Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#26 2003-02-06 5:25 pm
- thugmoni
- Member
- From: San Ramon, CA USA
- Registered: 2001-05-09
- Posts: 1845
Re: Apple's 2003 Blitz
that's the problem. the updates suck.
Is it just me, or is everyone else tired of double time? You're an annoying pest and you shouldn't be hanging around macaddict.com forums. Seriously man, get a life.
thugmoni
Intel iMac / 10.4.8 (at home)
G5 1.6 / 10.3.8 (work)
G4 Dual 1.25 / 10.3.8 (work)
eMac 1.25 / 10.3.8 (work)
Offline
#27 2003-02-06 10:54 pm
- mediocresau
- Forum Default
- From: Mediocre, Honolulu, HI
- Registered: 2002-09-24
- Posts: 3567
- Website
Re: Apple's 2003 Blitz
Is no one else a wee bit worried that the hopes and claims heaped upon the IBM 970 might be a tad unrealistic?
Actually, I'm bloody worried about so much talk about the IBM chip. It would seem that the Mac community has a lot riding on it. Yet, it is still not officially part of Apple. And so far, no one has been able to grant a affirmative on its status.
Well, that's just my two more cents. GO APPLE! 
Offline
#28 2003-02-07 12:28 am
Re: Apple's 2003 Blitz
It'd be kind like the introduction of the G4, then? 
One day: BAM! Graphite towers with the great new G4 in them.
Anyway, I can't see why people keep making all these assumptions based on the Spec int/fp scores. 'We' (consumer-level PPC) haven't had a higher rated processor since the 604, but the G3s and G4s were still a lot faster. As long as the benchmark scores beat those of current 7455s, we're happier.
For people who run benchmarks all day, it's obvious that you should get a Athlon 64/Operton/Hammerhead/whatevercoolnamewe'recallingittoday.
Offline
