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.
> 

Like I said, high quality RAM for high quality machines. You should put 
the goods in the goods. At least that's my philosophy.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:10:31 PM

Oxford wrote:

> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>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...


go ahead and stick with the generic crap then... have fun with the 
random reboots... that is if it ever boots at all

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:12:11 PM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>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?
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> What's a "mac part"? Apart from the CPU, the parts are largely the 
> same as in the Wintel world.
> 

then what makes macs so much better and so much more expensive?

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:12:47 PM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>>>>>>nikoli <spam@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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And you still don't have system level color management to match Color 
>>>>>sync. And you still have to run Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
>>>>minded for 2 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>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
> 
> 
> That you think that those products do what Colorsync does tell anyone 
> who does professional level work that you don't.
> 

do you even read before you reply?

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:15:32 PM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <HGUxc.14659$1L4.9390@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>C Lund wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>>>>nikoli <spam@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.
> 
> 
> What do you do about adware and spyware that gets installed on your 
> computer by I.E. 

I use Mozilla and run a scan from ad-aware every now and then. Sometimes 
it finds a tracking cookie or two... no big whoop.


> 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.
> 

like I said, sucks to be them.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:19:33 PM

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> > a 1GB kit of 3200 DDR goes for $158, why is kingston selling it for $343?
> > 
> > mac / pc components are the same...
> 
> 
> go ahead and stick with the generic crap then... have fun with the 
> random reboots... that is if it ever boots at all

you are falling into the marketing trap... sure that "could" happen but 
it's pretty rare... just make sure what you have a life time warranty, 
which most everyone does... then you are all set...

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 3:21:13 PM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <HGUxc.14659$1L4.9390@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@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?
> 
> 

cuz I'm not a total douche user. see my reply to Mr. Graves.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:22:16 PM

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> > What's a "mac part"? Apart from the CPU, the parts are largely the 
> > same as in the Wintel world.
> > 
> 
> then what makes macs so much better and so much more expensive?

the "engineering" of the hardware and osx of course...

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 3:23:01 PM

In article <GR_xc.14690$1L4.6404@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com>
wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <4TUxc.14661$1L4.919@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
> >>>6/10/04 12:53 AM:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>C Lund wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
> >>>>>nikoli <spam@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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>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
> > 
> > 
> > Kingston is super expensive
> > 
> > Try OWC
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/3h2w5
> 
> I used Kingston because they make high quality RAM. I wanted to use high 
> quality RAM because were talking about high quality machines. I wouldn't 
> put anything but high quality RAM in my $3,000 MAC... if I owned one 
> that is.
> 
> > 
> >>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.
> > 
> 
> Like I said, high quality RAM for high quality machines. You should put 
> the goods in the goods. At least that's my philosophy.

Kingston does do high quality ram, and if you price it as generic ram
instead of picking by brand and model, you will get the ram at the same
pricing for either platform.

But, OWC has a very good reputation for quality ram that they back up
quite well.....

Lloyd

lloydparsons (106)

6/10/2004 3:26:31 PM

In article <PEUxc.14657$1L4.6523@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> C Lund wrote:
> 
> > In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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?

You don't need a powerful machine to run Photoshop, you just need a 
powerful machine to work with large images in Photoshop. Until fairly 
recently I used to run Photoshop on a 400 MHz G3, and it was quite 
usable for low-resolution web work.

-- 
"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

znu2 (353)

6/10/2004 3:38:22 PM

Oxford wrote:
> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>a 1GB kit of 3200 DDR goes for $158, why is kingston selling it for $343?
>>>
>>>mac / pc components are the same...
>>
>>
>>go ahead and stick with the generic crap then... have fun with the 
>>random reboots... that is if it ever boots at all
> 
> 
> you are falling into the marketing trap... sure that "could" happen but 
> it's pretty rare... just make sure what you have a life time warranty, 
> which most everyone does... then you are all set...


no thanks, I'll stick with the high end RAM for my high end machines

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:50:17 PM

Oxford wrote:

> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>What's a "mac part"? Apart from the CPU, the parts are largely the 
>>>same as in the Wintel world.
>>>
>>
>>then what makes macs so much better and so much more expensive?
> 
> 
> the "engineering" of the hardware and osx of course...

LOL, I thought the hardware was the exact same?

BTW, I really like OSX... but I know it's not difference in the cost.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:51:18 PM

nikoli wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
[snip]
>
>
> 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) ???

Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
but started with 128 bits and went up from there.

More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.

> I would agree with this assertion.

That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing Alan's notion
that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."

> Though I would say that Apple is
> making the right move for the future with the G5 architecture.

Apple's moves with the G5 seems to be to put themselves into the high end
workstation market.   They're still using the type of "price point" strategy
Wintel abandoned years ago.   Macs are getting more powerful, but the price
point remains the same.

> 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.

Thank you.

Alan and I have had a lot of bad blood between us.   He'll often through an
insult at me as an off-the-cuff remark, and then he paints himself into a
corner instead of simply admitting he was wrong (something none can recall
him ever doing).

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 3:51:21 PM

Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <4flkp1-2fr.ln1@ralph.homelinux.net>,
>  Panama Red <complaintdepartment2002@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.

Alan didn't trim the post either, Jimbob.

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 3:52:22 PM

ZnU wrote:

> In article <PEUxc.14657$1L4.6523@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@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?
> 
> 
> ...to run Photoshop you just need a powerful machine to work with large images in Photoshop.

there ya go... now you're getting it

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 3:52:26 PM

Edwin wrote:
> nikoli wrote:
> 
>>Edwin wrote:
>>
>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>><npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>>><thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>><ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>>
>>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) ???
> 
> 
> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
> its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
> a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
> but started with 128 bits and went up from there.
> 
> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
> the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
> address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
> outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
> also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
> 
> 
> 
>>I would agree with this assertion.
> 
> 
> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing Alan's notion
> that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."


Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a 
G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 4:12:43 PM

In article <nW_xc.14693$1L4.555@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> > In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >>
<snip>

> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>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
> > 
> > 
> > That you think that those products do what Colorsync does tell anyone 
> > who does professional level work that you don't.
> > 
> 
> do you even read before you reply?

Sure. And I know that a *calibrator* is not a system-level colour 
management system.

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/10/2004 4:29:17 PM

Steve Mackay <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.06.09.16.01.40.687000@hotmail.com>...
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:42:11 +0000, Edwin wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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). 

Actually, people have already successfully tried 16 GByte in the (old)
G5s - the new ones probably can take at least that. Apple has always
been on the conservative side when they gave maximum RAM capacity.

Lars T.

Lars.Traeger (220)

6/10/2004 4:41:26 PM

In article <ME_xc.7080$n65.1414@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <mSIxc.21760$eH1.9858740@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> 
> Okay, I asked around, and everyone said you're not right in the head.
> 
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> 
> You just equated speed to power.  In short, you said if the G4 were made as
> fast as the G5, it they would be equally powerful.   How like Maccies to
> yell abot a "Megahertz Myth" while PowerPC chips were stuck at lower speeds
> than Wintel processors, and then start yelling about how much more PPC
> processors became due to an increase in Megahertz!

No, Edwin. You equated my statement with megahertz. I'm talking about 
*actual* measures of processing performance. Megahertz is *one* 
component of processing performance, however, and the G4 *wasn't* made 
as fast as the G5. This is a fact.

> 
> IOW, you're just talking out of your arse, as usual.
> 
> >>
> >>> *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.
> 
> Faster clock speed doesn't automatically mean more processing per second.
> You were throwing words around that gave the impression you understood that,
> but we can readily see you were just playing the part of a parrot.

But when the two processors have essentially the same architecture 
overall, and the one (the G5) has features to improve the throughput of 
instructions in other ways (such as deeper pipelines and better branch 
prediction), then it is going to be faster. 

And it is. You're not seriously arguing that the G4 is faster than the 
G5, are you Edwin? 

LOL

> 
> >>
> >>> 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?
> 
> WTF do you mean "well?"   I've addressed those questions all through this
> post and this thread.
> 
> You've failed to show what about the G5 makes it more powerful than the G4.
> Clock speed differences won't do it.   If they could increase the G5 to 2.5
> GHz, they coud do the same for the G4.  Upgrade schedule is no reason
> either.  They could have done the same for the G4.

No. They couldn't. Motorola was responsible for the G4 and they couldn't 
do it. The pace of G4 speed ups had slowed to a crawl quite a ways 
before the G5s were released.

> 
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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?
> 
> If you think a 32 bit architecture is the "same" as a 64 bit one, you're
> really a lot dumber than everyone thinks you are.

LOL.

Read all about it on ArsTechnica. Read and you'll discover that the G5 
is quite similar to the G4, except with additional improvements for 
performance (in addition to running at a faster clockspeed)

> 
> > How about the fact that they both can run the same binaries?
> 
> Does the 64 bit Athlon have the same architecture as the 32 bit version?

I don't know. I haven't read up on the Athlon.

> 
> The upshot of everything you've said is that is that clock speed is more
> important than going from 32 bits to 64 bits, and that performance increases
> are the result of clock speed increases, not archtectural improvements.  In
> short, you've gone back on Maccie dogma and vindicated Wintel.   All to save
> face because you wouldn't back down from an insult you tried to give me.
> Instead you've made a fool of yourself and your fellow Maccies.

No. The upshot is that Apple didn't make the change to the G5 because of 
64 bits, and that when you have both architectural improvements *and* 
clock speed increases, then you're going to have a faster processor.

Once again: are you seriously arguing that the G4 is faster than the G5?

> 
> >>> 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.
> 
> You only cited an increase in clock speed.   You have yet to demonstrate
> anything about "actual processing speed" and show how it is a result of
> anything other than mere clock speed.

<sigh> Just remember, you made me:

<http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html>

<http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html>

<http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-interview-1.html
>

Read all of those. I already have.

> 
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> 
> So what?   They could have done the same thing for the G4.   What are the
> "improvements" anyway?   So far all you've done is cite clock speed, as
> Maccies have so often accused Wintel Advocates of doing.

No, they couldn't have. *That* was the problem. Or have you forgotten 
how people were crowing when Apple was stuck with the same speed G4s for 
months and months after updates would have been expected.

> 
> >>
> >>>> 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
> >
> > 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>
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating you know nothing about my life.   Bray on, Alan.

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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/10/2004 4:47:36 PM

"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in message news:<n%Ixc.21763$eH1.9860078@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
> Jim Polaski wrote:
> > In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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?
> >> ;-)
> >
> > Half a Gig is plenty for the average user.
> 
> 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?

Yeah, it means you can go to the Apple store and buy it with 8 GByte of RAM.

I thought about insulting you, but you wouldn't get it.

Lars T.

Lars.Traeger (220)

6/10/2004 4:48:27 PM

Lars Tr?ger wrote:
> Steve Mackay <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.06.09.16.01.40.687000@hotmail.com>...
> 
>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 15:42:11 +0000, Edwin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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). 
> 
> 
> Actually, people have already successfully tried 16 GByte in the (old)
> G5s - the new ones probably can take at least that. Apple has always
> been on the conservative side when they gave maximum RAM capacity.
> 
> Lars T.

Congrats, you win the BS award!!!

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 5:00:03 PM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <nW_xc.14693$1L4.555@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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... 
>>>
>>>
>>>That you think that those products do what Colorsync does tell anyone 
>>>who does professional level work that you don't.
>>>
>>
>>do you even read before you reply?
> 
> 
> Sure. And I know that a *calibrator* is not a system-level colour 
> management system.
> 

Then why did you ignore my "and I'm NOT trying to say they're as good as 
ColorSync" quote ???

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 5:02:07 PM

In article <Zr%xc.1226$OG3.735@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> nikoli wrote:
> > Edwin wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> >>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >
> > 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) ???
> 
> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
> its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
> a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
> but started with 128 bits and went up from there.
> 
> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
> the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
> address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
> outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
> also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
> 
> 
> > I would agree with this assertion.
> 
> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing Alan's notion
> that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."

It's fairly small for most desktop applications. They just don't work 
with much data that benefits from 64-bit representation. Obviously there 
are exceptions, but they're fairly uncommon, and will probably remain so.

The personal computer market seems to be moving to 64-bit because it's 
becoming fairly easy and painless, rather than because there's any 
pressing need.

[snip]

-- 
"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

znu2 (353)

6/10/2004 5:02:41 PM

In article <ju0yc.14705$1L4.5739@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> 
> > In article <nW_xc.14693$1L4.555@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
> >>> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>George Graves wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> > 
> > <snip>
> > 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>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... 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That you think that those products do what Colorsync does tell anyone 
> >>>who does professional level work that you don't.
> >>>
> >>
> >>do you even read before you reply?
> > 
> > 
> > Sure. And I know that a *calibrator* is not a system-level colour 
> > management system.
> > 
> 
> Then why did you ignore my "and I'm NOT trying to say they're as good as 
> ColorSync" quote ???

I apologize. I read too quickly.

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/10/2004 5:07:14 PM

In article <J%_xc.8$oX1.10019@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com> 
wrote:

> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> > > a 1GB kit of 3200 DDR goes for $158, why is kingston selling it for $343?
> > > 
> > > mac / pc components are the same...
> > 
> > 
> > go ahead and stick with the generic crap then... have fun with the 
> > random reboots... that is if it ever boots at all
> 
> you are falling into the marketing trap... sure that "could" happen but 
> it's pretty rare... just make sure what you have a life time warranty, 
> which most everyone does... then you are all set...

The thing is, for anyone who makes money with their computer, one or two 
crashes probably cost more than the price difference between name-brand 
memory and generic stuff. So the question is, is there really a quality 
difference? I honestly don't know, but I assume there's a reason Apple 
shipped my dual G5 from the factory with Crucial RAM.

-- 
"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

znu2 (353)

6/10/2004 5:12:29 PM

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 18:25:20 +0000, Jim Polaski wrote:

> So what. *Productivity* is the issue(Note that Intel has dropped speed 
> from it's processors!) and you're probably running Windows.

I though *discoverability* was the new Mac-buzzword.  I guess when you're
insecure about your system and your software, you need a good story.

rejnccw02 (5)

6/10/2004 5:14:08 PM

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 14:19:13 -0700, Snit wrote:

> Well, the Apple color picker is better than either the XP or Adobe ones.

I'm switching!  I've been having trouble picking colors.

> Also, I have heard that professional color matching is better on the Mac as
> well...

I've heard you're an idiot, and this proves it...

rejnccw02 (5)

6/10/2004 5:15:17 PM

In article <H0%xc.14695$1L4.5409@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <HGUxc.14659$1L4.9390@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@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?
> cuz I'm not a total douche user.

That's no protection. These days you can get viruses just by clicking 
on the wrong URL.

And thinking you're safe when you're swimming in a sea of vermin is 
delusional. The only way you can be secure from viruses etc when using 
Windows is by never going online.

> see my reply to Mr. Graves.

Yeah, I've seen 'em.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/10/2004 5:33:22 PM

In article <OT_xc.14692$1L4.12992@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>C Lund wrote:
> >>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
> >>> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>>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?
> >>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.
> > What's a "mac part"? Apart from the CPU, the parts are largely the 
> > same as in the Wintel world.
> then what makes macs so much better and so much more expensive?

Because the mac parts aren't dub out of the bargain bin, because 
there's a whole lot of engineering involved that the PC does not have, 
because the OS and HW were made to work together, etc. In the mac, the 
whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In the PC... it isn't.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/10/2004 5:37:04 PM

ZnU wrote:
> In article <Zr%xc.1226$OG3.735@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>nikoli wrote:
>>
>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>><npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>>>><thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>><ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>
>>>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) ???
>>
>>Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
>>its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
>>a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
>>but started with 128 bits and went up from there.
>>
>>More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
>>the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
>>address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
>>outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
>>also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
>>
>>
>>
>>>I would agree with this assertion.
>>
>>That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing Alan's notion
>>that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> 
> 
> It's fairly small for most desktop applications. They just don't work 
> with much data that benefits from 64-bit representation. Obviously there 
> are exceptions, but they're fairly uncommon, and will probably remain so.
> 
> The personal computer market seems to be moving to 64-bit because it's 
> becoming fairly easy and painless, rather than because there's any 
> pressing need.
> 
> [snip]
> 

my setiments exactly

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 6:08:32 PM

ZnU wrote:

> In article <J%_xc.8$oX1.10019@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>a 1GB kit of 3200 DDR goes for $158, why is kingston selling it for $343?
>>>>
>>>>mac / pc components are the same...
>>>
>>>
>>>go ahead and stick with the generic crap then... have fun with the 
>>>random reboots... that is if it ever boots at all
>>
>>you are falling into the marketing trap... sure that "could" happen but 
>>it's pretty rare... just make sure what you have a life time warranty, 
>>which most everyone does... then you are all set...
> 
> 
> The thing is, for anyone who makes money with their computer, one or two 
> crashes probably cost more than the price difference between name-brand 
> memory and generic stuff. So the question is, is there really a quality 
> difference? I honestly don't know, but I assume there's a reason Apple 
> shipped my dual G5 from the factory with Crucial RAM.
> 

Because they ship quality RAM to run their quality componants ??? 
*rhetorical*

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 6:13:18 PM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <ju0yc.14705$1L4.5739@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <nW_xc.14693$1L4.555@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <xDUxc.14655$1L4.12709@okepread02>,
>>>>>nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>George Graves wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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... 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That you think that those products do what Colorsync does tell anyone 
>>>>>who does professional level work that you don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>do you even read before you reply?
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure. And I know that a *calibrator* is not a system-level colour 
>>>management system.
>>>
>>
>>Then why did you ignore my "and I'm NOT trying to say they're as good as 
>>ColorSync" quote ???
> 
> 
> I apologize. I read too quickly.
> 

thanks for being honest

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 6:14:36 PM

C Lund wrote:

> In article <H0%xc.14695$1L4.5409@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
>>C Lund wrote:
>>
>>>In article <HGUxc.14659$1L4.9390@okepread02>,
>>> nikoli <spam@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?
>>
>>cuz I'm not a total douche user.
> 
> 
> That's no protection. These days you can get viruses just by clicking 
> on the wrong URL.

i'm willing to take the risk... the odds are heavily in my favor... 
(note, I use Mozilla for this reason)

> 
> And thinking you're safe when you're swimming in a sea of vermin is 
> delusional. The only way you can be secure from viruses etc when using 
> Windows is by never going online.
> 
> 
>>see my reply to Mr. Graves.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've seen 'em.
> 

then you know that what you said doesn't apply to me

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 6:16:18 PM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <ME_xc.7080$n65.1414@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>> In article <mSIxc.21760$eH1.9858740@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Okay, I asked around, and everyone said you're not right in the head.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> You just equated speed to power.  In short, you said if the G4 were
>> made as fast as the G5, it they would be equally powerful.   How
>> like Maccies to yell abot a "Megahertz Myth" while PowerPC chips
>> were stuck at lower speeds than Wintel processors, and then start
>> yelling about how much more PPC processors became due to an increase
>> in Megahertz!
>
> No, Edwin. You equated my statement with megahertz.

Because your statement, which I quoted below, directly said that.

> I'm talking about *actual* measures of processing performance.

No you're not.   "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."

You have yet to cite any "*actual meaures of processing performance" beyond
clock speed.

> Megahertz is *one*
> component of processing performance,

You have yet to name any other.

> however, and the G4 *wasn't* made as fast as the G5. This is a fact.

What do you have to back this "fact" besides clock speed?
>>
>> IOW, you're just talking out of your arse, as usual.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> *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.
>>
>> Faster clock speed doesn't automatically mean more processing per
>> second. You were throwing words around that gave the impression you
>> understood that, but we can readily see you were just playing the
>> part of a parrot.
>
> But when the two processors have essentially the same architecture
> overall, and the one (the G5) has features to improve the throughput
> of instructions in other ways (such as deeper pipelines and better
> branch prediction), then it is going to be faster.

Now you finally mentioned something besides clock speed.   It took you
awhile to look that up, after your original statements were made without any
knowledge on your part.

But you're still sticking with the ridiculous "the two processors have
essentially the same architecture
overall..."

> And it is. You're not seriously arguing that the G4 is faster than the G5,
are you Edwin?

Why are you trying to put words into my mouth instead of just backing your
own claims?   You've done nothing but attempt to sidetrack this discussion
all the way through, until you finally decided to look things up to back the
things you spewed without knowing what you were talking about.

> LOL

The jackass continues to hee-haw.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> WTF do you mean "well?"   I've addressed those questions all through
>> this post and this thread.
>>
>> You've failed to show what about the G5 makes it more powerful than
>> the G4. Clock speed differences won't do it.   If they could
>> increase the G5 to 2.5 GHz, they coud do the same for the G4.
>> Upgrade schedule is no reason either.  They could have done the same
>> for the G4.
>
> No. They couldn't. Motorola was responsible for the G4 and they
> couldn't do it.

You may now back your assertion that Motorola can not produce faster G4
chips.   Not that they did not, or would not, but could not, as your
assertion says.

> The pace of G4 speed ups had slowed to a crawl quite
> a ways before the G5s were released.

Who cares?   Megahertz is just a myth, remember?   Or was it just a "myth"
until Macs got faster processors?

>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> If you think a 32 bit architecture is the "same" as a 64 bit one,
>> you're really a lot dumber than everyone thinks you are.
>
> LOL.

This donkey hee-haws the whole day through...

> Read all about it on ArsTechnica. Read and you'll discover that the G5
> is quite similar to the G4, except with additional improvements for
> performance (in addition to running at a faster clockspeed)

No, you back up your claims.  I'm not researching them for you.

>>
>>> How about the fact that they both can run the same binaries?
>>
>> Does the 64 bit Athlon have the same architecture as the 32 bit
>> version?
>
> I don't know. I haven't read up on the Athlon.

You don't know about microprocessors period.
>>
>> The upshot of everything you've said is that is that clock speed is
>> more important than going from 32 bits to 64 bits, and that
>> performance increases are the result of clock speed increases, not
>> archtectural improvements.  In short, you've gone back on Maccie
>> dogma and vindicated Wintel.   All to save face because you wouldn't
>> back down from an insult you tried to give me. Instead you've made a
>> fool of yourself and your fellow Maccies.
>
> No. The upshot is that Apple didn't make the change to the G5 because
> of 64 bits, and that when you have both architectural improvements

Which you haven't named until recently, when you gave a vague few words
about "deeper pipelines and branch prediction."

> *and* clock speed increases, then you're going to have a faster
> processor.

But clock speed was all you were citing

> Once again: are you seriously arguing that the G4 is faster than the
> G5?

Once again, why are you trying to put words into my mouth instead of just
backing your words?

The only reason you gave for the G5 being more "powerful" than the G4 is
clock speed.  If that's the case, a G4 would be just as "powerful" as a G5,
at the same clock speed.   I think you know how foolish your position is, so
you've taken to misrepresenting what I've said, just as you've been trying
to sidetrack the discussion with irrelevant issues.

>>>>> 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.
>>
>> You only cited an increase in clock speed.   You have yet to
>> demonstrate anything about "actual processing speed" and show how it
>> is a result of anything other than mere clock speed.
>
> <sigh> Just remember, you made me:
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/cpu/02q2/ppc970/ppc970-1.html>
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/ppc970/ppc970-0.html>
>
> <http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q2/ppc970-interview/ppc970-interview-
> 1.html
>>
>
> Read all of those. I already have.

If you really read all of those before now, one can only wonder why clock
speed was the only reason you could come up with for the G5 being "more
powerful."  Even now you quote nothing specific, you basically did a Googel
search, got some article titles and say "here, you find something to let me
off the hook."  You had to be pressed repeatedly before you even did that.

>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> So what?   They could have done the same thing for the G4.   What
>> are the "improvements" anyway?   So far all you've done is cite
>> clock speed, as Maccies have so often accused Wintel Advocates of
>> doing.
>
> No, they couldn't have. *That* was the problem.

Document your assertion.

> Or have you forgotten
> how people were crowing when Apple was stuck with the same speed G4s
> for months and months after updates would have been expected.

There's a difference between "wouldn't" and "couldn't."

[the rest of Alan's hee-hawwing snipped]

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 6:36:21 PM

Lars Tr?ger wrote:
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote in message
> news:<n%Ixc.21763$eH1.9860078@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>> In article <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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? ;-)
>>>
>>> Half a Gig is plenty for the average user.
>>
>> 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?
>
> Yeah, it means you can go to the Apple store and buy it with 8 GByte
> of RAM.

So you don't know what it means.

> I thought about insulting you, but you wouldn't get it.

So you chose to make a fool of yourself instead.

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 6:39:53 PM

nikoli wrote:
> Edwin wrote:
>> nikoli wrote:
>>
>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>
>>> 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)
>>> ???
>>
>> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB
>> limit to its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP
>> AMD PCs that have a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a
>> few kilobytes of memory, but started with 128 bits and went up from
>> there.
>>
>> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0
>> is on the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM
>> you can address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit
>> computer outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64
>> bitness in a processor also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
>>
>>
>>
>>> I would agree with this assertion.
>>
>>
>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
>
>
> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a
> G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???

No.

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 7:31:45 PM

nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> > the "engineering" of the hardware and osx of course...
> 
> 
> LOL, I thought the hardware was the exact same?
> 
> BTW, I really like OSX... but I know it's not difference in the cost.

the components are the same but how they are tied together, the design 
of the ports/case/os is all engineered...

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 8:23:17 PM

ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> The thing is, for anyone who makes money with their computer, one or two 
> crashes probably cost more than the price difference between name-brand 
> memory and generic stuff. So the question is, is there really a quality 
> difference? I honestly don't know, but I assume there's a reason Apple 
> shipped my dual G5 from the factory with Crucial RAM.

no they didn't, crucial doesn't oem stuff... that was a 3rd party 
upgrade somewhere along the line...

csma (1175)

6/10/2004 8:25:08 PM

In article <GR_xc.14690$1L4.6404@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <4TUxc.14661$1L4.919@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>Snit wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
> >>>6/10/04 12:53 AM:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>C Lund wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
> >>>>>nikoli <spam@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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>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?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>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+&di
> >>st
> >>ributor=0&submit1=Search
> >>
> >>http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator/memtype.asp
> > 
> > 
> > Kingston is super expensive
> > 
> > Try OWC
> > 
> > http://tinyurl.com/3h2w5
> 
> I used Kingston because they make high quality RAM. I wanted to use high 
> quality RAM because were talking about high quality machines. I wouldn't 
> put anything but high quality RAM in my $3,000 MAC... if I owned one 
> that is.

OWC RAM is high quality. They guarantee that their RAM exceeds Apple's 
specs by a significant margin. I don't buy RAM (for myself) from anybody 
else.
> 
> > 
> >>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.
> > 
> 
> Like I said, high quality RAM for high quality machines. You should put 
> the goods in the goods. At least that's my philosophy.

Lemme get this straight. In one post, you assert that Macs are more 
expensive to upgrade and you use RAM from an overpriced supplier as an 
example. When it is pointed-out to you that similar quality RAM for 
these machines can be had at PC prices, you counter with some nonsense 
about ELECTIVELY choosing to use overpriced RAM in a "high-quality 
machine." Am I missing something here, or are you purposely arguing out 
of both sides of your mouth?

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 8:27:30 PM

In article <Es3yc.23$oX1.25585@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com> 
wrote:

> ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> 
> > The thing is, for anyone who makes money with their computer, one or two 
> > crashes probably cost more than the price difference between name-brand 
> > memory and generic stuff. So the question is, is there really a quality 
> > difference? I honestly don't know, but I assume there's a reason Apple 
> > shipped my dual G5 from the factory with Crucial RAM.
> 
> no they didn't, crucial doesn't oem stuff... that was a 3rd party 
> upgrade somewhere along the line...

This was a dual 2 GHz G5 in a stock configuration purchased from Apple's 
NYC retail store a couple of weeks after they started shipping. I 
seriously doubt it was touched by any third party (except maybe a 
shipping service) before they brought it around the counter and gave it 
to me.

-- 
"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

znu2 (353)

6/10/2004 9:37:03 PM

In article <_L%xc.14702$1L4.5937@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Edwin wrote:
> > nikoli wrote:
> > 
> >>Edwin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>In article
> >>>>>>>>>><npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> >>>>>>>>>><thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>><ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>
> >>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) ???
> > 
> > 
> > Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
> > its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
> > a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
> > but started with 128 bits and went up from there.
> > 
> > More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
> > the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
> > address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
> > outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
> > also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>I would agree with this assertion.
> > 
> > 
> > That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing Alan's notion
> > that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> 
> 
> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a 
> G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???

Yeah. They're faster.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 9:49:34 PM

In article <BG2yc.2590$Is6.1726@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> nikoli wrote:
> > Edwin wrote:
> >> nikoli wrote:
> >>
> >>> Edwin wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> >>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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)
> >>> ???
> >>
> >> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB
> >> limit to its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP
> >> AMD PCs that have a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a
> >> few kilobytes of memory, but started with 128 bits and went up from
> >> there.
> >>
> >> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0
> >> is on the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM
> >> you can address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit
> >> computer outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64
> >> bitness in a processor also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> I would agree with this assertion.
> >>
> >>
> >> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
> >> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> >
> >
> > Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a
> > G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
> 
> No.

You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 9:50:12 PM

George Graves wrote:

>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from
>> a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>
> Yeah. They're faster.

what has this got to do with Linux?

warmonger (28)

6/10/2004 9:52:40 PM

George Graves wrote:

> You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.

what has this got to do with Linux?

warmonger (28)

6/10/2004 9:53:12 PM

>>>>That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>>>>Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a
>>>G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>>
>>No.
> 
> 
> You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
> 

I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend 
another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster than a 
G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect most 
upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't really need it.

In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 9:57:15 PM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <_L%xc.14702$1L4.5937@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Edwin wrote:
>>
>>>nikoli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edwin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>><npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>>>>><thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>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) ???
>>>
>>>
>>>Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
>>>its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
>>>a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
>>>but started with 128 bits and went up from there.
>>>
>>>More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
>>>the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
>>>address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
>>>outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
>>>also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I would agree with this assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>>That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing Alan's notion
>>>that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
>>
>>
>>Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a 
>>G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
> 
> 
> Yeah. They're faster.
> 

not much

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 9:57:45 PM

In article <FS1yc.584$Pt.572@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <ME_xc.7080$n65.1414@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>> In article <mSIxc.21760$eH1.9858740@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>
> >> Okay, I asked around, and everyone said you're not right in the head.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>
> >> You just equated speed to power.  In short, you said if the G4 were
> >> made as fast as the G5, it they would be equally powerful.   How
> >> like Maccies to yell abot a "Megahertz Myth" while PowerPC chips
> >> were stuck at lower speeds than Wintel processors, and then start
> >> yelling about how much more PPC processors became due to an increase
> >> in Megahertz!
> >
> > No, Edwin. You equated my statement with megahertz.
> 
> Because your statement, which I quoted below, directly said that.
> 
> > I'm talking about *actual* measures of processing performance.
> 
> No you're not.   "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."
> 
> You have yet to cite any "*actual meaures of processing performance" beyond
> clock speed.
> 
> > Megahertz is *one*
> > component of processing performance,
> 
> You have yet to name any other.
> 
> > however, and the G4 *wasn't* made as fast as the G5. This is a fact.
> 
> What do you have to back this "fact" besides clock speed?
> >>
> >> IOW, you're just talking out of your arse, as usual.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> *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.
> >>
> >> Faster clock speed doesn't automatically mean more processing per
> >> second. You were throwing words around that gave the impression you
> >> understood that, but we can readily see you were just playing the
> >> part of a parrot.
> >
> > But when the two processors have essentially the same architecture
> > overall, and the one (the G5) has features to improve the throughput
> > of instructions in other ways (such as deeper pipelines and better
> > branch prediction), then it is going to be faster.
> 
> Now you finally mentioned something besides clock speed.   It took you
> awhile to look that up, after your original statements were made without any
> knowledge on your part.
> 
> But you're still sticking with the ridiculous "the two processors have
> essentially the same architecture
> overall..."
> 
> > And it is. You're not seriously arguing that the G4 is faster than the G5,
> are you Edwin?
> 
> Why are you trying to put words into my mouth instead of just backing your
> own claims?   You've done nothing but attempt to sidetrack this discussion
> all the way through, until you finally decided to look things up to back the
> things you spewed without knowing what you were talking about.
> 
> > LOL
> 
> The jackass continues to hee-haw.
> 
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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?
> >>
> >> WTF do you mean "well?"   I've addressed those questions all through
> >> this post and this thread.
> >>
> >> You've failed to show what about the G5 makes it more powerful than
> >> the G4. Clock speed differences won't do it.   If they could
> >> increase the G5 to 2.5 GHz, they coud do the same for the G4.
> >> Upgrade schedule is no reason either.  They could have done the same
> >> for the G4.
> >
> > No. They couldn't. Motorola was responsible for the G4 and they
> > couldn't do it.
> 
> You may now back your assertion that Motorola can not produce faster G4
> chips.   Not that they did not, or would not, but could not, as your
> assertion says.
> 
> > The pace of G4 speed ups had slowed to a crawl quite
> > a ways before the G5s were released.
> 
> Who cares?   Megahertz is just a myth, remember?   Or was it just a "myth"
> until Macs got faster processors?

It's always a myth. And you can only gauge processors from the same 
family using it. Yes a 1.6 Gigaherz G5 is faster than a 1.0 GHz G4. All 
else being equal, the G5 would be 1.6X the G4. But all else ISN'T EQUAL. 
the G5 has architectural advantages over the G4 not expressed by the 
clock speed so the reality is that the 1.6 GHz G5 is possibly more than 
twice the speed of the 1 GHz G4 - I can't really say. Is a dual 2.5 GHz 
G5 faster than a dual 2.0 GHz G5 by 20%? Yes, they are the same 
processor and the same architecture. But is a 3.0 GHz Pentium IV faster 
than a single 2.5 GHz G5 chip? Not necessarily. The 2.5 GHz G5 might 
actually be faster than the Intel chip, then again it might not. THAT's 
what makes MegaHertz "just a myth."

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 10:03:12 PM

In article <BCECB4F2.541E1%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
 Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:

> > This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
> 
> What tasks do you do with your computer?

Web surf, e-mail, CSMA, and DVD movies.  Hopefully
when Apple releases a triple-CPU, 5 GHz, liquid-cooled
machine, then I can start listening to MP3's.

And neon lights.  Did I mention I want neon lights?

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 10:06:30 PM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <GR_xc.14690$1L4.6404@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <4TUxc.14661$1L4.919@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Snit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
>>>>>6/10/04 12:53 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>C Lund wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
>>>>>>>nikoli <spam@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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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+&di
>>>>st
>>>>ributor=0&submit1=Search
>>>>
>>>>http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator/memtype.asp
>>>
>>>
>>>Kingston is super expensive
>>>
>>>Try OWC
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/3h2w5
>>
>>I used Kingston because they make high quality RAM. I wanted to use high 
>>quality RAM because were talking about high quality machines. I wouldn't 
>>put anything but high quality RAM in my $3,000 MAC... if I owned one 
>>that is.
> 
> 
> OWC RAM is high quality. They guarantee that their RAM exceeds Apple's 
> specs by a significant margin. I don't buy RAM (for myself) from anybody 
> else.
> 
>>>>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.
>>>
>>
>>Like I said, high quality RAM for high quality machines. You should put 
>>the goods in the goods. At least that's my philosophy.
> 
> 
> Lemme get this straight. In one post, you assert that Macs are more 
> expensive to upgrade and you use RAM from an overpriced supplier as an 
> example.

You say over-priced, fine. If I'm buying a BMW, I'm gonna put high end 
parts in it. You're suggesting that you'd put Suzuki quality parts in yours.

The high end RAM for high end PCs is LESS EXPENSIVE than the high end 
RAM for Apples.

There's NO double speak there. That's the fact. If you want to use cheap 
RAM from a lesser company, go right ahead. But you should save that for 
a different discussion. Save it for the low end Macs.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 10:06:43 PM

In article <_O4yc.14727$1L4.11429@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> >>>>That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
> >>>>Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a
> >>>G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
> >>
> >>No.
> > 
> > 
> > You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
> > 
> 
> I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend 
> another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster than a 
> G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect most 
> upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't really need it.
> 
> In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.

Well, if you want to call yourself a fool.... I clearly said that if one 
needs the speed.... and you said that you don't. I guess that leaves you 
out from being a fool, doesn't it?

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/10/2004 10:07:23 PM

George Graves wrote:
> In article <BG2yc.2590$Is6.1726@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> nikoli wrote:
>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>> nikoli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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) ???
>>>>
>>>> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB
>>>> limit to its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP
>>>> AMD PCs that have a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have
>>>> a few kilobytes of memory, but started with 128 bits and went up
>>>> from there.
>>>>
>>>> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0
>>>> is on the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM
>>>> you can address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit
>>>> computer outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64
>>>> bitness in a processor also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I would agree with this assertion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>>>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost
>>> from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>>
>> No.
>
> You're a fool.

You just accused me of being George Graves.

> Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.

No it's not.   The question is how much faster, and for how much more money.
Since there is no 64 bit Mac OS X, and most applications are still 32 bit
too, you're not likely to see much of  a speed increase, if any.

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/10/2004 10:08:23 PM

George Graves wrote:

> It's always a myth. And you can only gauge processors from the same
> family using it. Yes a 1.6 Gigaherz G5 is faster than a 1.0 GHz G4.
> All else being equal, the G5 would be 1.6X the G4. But all else ISN'T
> EQUAL. the G5 has architectural advantages over the G4 not expressed
> by the clock speed so the reality is that the 1.6 GHz G5 is possibly
> more than twice the speed of the 1 GHz G4 - I can't really say. Is a
> dual 2.5 GHz G5 faster than a dual 2.0 GHz G5 by 20%? Yes, they are
> the same processor and the same architecture. But is a 3.0 GHz
> Pentium IV faster than a single 2.5 GHz G5 chip? Not necessarily. The
> 2.5 GHz G5 might actually be faster than the Intel chip, then again
> it might not. THAT's what makes MegaHertz "just a myth."

what has this go to do with Linux?

warmonger (28)

6/10/2004 10:09:48 PM

Oxford wrote:

> nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>the "engineering" of the hardware and osx of course...
>>
>>
>>LOL, I thought the hardware was the exact same?
>>
>>BTW, I really like OSX... but I know it's not difference in the cost.
> 
> 
> the components are the same but how they are tied together, the design 
> of the ports/case/os is all engineered...

doesn't justify the extra $$$ for me... not when I've personally built 
comparable machines for well over $1K less than high end Macs.

I do like the G5 case... but there are much cooler/functional PC cases 
out there. Plus, they don't look like you bought it off the shelf.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 10:10:02 PM

Jeff Barber wrote:
>
> And neon lights.  Did I mention I want neon lights?

what has this got to do with Linux?

warmonger (28)

6/10/2004 10:10:27 PM

George Graves wrote:

> Well, if you want to call yourself a fool.... I clearly said that if
> one needs the speed.... and you said that you don't. I guess that
> leaves you out from being a fool, doesn't it?

what has this got to do with Linux, you great steaming git?

warmonger (28)

6/10/2004 10:11:15 PM

Edwin wrote:

> Since there is no 64 bit Mac OS X, and most applications are
> still 32 bit too, you're not likely to see much of  a speed increase,
> if any.

what has this got to do with Linux, asshole?

warmonger (28)

6/10/2004 10:13:13 PM

George Graves wrote:

> In article <_O4yc.14727$1L4.11429@okepread02>,
>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>>>That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>>>>>>Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a
>>>>>G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
>>>
>>
>>I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend 
>>another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster than a 
>>G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect most 
>>upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't really need it.
>>
>>In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.
> 
> 
> Well, if you want to call yourself a fool.... I clearly said that if one 
> needs the speed.... and you said that you don't. I guess that leaves you 
> out from being a fool, doesn't it?
> 

You should've used better judgement. You should've just axed the "You're 
a fool" comment. All the guy said was "no". He didn't think it's worth 
the upgrade. We never mentioned anyone "needing" the speed. Quit to the 
contrary actually, I said "Ok, but do you think the current G5s are 
worth the upgrade cost from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM 
???" Therefore, I'd argue that if you're not gonna take advantage of the 
increase in RAM usage, then you're not really in need of a huge speed boost.

Just wait til the real G5s come out next year. You'll see real 
performance boosts instead of all these imperceptible/theoretical boosts.

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 10:15:10 PM

Jeff Barber wrote:

> In article <BCECB4F2.541E1%snit-nospam@cableone.net>,
>  Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>>This just goes to show how much of a rip the original singe CPU G5 was.
>>
>>What tasks do you do with your computer?
> 
> 
> Web surf, e-mail, CSMA, and DVD movies.  Hopefully
> when Apple releases a triple-CPU, 5 GHz, liquid-cooled
> machine, then I can start listening to MP3's.
> 
> And neon lights.  Did I mention I want neon lights?

priceless!

spam7769 (280)

6/10/2004 10:17:29 PM

In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
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.

Papertape too frickin' good for you or what?  Goddam,
stuck-up WinTroll snob.

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 10:21:10 PM

In article <Y0Lxc.14519$1L4.9338@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@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

Yeah, like IE.  POS has been on my Mac for ages.

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 10:24:12 PM

In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> Nope, I'm a smart user that doesn't open every email attachment and 
> visit every compromised pr0n site. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Oooooh, lookit how he spelled porn.  That's the sign
of a REAL Linux user.  Everybody back off real slow
now and keep your hands in sight, we're dealing with
a professional here.  He's probably got "d00d" hidden
in his other hand.

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 10:27:03 PM

In article <UBLxc.14524$1L4.7403@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> > You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
> 
> Is that a joke?

In COLA maybe, but not in CSMA.  In CSMA, we deal
in cold, hard in-your-face facts.  So I ask you
again from my Performa 6400 OS 8.6, you need a
powerful machine to run Photoshop?

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 10:33:09 PM

In article <j75yc.316$oZ1.143@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Rummy the Dummy" <warmonger@intheovaloffice.gov> wrote:

> Steve Carroll wrote:
> >
> > What lies?
> 
> What has this got to do with Linux, and why are you crossposting it there,
> you complete fucking idiot?

Don't really care what it has to do with linux... but it seems someone 
almost as stupid as you crossposted to csma and I was replying to that 
post. If you don't like, blow yourself... or better yet, go blow Rummy.

Steve

-- 
Steve C

fretwizz4 (57)

6/10/2004 10:46:02 PM

In article <xz4yc.295$UI1.231@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Rummy the Dummy" <warmonger@intheovaloffice.gov> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <Es3yc.23$oX1.25585@news.uswest.net>, Oxford <csma@mac.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The thing is, for anyone who makes money with their computer, one
> >>> or two crashes probably cost more than the price difference between
> >>> name-brand memory and generic stuff. So the question is, is there
> >>> really a quality difference? I honestly don't know, but I assume
> >>> there's a reason Apple shipped my dual G5 from the factory with
> >>> Crucial RAM.
> >>
> >> no they didn't, crucial doesn't oem stuff... that was a 3rd party
> >> upgrade somewhere along the line...
> >
> > This was a dual 2 GHz G5 in a stock configuration purchased from
> > Apple's NYC retail store a couple of weeks after they started
> > shipping. I seriously doubt it was touched by any third party (except
> > maybe a shipping service) before they brought it around the counter
> > and gave it to me.
> 
> Why are you crossposting this to a Linux group?

I think the RAM vendor choice of a major OEM known for picking quality 
components might be of some interest to anyone who buys RAM, including 
Linux users.

-- 
"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

znu2 (353)

6/10/2004 10:48:10 PM

In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open 
> minded for 2 seconds.

You throw that word "open" around like it has special
meaning for you or something.

This post brought to you by PUN v1.0.
Suse 9.1 required.  256 MB RAM minimum.
Gnome optional.

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 10:52:15 PM

In article <clund-6D7A19.08394110062004@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> > > You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
> > 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.

Aw, man.  You used the ole "PhotoShop on Performa 6400"
before I did.  Now my post looks dated.

I really need to read all posts before replying.

(sniff)  I really miss that old Performa.  Slapped Linux
with twm on it once and it ran like a dream.  Didn't
get much done with it though and wiped it back to OS 8.x.
And now that you can get things done with Linux, they
run shit slower than XP.  Oh well, just a trollin' along...

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 11:07:57 PM

In article <9xUxc.14654$1L4.12690@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> >>>You need a powerful machine to run Photoshop?
> >>
> >>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.
> > 
> 
> 
> STFU already.

And then?

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 11:10:32 PM

Alan Baker wrote:

>
Incompletelyyyy<FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> Alan Baker wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>> >>> In article
>> >>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>> >>>>> In article
>> >>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>> >>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>>>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
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.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Only 20 Days Away!
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 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?  ;-)
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 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.
> 
>> 
>> > 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.

The "G4" and "G5" are *completely* different architectures, even
though they execute similar instruction sets.  The AMD Opteron and
Intel P4 execute similar instructions sets, yet are also completely
different architectures. You cannot compare either pair by the
clock speed alone, though the "G5" is significantly faster than the
"G4", even per-clock on most codes.

--

nospam21 (11323)

6/10/2004 11:21:26 PM

In article <OT_xc.14692$1L4.12992@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> > What's a "mac part"? Apart from the CPU, the parts are largely the 
> > same as in the Wintel world.
> > 
> 
> then what makes macs so much better and so much more expensive?

Well, it used to be color and form, but lately I think
we're headed for plumbing.

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 11:21:59 PM

In article <Yq%xc.14699$1L4.5728@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
wrote:

> > you are falling into the marketing trap... sure that "could" happen but 
> > it's pretty rare... just make sure what you have a life time warranty, 
> > which most everyone does... then you are all set...
> 
> 
> no thanks, I'll stick with the high end RAM for my high end machines

In CSMA, those are our lines.  Would you either stop pirating
them or pay the royalty, please.

And keep your stinkin' paws off of "You get what you pay for."
We've patented that one.

jefftedbarber (11)

6/10/2004 11:25:33 PM

ZnU wrote:

> In article <Zr%xc.1226$OG3.735@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> nikoli wrote:
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> >> Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article
>> >>> <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>> >>> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> In article
>> >>>>> <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>>>>>
news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
>> >>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> message
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >
>> > 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) ???
>> 
>> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB
>> limit to
>> its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs
>> that have
>> a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes
>> of memory, but started with 128 bits and went up from there.
>> 
>> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's
>> I/0 is on
>> the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you
>> can address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit
>> computer
>> outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in
>> a processor also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
>> 
>> 
>> > I would agree with this assertion.
>> 
>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> 
> It's fairly small for most desktop applications. They just don't
> work with much data that benefits from 64-bit representation.
> Obviously there are exceptions, but they're fairly uncommon, and
> will probably remain so.
> 
> The personal computer market seems to be moving to 64-bit because
> it's becoming fairly easy and painless, rather than because
> there's any pressing need.
> 
Oh, there's a need alright.  It may not be on the average desktop
*this* year, but it's right around the corner.  With even 1GB (or
less) of physical memory 64bit addressing is "interesting".  File
pointers are a prime example.  Another real need is virtual
storage.  If you run out of virtual address space, you're out (as
in crash-n-burn).  With most OSs these days you're not limited to
32bit addressing (4GB), rather 2GB is more common (gotta put real
hardware in there somewhere and then virtualize that) and even
1.5GB max physical on NT, IIRC.  

Yes, there are real reasons to go 64bit.  I did for exactly these
reasons. I don't expect to replace my system next year when 2GB
physical is more "normal" (read "cheaper";).

--

nospam21 (11323)

6/10/2004 11:30:56 PM

Jim Polaski wrote:

> In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>, nikoli
> <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> 
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>> 
>> > In article
>> > <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> >>"Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@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
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://www.apple.com/wwdc
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Only 20 Days Away!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>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?  ;-)
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 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 many PC's have a "Door"?

Mine does.  ;-)

>> > 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.

Advantage Opteron. The FSB is "only" 2x400MHz, but memory accesses
don't go over the processor bus (actually both in a dual G5).

--

nospam21 (11323)

6/10/2004 11:41:40 PM

Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli
> <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>>  nikoli <spam@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.
>
> And you still don't have system level color management to match Color
> sync. And you still have to run Windows.


So what dumbass.   SMART people manage to get Win XP to work WONDERFULLY
with color management.  Another IMAGINED problem by Jimbo.

nospam21 (11323)

6/11/2004 12:52:22 AM

George Graves wrote:
> In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli
> <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>
>>> In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli
>>> <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>>>> nikoli <spam@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.
>>>
>>>
>>> And you still don't have system level color management to match
>>> Color sync. And you still have to run Windows.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open
>> minded for 2 seconds.
>
> 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.


Thats only because you're a dumbass.   More intelligent people have NO
problems.

nospam21 (11323)

6/11/2004 12:53:10 AM

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:04:52 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> 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.

This is not the first time you brought up this. And here is the
answer:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com

I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
management.

Just to quote:

===============================================================
From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 

In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
>> > I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
>> > possible on Windows platform?
>>
>> Yes, it is. I do it.
>>
>>
>
>Me too!

And me...

-- 
Del Tree

yxz (5)

6/11/2004 1:16:55 AM

Jeff Barber wrote:

> In article <C4Lxc.14520$1L4.971@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Nope, I'm a smart user that doesn't open every email attachment and 
>>visit every compromised pr0n site. Sorry to burst your bubble.
> 
> 
> Oooooh, lookit how he spelled porn.  That's the sign
> of a REAL Linux user.  Everybody back off real slow
> now and keep your hands in sight, we're dealing with
> a professional here.  He's probably got "d00d" hidden
> in his other hand.

That's right buddy... just back off and nobody gets hurt!!!

spam7769 (280)

6/11/2004 3:01:21 AM


yxz wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:04:52 GMT, George Graves
> <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> 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.
> 
> 
> This is not the first time you brought up this. And here is the
> answer:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com
> 
> I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
> management.
> 
> Just to quote:
> 
> ===============================================================
> From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
> Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 
> 
> In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
> Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> 
>>"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>>news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
>>
>>>>I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
>>>>possible on Windows platform?
>>>
>>>Yes, it is. I do it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Me too!
> 
> 
> And me...
> 

That's nice.  Now what software do you use in order to accomplish this??

mist (10656)

6/11/2004 4:43:57 AM


John wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
>>In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli
>><spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli
>>>><spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jim Polaski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
>>>>>>nikoli <spam@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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And you still don't have system level color management to match
>>>>Color sync. And you still have to run Windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open
>>>minded for 2 seconds.
>>
>>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.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats only because you're a dumbass.   More intelligent people have NO
> problems.
>

But you seem to be having problems... therefore, you are less intelligent.

mist (10656)

6/11/2004 4:45:03 AM

In article <TX4yc.14734$1L4.13547@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > In article <GR_xc.14690$1L4.6404@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>George Graves wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>In article <4TUxc.14661$1L4.919@okepread02>, nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> 
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Snit wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"nikoli" <spam@spamsux.com> wrote in hsUxc.14651$1L4.12182@okepread02 on
> >>>>>6/10/04 12:53 AM:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>C Lund wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>In article <iYKxc.14515$1L4.4394@okepread02>,
> >>>>>>>nikoli <spam@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?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>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+&
> >>>>di
> >>>>st
> >>>>ributor=0&submit1=Search
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.ec.kingston.com/ecom/configurator/memtype.asp
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Kingston is super expensive
> >>>
> >>>Try OWC
> >>>
> >>>http://tinyurl.com/3h2w5
> >>
> >>I used Kingston because they make high quality RAM. I wanted to use high 
> >>quality RAM because were talking about high quality machines. I wouldn't 
> >>put anything but high quality RAM in my $3,000 MAC... if I owned one 
> >>that is.
> > 
> > 
> > OWC RAM is high quality. They guarantee that their RAM exceeds Apple's 
> > specs by a significant margin. I don't buy RAM (for myself) from anybody 
> > else.
> > 
> >>>>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.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Like I said, high quality RAM for high quality machines. You should put 
> >>the goods in the goods. At least that's my philosophy.
> > 
> > 
> > Lemme get this straight. In one post, you assert that Macs are more 
> > expensive to upgrade and you use RAM from an overpriced supplier as an 
> > example.
> 
> You say over-priced, fine. If I'm buying a BMW, I'm gonna put high end 
> parts in it. You're suggesting that you'd put Suzuki quality parts in yours.
> 
> The high end RAM for high end PCs is LESS EXPENSIVE than the high end 
> RAM for Apples.

It's the SAME RAM

> There's NO double speak there. That's the fact. If you want to use cheap 
> RAM from a lesser company, go right ahead. But you should save that for 
> a different discussion. Save it for the low end Macs.

That makes no sense.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/11/2004 5:25:46 AM

In article <10ci0jmjrrnjfe4@news.supernews.com>,
 "John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <CRRxc.14644$1L4.1997@okepread02>, nikoli
> > <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <%%Kxc.14517$1L4.5124@okepread02>, nikoli
> >>> <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Jim Polaski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <PZHxc.14206$1L4.10876@okepread02>,
> >>>>> nikoli <spam@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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> And you still don't have system level color management to match
> >>> Color sync. And you still have to run Windows.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> And it works great. I'm sure you'd be impressed... if you'd be open
> >> minded for 2 seconds.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> Thats only because you're a dumbass.   More intelligent people have NO
> problems.

So now this idiot is an expert on publishing as well. Is there no end to 
Johnny's self-proclaimed expertise?

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/11/2004 5:40:48 AM

ZnU <znu@acedsl.com> wrote:

> This was a dual 2 GHz G5 in a stock configuration purchased from Apple's 
> NYC retail store a couple of weeks after they started shipping. I 
> seriously doubt it was touched by any third party (except maybe a 
> shipping service) before they brought it around the counter and gave it 
> to me.

I believe you ZnU, just sounds fishy... i've opened hundreds of G4/G5's 
and have never seen Crucial Ram come from build to order or stock 
configs... chalk it up to strangeness...

csma (1175)

6/11/2004 5:51:29 AM

In article <rZ4yc.23048$eH1.10120619@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> > You're a fool.
> 
> You just accused me of being George Graves.
> 
> > Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
> 
> No it's not.   The question is how much faster, and for how much more money.
> Since there is no 64 bit Mac OS X, and most applications are still 32 bit
> too, you're not likely to see much of  a speed increase, if any.

Are you claiming that a G5 isn't faster than a G4? Are you sure you want to 
claim that?

-- 
Sandman[.net]

mr249 (3247)

6/11/2004 6:07:19 AM

In article <Rz1yc.14710$1L4.14363@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > In article <H0%xc.14695$1L4.5409@okepread02>,
> >  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>>>>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?
> >>cuz I'm not a total douche user.
> > That's no protection. These days you can get viruses just by clicking 
> > on the wrong URL.
> i'm willing to take the risk... the odds are heavily in my favor... 
> (note, I use Mozilla for this reason)

You use Windows - so the odds are against you.

> > And thinking you're safe when you're swimming in a sea of vermin is 
> > delusional. The only way you can be secure from viruses etc when using 
> > Windows is by never going online.
> >>see my reply to Mr. Graves.
> > Yeah, I've seen 'em.
> then you know that what you said doesn't apply to me

Yes it does.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/11/2004 8:08:37 AM

In article <jefftedbarber-BC2115.19074810062004@news.verizon.net>,
 Jeff Barber <jefftedbarber@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Aw, man.  You used the ole "PhotoShop on Performa 6400"
> before I did.  Now my post looks dated.

Yeah - just like my G4 makes my old Performa look dated.. ;)

> I really need to read all posts before replying.

> (sniff)  I really miss that old Performa.

My parents are currently using my old Performa as a server. Not sure 
what I'll do with it when they're done with it.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/11/2004 8:21:30 AM

In article <tj1ic0d837naua0dcm17ib5rdop8eu0aa3@4ax.com>,
 yxz <yxz@nomail.com> wrote:

> I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
> management.

> Just to quote:

> ===============================================================
> From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
> Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 
> 
> In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
> Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> >"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
> >news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
> >> > I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
> >> > possible on Windows platform?
> >> Yes, it is. I do it.
> >Me too!
> And me...

So a bunch of people yelling "me too" proves you can do colour 
management on Windows?

I'm not saying you *can't*, mind you, but how much effort do you have 
to put into it? How good is it?

> -- 
> Del Tree

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/11/2004 8:23:58 AM

In article <M_4yc.308$IS1.106@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Rummy the Dummy" <warmonger@intheovaloffice.gov> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> 
> > It's always a myth. And you can only gauge processors from the same
> > family using it. Yes a 1.6 Gigaherz G5 is faster than a 1.0 GHz G4.
> > All else being equal, the G5 would be 1.6X the G4. But all else ISN'T
> > EQUAL. the G5 has architectural advantages over the G4 not expressed
> > by the clock speed so the reality is that the 1.6 GHz G5 is possibly
> > more than twice the speed of the 1 GHz G4 - I can't really say. Is a
> > dual 2.5 GHz G5 faster than a dual 2.0 GHz G5 by 20%? Yes, they are
> > the same processor and the same architecture. But is a 3.0 GHz
> > Pentium IV faster than a single 2.5 GHz G5 chip? Not necessarily. The
> > 2.5 GHz G5 might actually be faster than the Intel chip, then again
> > it might not. THAT's what makes MegaHertz "just a myth."
> 
> what has this go to do with Linux?

That you can run Linux on all the above processors?

You'd be better off by kill-filing this thread rather than posting a 
zillion complaints about it, because all you're doing is adding to the 
noise.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/11/2004 8:28:46 AM

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:23:58 +0200, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no>
wrote:

>In article <tj1ic0d837naua0dcm17ib5rdop8eu0aa3@4ax.com>,
> yxz <yxz@nomail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
>> management.
>
>> Just to quote:
>
>> ===============================================================
>> From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
>> Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 
>> 
>> In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
>> Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>> >"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>> >news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
>> >> > I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
>> >> > possible on Windows platform?
>> >> Yes, it is. I do it.
>> >Me too!
>> And me...
>
>So a bunch of people yelling "me too" proves you can do colour 
>management on Windows?
>

You left out the most important part of my message. Here is it again:

This is not the first time you brought up this. And here is the
answer:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com

I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
management.

Just to quote:

===============================================================
From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 

In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
>> > I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
>> > possible on Windows platform?
>>
>> Yes, it is. I do it.
>>
>>
>
>Me too!

And me...

-- 
Del Tree




>I'm not saying you *can't*, mind you, but how much effort do you have 
>to put into it? How good is it?
>
>> -- 
>> Del Tree

yxz (5)

6/11/2004 1:13:14 PM

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:43:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>
wrote:

>
>
>yxz wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:04:52 GMT, George Graves
>> <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> This is not the first time you brought up this. And here is the
>> answer:
>> 
>> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com
>> 
>> I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
>> management.
>> 
>> Just to quote:
>> 
>> ===============================================================
>> From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
>> Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 
>> 
>> In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
>> Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>> 
>>>"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>>>news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
>>>
>>>>>I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
>>>>>possible on Windows platform?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, it is. I do it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Me too!
>> 
>> 
>> And me...
>> 
>
>That's nice.  Now what software do you use in order to accomplish this??

Why don't you read:

http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com

yxz (5)

6/11/2004 1:13:39 PM

In article <utbjc05m6md73a8vbrud0fa0hm5i97qvp7@4ax.com>, yxz
<yxz@nomail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:23:58 +0200, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <tj1ic0d837naua0dcm17ib5rdop8eu0aa3@4ax.com>,
> > yxz <yxz@nomail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
> >> management.
> >
> >> Just to quote:
> >
> >> ===============================================================
> >> From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
> >> Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 
> >> 
> >> In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
> >> Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
> >> >"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
> >> >news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
> >> >> > I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
> >> >> > possible on Windows platform?
> >> >> Yes, it is. I do it.
> >> >Me too!
> >> And me...
> >
> >So a bunch of people yelling "me too" proves you can do colour 
> >management on Windows?
> >
> 
> You left out the most important part of my message. Here is it again:
> 
> This is not the first time you brought up this. And here is the
> answer:
> 
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%40
> 4ax.com
> 
> I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
> management.
> 

WOW!  6 whole messages in 2002 and the myth is over!  <G>

That's one of the funniest things I've read in some time in this group.

<<snip>>

Lloyd

lloydparsons (106)

6/11/2004 1:26:34 PM

In article <VDiyc.734$KZ.642@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Prez Shrub" <me@toostupidtobepresident.com> wrote:

> Who the fuck cares, you dumb dweeb?

Your mother, maybe?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/11/2004 2:47:12 PM


yxz wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 22:43:57 -0600, GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>yxz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 07:04:52 GMT, George Graves
>>><gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is not the first time you brought up this. And here is the
>>>answer:
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com
>>>
>>>I think it's time to end the myth that windows cannot do color
>>>management.
>>>
>>>Just to quote:
>>>
>>>===============================================================
>>>From: Del Tree (del@spamenot.freeuk.com)
>>>Subject: Re: Is color management possible on Windows platform? 
>>>
>>>In message <LMtu9.22278$862.21452@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>, Dick 
>>>Lodge <ctp@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Miguel Tavares" <miguelmedalha@sapo.pt> wrote in message
>>>>news:1035602841.196956@spynews3...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I'd like to hear more opinions on following. Is color management
>>>>>>possible on Windows platform?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, it is. I do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Me too!
>>>
>>>
>>>And me...
>>>
>>
>>That's nice.  Now what software do you use in order to accomplish this??
> 
> 
> Why don't you read:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%404ax.com

Are  you trying to say that Adobe is the software to accomplish this??

mist (10656)

6/11/2004 3:04:19 PM

In article <Zr%xc.1226$OG3.735@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> nikoli wrote:
> > Edwin wrote:
> >> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> >>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> >
> > 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) ???
> 
> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB limit to
> its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP AMD PCs that have
> a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have a few kilobytes of memory,
> but started with 128 bits and went up from there.

Another thing about which you are wrong. Mainframes didn't start with 
128 bit processing.

<http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP2030.htm
l>

The IBM System/360; the very definition of the first mainframe.

8 bit logic circuits with 32 bit general registers and 64 bit floating 
point registers.

Wrong, Edwin. Again.

> 
> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0 is on
> the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM you can
> address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit computer
> outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64 bitness in a processor
> also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.

And if you have less than 4GB of RAM installed, do you think there is 
anywhere *near* enough stuff that you'd run out of addresses to map I/O?

And please, tell me how 64-bittedness allows it to have a more advance 
instruction set architecture (this should be good!).

<snip>

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/11/2004 5:55:37 PM

In article <_O4yc.14727$1L4.11429@okepread02>,
 nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:

> >>>>That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
> >>>>Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost from a
> >>>G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
> >>
> >>No.
> > 
> > 
> > You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
> > 
> 
> I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend 
> another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster than a 
> G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect most 
> upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't really need it.
> 
> In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.

It *is* that much faster than a G4. Just look at some tests/benchmarks.

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/11/2004 5:56:30 PM

In article <rZ4yc.23048$eH1.10120619@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <BG2yc.2590$Is6.1726@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
> >  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> nikoli wrote:
> >>> Edwin wrote:
> >>>> nikoli wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Edwin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In article <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
> >>>>>>>>> <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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) ???
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB
> >>>> limit to its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit HP
> >>>> AMD PCs that have a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to have
> >>>> a few kilobytes of memory, but started with 128 bits and went up
> >>>> from there.
> >>>>
> >>>> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's I/0
> >>>> is on the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how much RAM
> >>>> you can address, ones that could allow a slower clock speed 64 bit
> >>>> computer outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit computer.   64
> >>>> bitness in a processor also allows it to have a more advanced ISA.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I would agree with this assertion.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
> >>>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost
> >>> from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
> >>
> >> No.
> >
> > You're a fool.
> 
> You just accused me of being George Graves.
> 
> > Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
> 
> No it's not.   The question is how much faster, and for how much more money.
> Since there is no 64 bit Mac OS X, and most applications are still 32 bit
> too, you're not likely to see much of  a speed increase, if any.

Actually, people have seen *plenty* of speed increase.

-- 
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."

alangbaker (2048)

6/11/2004 5:57:21 PM

nikoli wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
>> In article <_O4yc.14727$1L4.11429@okepread02>,
>>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>>>>>>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small
>>>>>>> bonus."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost
>>>>>> from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the
>>>> speed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend
>>> another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster
>>> than a G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect
>>> most upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't
>>> really need it.
>>>
>>> In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.
>>
>>
>> Well, if you want to call yourself a fool.... I clearly said that if
>> one needs the speed.... and you said that you don't. I guess that
>> leaves you out from being a fool, doesn't it?
>>
>
>
> You should've used better judgement. You should've just axed the
> "You're a fool" comment. All the guy said was "no". He didn't think
> it's worth the upgrade. We never mentioned anyone "needing" the
> speed.

George isn't calling me a "fool"  because of what I said in this thread,
he's doing it because I criticized him for what he wrote in another thread.
Once you get on George's bad side, anything you write are the words of a
"fool" to him, even if they're perfectly sensible.

[snip]

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/11/2004 9:37:09 PM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <rZ4yc.23048$eH1.10120619@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <BG2yc.2590$Is6.1726@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>  "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> nikoli wrote:
>>>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>>>> nikoli wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edwin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <FpIxc.21753$eH1.9854522@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>, "Edwin"
>>>>>>>>> <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alan Baker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <biHxc.21717$eH1.9842680@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-3D5DCE.09311209062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ZPGxc.21699$eH1.9837300@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-1F9A30.09032909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <npGxc.21690$eH1.9832896@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:alangbaker-6AF4F8.08500909062004@news.telus.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ndGxc.21683$eH1.9831194@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Edwin" <thorne25@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Steve Mackay" <steve_mackay@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message news:pan.2004.06.09.15.36.42.0@hotmail.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 08:42:27 -0600, Oxford wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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) ???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider Sparc stations.  My Sun Ultra 5 workstation has a 512 MB
>>>>>> limit to its RAM, yet it has a 64 bit processor.  Or new 64 bit
>>>>>> HP AMD PCs that have a limit of 2 GB of RAM.  Mainframes used to
>>>>>> have a few kilobytes of memory, but started with 128 bits and
>>>>>> went up from there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More is on the address bus than memory.   All of the computer's
>>>>>> I/0 is on the memory map.  So there are advantages beyond  how
>>>>>> much RAM you can address, ones that could allow a slower clock
>>>>>> speed 64 bit computer outperform a faster clock speed 32 bit
>>>>>> computer.   64 bitness in a processor also allows it to have a
>>>>>> more advanced ISA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would agree with this assertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>>>>>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small bonus."
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost
>>>>> from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>
>>> You're a fool.
>>
>> You just accused me of being George Graves.
>>
>>> Faster is always worth it to those who need the speed.
>>
>> No it's not.   The question is how much faster, and for how much
>> more money. Since there is no 64 bit Mac OS X, and most applications
>> are still 32 bit too, you're not likely to see much of  a speed
>> increase, if any.
>
> Actually, people have seen *plenty* of speed increase.

I'm sure your lack of documentation was an inadvertant slip, which you will
rectify in short order...

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/11/2004 9:39:24 PM

In article <9Cpyc.23464$eH1.10341458@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> nikoli wrote:
> > George Graves wrote:
> >
> >> In article <_O4yc.14727$1L4.11429@okepread02>,
> >>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
> >>>>>>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small
> >>>>>>> bonus."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost
> >>>>>> from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the
> >>>> speed.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend
> >>> another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster
> >>> than a G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect
> >>> most upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't
> >>> really need it.
> >>>
> >>> In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.
> >>
> >>
> >> Well, if you want to call yourself a fool.... I clearly said that if
> >> one needs the speed.... and you said that you don't. I guess that
> >> leaves you out from being a fool, doesn't it?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You should've used better judgement. You should've just axed the
> > "You're a fool" comment. All the guy said was "no". He didn't think
> > it's worth the upgrade. We never mentioned anyone "needing" the
> > speed.
> 
> George isn't calling me a "fool"  because of what I said in this thread,
> he's doing it because I criticized him for what he wrote in another thread.
> Once you get on George's bad side, anything you write are the words of a
> "fool" to him, even if they're perfectly sensible.


Self aggrandizement is another symptom of clinical paranoia. You see, 
Edwin, when I made that comment, I wasn't even thinking of you, much 
less addressing you.

-- 
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

gmgravesnos (365)

6/11/2004 11:12:54 PM

In article <IEiyc.735$331.288@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Prez Shrub" <me@toostupidtobepresident.com> wrote:
> C Lund wrote:
> > You'd be better off by kill-filing this thread rather than posting a
> > zillion complaints about it, because all you're doing is adding to the
> > noise.
> You foul up our group, and for free I'll foul up yours, asshole.

Grow up.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/12/2004 7:15:20 AM

In article <utbjc05m6md73a8vbrud0fa0hm5i97qvp7@4ax.com>,
 yxz <yxz@nomail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 10:23:58 +0200, C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no>
> wrote:
> >In article <tj1ic0d837naua0dcm17ib5rdop8eu0aa3@4ax.com>,
> > yxz <yxz@nomail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > possible on Windows platform?
> >> >> Yes, it is. I do it.
> >> >Me too!
> >> And me...
> >So a bunch of people yelling "me too" proves you can do colour 
> >management on Windows?
> You left out the most important part of my message. Here is it again:

> http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=cgghru8h6km1rfih090m54s589gc0crs45%40
> 4ax.com

So, a link to a thread in which people say "me too" was the most 
important part of your message?

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

clund (603)

6/12/2004 7:18:26 AM

"George Graves" <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:gmgravesnos-2F8436.16125411062004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <9Cpyc.23464$eH1.10341458@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> nikoli wrote:
>> > George Graves wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <_O4yc.14727$1L4.11429@okepread02>,
>> >>  nikoli <spam@spamsux.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> That isn't really the assertion I was making.   I was opposing
>> >>>>>>> Alan's notion that the move to 64 bits was only a "small
>> >>>>>>> bonus."
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Ok, but do you think the current G5s are worth the upgrade cost
>> >>>>>> from a G4 if you don't plan on using more RAM ???
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> No.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You're a fool. Faster is always worth it to those who need the
>> >>>> speed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I guess I'm a fool then because I don't see a legit reason to spend
>> >>> another $3k for a current G5 when it's not all that much faster
>> >>> than a G4. Some one else may "need the speed"... though I suspect
>> >>> most upgrading from the G4 really just want the speed and don't
>> >>> really need it.
>> >>>
>> >>> In 6 - 12 months it might be well worth the upgrade... for me.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Well, if you want to call yourself a fool.... I clearly said that if
>> >> one needs the speed.... and you said that you don't. I guess that
>> >> leaves you out from being a fool, doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > You should've used better judgement. You should've just axed the
>> > "You're a fool" comment. All the guy said was "no". He didn't think
>> > it's worth the upgrade. We never mentioned anyone "needing" the
>> > speed.
>>
>> George isn't calling me a "fool"  because of what I said in this thread,
>> he's doing it because I criticized him for what he wrote in another 
>> thread.
>> Once you get on George's bad side, anything you write are the words of a
>> "fool" to him, even if they're perfectly sensible.
>
>
> Self aggrandizement is another symptom of clinical paranoia.

So you recognize your symptoms.  That's good.  Realizing you have a problem 
is the first step to a cure.

>You see,
> Edwin, when I made that comment, I wasn't even thinking of you, much
> less addressing you.

Even though you answered my post?   You're really off the map now, George.

-- 
Edwin

thorne25 (2589)

6/13/2004 12:02:03 AM

comp.os.linux.advocacy

118157 articles.

6 followers.

201 Replies

34 Views

(page loaded in 1.406 seconds)

Similiar Articles:

Restoring data only from backup using CCC? - comp.sys.mac.apps ...
A few questions about using iTunes to create a digital jukebox on my Mac G5. ... If I create new user names (and one of them isn't the old user name), can I just ...

maintenance attempt - g5 fan loud now for 4hrs? - comp.sys.mac ...
Power Mac G5 won't boot & loud fans: Apple Support Communities I ran "repair disk permissions" anyway, and ... Re: Power Mac G5 won't boot & loud fans ... management ...

OS X won't accept my username/password - comp.sys.mac.system ...
What's going on here? > PowerMac G5, OS X 10.4.11. If it happened to me, I'd go ... OS X won't accept my username/password - comp.sys.mac.system ... This behavior is new ...

iMac G5 iSight / power supply - comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc ...
Bought a new SMD-fuse - ZAP! For sure now - it is dead. Florian ... iMac G5 iSight / power supply - comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc ... Hi NG, I have dead iMac G5 20" iSight.

Turning up the sound on internal speakers of iMac G5 - comp.sys ...
... the internal speakers of the iMac G5. I occasionally listen to some old 1940's ... sound on internal speakers of iMac G5 ... Problem using Yahoo Mail on new iMac - CNET Mac ...

iMac G5 rev3 iSight HD replacement - comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc ...
I cut a 2" long, 3/8" piece and taped the sensor to the edge of the new HD. ... iMAC email problem - comp.sys.mac.apps iMac G5 rev3 iSight HD replacement - comp.sys.mac ...

Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/mysql ...
... mysql-5.1.40- osx10.5-powerpc-64bit/data/Library/Logs/.err: No such file or directory I found the log file ,janis-roughs-power-mac-g5.local.err, here is the latest ...

How to disassemble a G5 Dual (2004) ? - comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc ...
How to disassemble a G5 Dual (2004) ? - comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc ..... and I do not believe ... I have a new PowerMac G5 which I'm also playing with ... I can't wait to get ...

Need help getting a mac to print to a Toshiba eStudio650 copier ...
Thanks There's a 3rd-party utility that will open the ... printer already setup, you'll have to create a new ... Power Mac G5 :: G5 Printing Stops When Printing To A ...

Latest Version of OS X for an 867 MHz G4 Quicksilver - comp.sys ...
Seems 10.5 is the last release to support G4 and G5 systems and your system ... Ended up buying a new 24" display for $900+change at the Apple ... Latest Version of OS X ...

RESIGNATION OF STEVE JOBS!! - comp.sys.mac.system
The PPC G5 was a great machine, no doubt about it. Apple's customers couldn't get enough of them. ... use EFI instead of a BIOS as in the developer's model. When each new ...

screen moves when I move the mouse - comp.sys.mac.apps
This is a brand new > > development and ... moves when I move the mouse - comp.sys.mac.apps I have an IMAC G5 Intel ... Help!! my mac's screen is moving with the mouse!!?

loginwindow (not responding) - comp.sys.mac.apps
I have a PM G5(Dual 2.0/1 Gig/ RevA), running 10.4.8 ... loginwindow (not responding) - comp.sys.mac.apps Hopefully ... computer appears to be functioning ... Try creating a new ...

Install Error: Mac X 10.4.11 - comp.databases.mysql
Attempting to install the 5.0.45.pkg on a Mac 10.4.11 Firewire machine. The install ... I have tried deleting the dmg file and getting a new copy. 3. I have deleted the Dir ...

Migration Assistant? - comp.sys.mac.apps
The main problem is with Apple's applications that are part of the OS and have ... changes in the Library data when they release a > new major version of Mac OS X. The new ...

Apple - Mac Pro - The fastest, most powerful Mac ever.
Mac Pro. With up to 12 cores of processing power, it’s the fastest Mac ever. ... If you have a new Mac and OS X Mountain Lion isn't installed, you may qualify ...

Apple - iMac - The ultimate all-in-one desktop computer.
With FaceTime for Mac and the new FaceTime HD camera, you can make full-screen HD video calls that are astonishingly crisp. And a new widescreen format means everyone can ...

7/29/2012 1:36:58 AM