A source in the know on Apple's current chip plans for 2003 sent us some interesting information. According to the source, the next revision of the Motorola G4+ PowerPC, the 7457, will top out at 1.33 or 1.4GHz (1.0GHz, 1.17GHz, 1.33GHz, 1.40GHz?) in February 2003, and will stick there until July 2003, when another 7457 revision should arrive, promising to push the chip up to a more respectable 1.83GHz (1.50GHz, 1.67GHz, 1.83GHz). This situation is somewhat painful for Apple, whose top-clocked machine has used a 1.25GHz G4 for almost half a year now already. The 7457 does have some other bonuses, like a total of 512 KB of L2 cache (from 256 KB) and support for 4 MB of L3 cache (up from 2 MB), so Macs should get a boost in memory performance from that alone. As well, the 7457 will be produced on a .13 micron SOI (Silicon-On-Insulator) process. Some of that information has already been leaked elsewhere on the Web, but the source does mention that future Motorola 7457RM chips at 2GHz and better will be aimed at Apple iMacs, not Power Macs. From what I could tell, the 7457RM chip may possibly have a built-in memory interface, but it was a bit unclear from the roadmaps. On IBM's involvement with Apple, our source stated that IBM is making a large volume of PowerPC 970 test chips available sooner than expected for Apple, and that Apple has “… many prototype machines based on the 970 from engineering samples IBM is providing.” The PowerPC 970 is expected to reach 1.8-2.0GHz in Q3 2003, with the source noting a July 2003 date, which–in my estimation–may be an introduction at the Summer Macworld in New York. Future IBM PowerPC chips include the Power5-based PowerPC 980 at around 3GHz arriving in Q3 2004, and in 2006 the Power6-based PowerPC 990. IBM's PowerPC 970 activity with Apple is quite interesting at this point, and more interesting may be Motorola's plans to achieve a 1.83GHz PowerPC G4 chip in Q3 2003 … just at the same time that IBM's 1.8GHz PowerPC 970 may be introduced in Apple machines. Is Motorola still in the race for Apple's fastest machines? Even if Motorola can achieve these goals with their chips, I'm guessing that IBM's PowerPC will have better performance at the same speed and that Motorola chips will be relegated to the iMac line eventually.
USER COMMENTS 135 comment(s)
| Note (1:55pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) The estimated SPECint and SPECfp figures given on the IBM website are for the 1.8G chip. It'll be interesting to see what the numbers are for the 2G chip, especially for a 2-way system in a powermac. Doesn't sound like the 2G is too far off. While intel's roadmap is leveling off, it looks promising that this chip is headed for 3G relatively soon. Maybe the future of personal computing is in a wide, shallow, efficient architecture rather than the current intel way of doing things: cram as many transistors as possible onto a big wafer with a high wattage, and do everything possible to crank that GHz speed up so you can impress people with bigger numbers. - by clone206 |
| IBM & Motorola (2:43pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Why Apple still uses Motorola is beyond me! Motorola hasn't shipped anything amazing in a long time! Now that they have some competition from IBM, they are going to ramp up their dead chip. I say drop Motorola all together and go with IBM. The Power4 is an awesome chip, and IBM will surely keep coming out with bigger and better chips for their servers. - by Batman |
| Apple never ahead always behind! (3:03pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) “This situation is somewhat painful for Apple who's top clocked machine has used a 1.25GHz G4 for almost half a year now already.” That's right you Macheads! When your new Motorola or IBM comes out at 1.8 or 2 Ghz what will be out for PC's from AMD and INTEL (Opteron, Hammer, Itanium 2 64…)? Most likely 4 - 5 Ghz with the next stage in hyperthreading technology. Apple… overpriced, overhyped and always behind. I could see in now from digitalvideoediting.com “Power Mac v.s. P5/AMD Hammer — Gets slaughtered again even with a 1.8 - 2.0 PowerPC” Ha ha ha ha… - by I laugh at you Mac! |
| Inaccuracy in report (3:25pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) “This situation is somewhat painful for Apple who's top clocked machine has used a 1.25GHz G4 for almost half a year now already.” Try 3 months. The Dual 1.25 GHz Powermac was anounced at the end of August and Shipped at the end of September. - by HughesFan |
| Is it all about clock speed? (3:27pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I am unhappy that Apple has to use Motorola chips and that both IBM and Motorola are behind in clock speed. But lets not forget that when we nbuy our cars, is the only thing we think about Horsepower? The Mac needs faster clock speedd but today just as they are they whip the pants off of the wintel boxes with the OS, software and hardware- thats not enough? Give me a break! - by Sammy Carr |
| Apple chips slower … (3:27pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) .. but this is becoming something of a problem for Intel, as well. These super-fast chips suck power, need lots of cooling, and are losing support in the corporate world (reportedly Google is not interested in the Itanium2, because they have gigantic power bills, and they may be looking into running Transmeta chips on their computing farms). The competition may get more interesting. I, for one, hope that IBM/Apple focus more on the whole package than just clock speed. - by Nonesuch |
| Inaccuracy in Comment (3:30pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) “That's right you Macheads! When your new Motorola or IBM comes out at 1.8 or 2 Ghz what will be out for PC's from AMD and INTEL (Opteron, Hammer, Itanium 2 64…)?” I heard the Athlon 64 will debut at 2.0 GHz and should be the cream of the crop desktop x86 CPU at that time. The PowerPC 970 should debut a few months later at 1.8 GHz. Oooooooh…big difference. Their both still slower than my 2.4 GHz cordless phone. - by OlsonFan |
| Do you need a 100W 4GHz P4? (3:35pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) So who here can honestly say that they'll NEED a 4 GHz P4 and their current 2 GHz chip will be too slow in a year or two? My point is that for most people a 2 GHz PPC970 will do the job equally as well as a 4 GHz P4 or whatever there will be in a year. Given that serious Mac pros will use a dual 970 setup anyway, it's a moot point that Intel will have a processor running at twice the frequency as the 970. I just bought a iBook with a 800 MHz G3 and I do some semi serious number crunching as well, it serves me fine. BTW, how much power would a 4 GHz P4 consume? 100W? For notebook applications, I'll take a 19W 1GHz PPC970 over a 100W 4GHz P4 anyday. - by mariner77 |
| Apple's processor rut and the IBM way out (3:37pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Anyone who thinks that running an Intel chip at 4 -5 GHz is going to be processing heaven must drive a 4-banger for fun. “Hyperthreading” wasn't invented at Intel, and is a way to get more out of all those wasted processor cycles (Intel processors are the legacy of the IBM DisplayWriter after all). Clock for clock, AMD processors are more efficient and powerful than Ps. But, even AMD has realized they have to do better than just crank up clock speeds for the sake of marketing idiocy. The Power family of processors was designed from the top down to fulfill HPC server requirements first. The consumer PowerPCs are 32-bit subset of that. They don't carry all the overhead of the Intel chips. What we can expect with the 970 is something closer to what the big boys enjoy in system/processor balance and performance. When you attain that, superfluos GHz rating are just that. Don't believe it? Just look at all the really big HPCs. Most of them are running Power4, Alpha, PA-RISC, MIPS, SPARC….even Itanium (incompatible with IA-32 software the last I heard). Presently none of them exceed 1.5GHz. As for me, when I cruise on the weekends, my V-8 turning 1600 rpm outruns most 4-banger spinning 4000 rpm. Guess who has more potential performance. Get over your multi-GHz facination. I want my processor to work, work efficently, and not require its own power substation and A/C to run. - by I can't tell you…. |
| Not True (3:38pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) You can't compare “Apples” with Oranges. A 1.25 Ghz Intel is completely Differernt then a 1.25 Ghz PowerPc. There is a question of RISC vs. CISC, Level 2/3 Cache, Vram, as well as many other things you need to consider. Keep in mind, the 1.25 GHZ mac is a double processor, which means 2 of them are in the machine. I am not a tech person, but the post by “I laugh at you Mac” is completely wrong and biased. Don't listen to what he is saying, he obviously is Jealous of Macs/Unix systems. - by AGM |
| HA! (3:40pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Hey “laugh”, I think you might want to do a little more research. Here's what a geek article had to say, “We will see 3.2 and 3.4GHz Pentium 4 chips in 2003″. Ooh, big deal. You don't think this chip could compete with that at 2GHz? Please. And the Itanium 2? I'm not losing any sleep over that one. Also, AMD is falling behind anyway. He who laughs last laughs best. - by clone206 |
| I laugh at you Mac… (3:48pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I'm glad you're laughing at something, you little trogladyte, because that proves that you just don't get it… I manage a portfolio of 7000 customers from my computer, and I can afford to buy a new one every month. So what do I buy? A Mac… Why? Because while your crappy PC is busy hyperscrewing your long weekend, my Mac is online, ready to go… Plus, it's a conversation piece… So what you and Ziwi think really doesn't matter, now does it? You can't afford a Power Mac or a Hammer! And because you mentioned something about digital video: If you were serious about video or photos there would be little question as to what platform you're using… Still laughing…? - by Cheers! |
| Speed (3:49pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) …Anyone who thinks that running an Intel chip at 4 -5 GHz is going to be processing heaven must drive a 4-banger for fun. You obviously don't own a Subaru Impreza WRX - turbocharged, intercooled, 2.0 liter, 227 horsepower, 217 lb-ft torque, full-time allwheel drive… WHEEEEEE!!!! - by RIX WRX |
| Apple never ahead always behind! (3:55pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) You are a bafoom who should not even be allowed to own a computer. You are an embaressment to the PC using world. You know little to nothing of your own platform, so you are certainly in no position to comment on the status of another platform. Instead of thinking before speaking next time, how about not speaking… - by Ed |
| Don't waste your time (3:56pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) It's silly to choose computing platforms based on the current speed of their respective processors, as it is silly to make fun of another platform for currently shipping with a slower processor. These things fluctuate over time and always will. Apple/ PPC was ahead of Intel performance wise while the 604e and early G3 processors were their mainstay, and now Intel has taken the lead. Apple has realized this and is taking steps to reverse the situation. The performance crown will likely go back and forth for as long as there are multiple players in the game. That's how capitalism works. -The Baliff - by The Baliff |
| True Dat! (3:59pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Couldn't have said it better myself, baliff. - by clond206 |
| Analogy Correction (4:38pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) For whatever reason, the favorite allegorical form for the computer wars seems to be that of the automobile, be it a concern of market share, engine size, gas mileage, etc. I often hear clock cycles likened to horsepower as it was a few posts back. If this were in fact an accurate analogy, then the argument would be easily settled in that power can be reduced to units of work performed - the higher the horsepower, the more work can be accomplished. But its not the case. There are a couple of likely candidates as a comparable analogue to processory speed, but the most suitable to my mind seems to be that or revolutions per minute or RPM. You'll note that large-bore V8's run at a mere fraction of the number of cycles per second of their V6 cousins, yet each design is capable of generating a comparable amount of power, each at their own characteristic power curves. Throw issues of aspiration, cam design, car mass and even gearing ratio into the mix and you'll see that arguing over the relative merits of greater RPM is really very silly. Intel knows this intimately, so its continued marketing along those lines is willful misdirection at best case and outright sophistry at its worst. This analogy also demonstrates that Apple is right about one other aspect of the market, pundits notwithstanding: if there is a healthy market for cars which draw a premium due to improved fit, finish and overall driving experience apart from considerations of engine size and raw acceleration, then there certainly is a similar need in the computer industry. If there is room for the BMW, Lexi and Mercedes-Benz in the market, then there is certainly room for Apple. In that light, those who use Apple's products can be viewed not as poor consumers who can't read a ROI sheet, but rather as individuals who have arrived at a success level that allows them to afford a little luxery with their performance. - by M. Burt |
| 2.4 GHZ cordless phone. (4:39pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Your realize it's a frequency and not a processor speed! If they had 2.4 ghz chips for phones, trust me, they'd be in computers too. - by Yikes |
| Intel Biggots are Plain Stupid (4:57pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) What they fail to realize is that the IBM 970 chip is a 64-bit CPU, while the Pentium series are 32-bit. Intel has had a lot of trouble getting 1.5Ghz out of their own 64-bit Itanic… er, I mean Itanium CPUs. If Apple can focus getting OS X to be a true 64-bit OS, they have an opportunity to leave both Winblowz and Linux in the dust. Both IBM and Sun have been looking for an industrial strength Wintel replacement, what better than to go with Apple running OS X 64-bit. - by Homie |
| Yup… (4:58pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Thanks for clarifying that Yikes… I'm sure the guys babbling about Symmetric Multiprocessing, Hyperthreading, backside caches and throughput missed that… clear error. - by D-uh! |
| Ah, good! (5:20pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Finally some evidence that Apple may well be cutting the anchor that is Motorola. Next year should be very interesting in the PC vs. Mac war. Although right now everyone here has to chill. Both sides are assuming best and worst case scinerios for their perspective chips. Wait for these things to get into the market before you make any conclusions. Now, I wonder if Apple will continue to overclock Motorola's processor line, otherwise 1.25 -> 1.33 is a rather puny leap. - by JS |
| RE: Analogy Correction (5:21pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) While I do agree over all that the Mac commnity as a whole is better off financially, it does not necessarily mean that you have to be well off to own a Mac. I live in a housing project, I am certainly not well off by most people standards. However, the need for a computer is becoming a universal thing. I go through many machine because computers are my one true interest, but this is not to say that I spend a lot of money on them. I used to stick to desktop PC's that I built myself from quality parts, and then I switched to the Mac. Before decing to switch, I told myself that I would get a laptop when I did. Not only because I have always loved Apples laptops, but because I could see the actual need for a laptop in my near future (I am at the ago where college is a factor). So, I bought a $1,299 iBook 800. Not only is this machine incredible to use, but it was also an incredible price because even if I could do better on the PC when it came to price, I could not have done MUCH better. Certainly not enough better to brag about. Apple has been trying to fight off the comments that Macs are for wealthy buyers. The $999 iBook is a perfect example of this, as is the iBook line itself. - by MacMan! |
| Laughman (5:35pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Yes PC's are fast, you need all that speed (real or imagined) to keep re-booting your wintel machines after they crash which has gone from frequent to constantly. - by moving right along |
| Use whatever gets the job done better (7:21pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I have five macs and one pc here at home. I will always use my G4/500 Power Mac tower for video editing (Final Cut Pro) although it renders slowly. My 800MHz iBook is a wondrous machine too. However, I built myself an Athlon XP 2000+ PC just for games, and it only cost me about $300 to put together. I would love to be able to use my mac for games and 3D but you're never going to get to me shell out another $700 (for a dual G4/800 cpu upgrade) or even $1699 (for the cheapest new tower). My new $300 PC easily blows the doors off my G4/500, 1GB RAM, 64MB Geforce2 MX400 at Warcraft 3 (and any other game for that matter). It's pitiful. And I can create Quake3 maps/models for free using Windows-compatible Q3Radiant. Apparently the Mac OS X version has never seen the light of day and will always be a coder's enigma. Although I know Macs are now becoming a LOT slower and overpriced for videowork/multimedia.. apps like Final Cut Pro and iDVD keep me glued to my Macintosh. I sure hope Apple finds a way to close the performance gap AND make it affordable! I really don't want to reverse-switch! - by Glenn |
| A test everyone can perform (7:35pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Try resizing a window, scrolling, or operating internet explorer on mac or a $500.00 wintel machine. What's the reason that the latter is so much smoother and faster. The facts would seem to speak for themselves. - by rg |
| Motorola Performance (8:06pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Face it: Macs are nice, but they don't perform well for most tasks. Yeah Final Cut is awesome, but what about After Effects and Photoshop? The Pentium4 blows the Mac away and so does the Athlon XP. Don't believe me? Check out the benchmarks Now, which machine is slower? Thats what I thought… Apple desperately needs this new 64-bit CPU. It is the only way to get the Mac back up and performing well. Until then, I am stuck with my dual Athlon for video editing/rendering. - by Batman |
| 200 Mhz is all you need (8:12pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) For the average computer users, those who only need e-mail and word processing and other business apps, all you need is 200 Mhz. I've held that notion for 5 years and I still believe it. This is why the industry is in a slump. The average user already realizes this, and they see no need to upgrade. - by Tony Martin |
| Ooops! (8:13pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Sorry, that is the link to the page with the 1 GHz Mac. Here is the one for the dual 1.25 GHz. My bad… Here they also compare it to a P4 3.06 GHz. Clock speed isn't the most important, but it sure helps out! Some of the test done ran almost twice as fast on the P4 than they did on the Mac! 1.25 x 2 == P4 3.06 ??? Apple: PLEASE GO WITH IBM!!!!! - by Batman |
| 200 MHz (8:15pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) You are right. That is enough for most people. But try rendering 5 minutes of video on a 200 MHz machine! (write back when it finishes next month…) - by Batman |
| IE on Mac… (8:24pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Remember, IE is made by Microsoft and with about 1/10th the resources as are put into IE for Wintel. Also, IE Mac is carbonized and not cocoa, so it would be slower just because of that. It would be better to compare something like Chimera to NS/AOL Communicator or Opera on various platforms. |
| Perf measured by digitalvideoediting.com (8:31pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) The author of this site is a well known Wintel bigot and purposeful chooses the worst performing, non-optimized video editing app for his “benchmarks”. Adobe has done a lot of quick-n-dirty carbonizing to get it's ports out to OS X. Give them credit for doing it, but not well in many cases. Supposedly, After Effects is one of the worst offenders in the bad port class. Please use another benchmarking source with more credibility. |
| To Maclectic (8:49pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) “The author of this site is a well known Wintel bigot and purposeful chooses the worst performing, non-optimized video editing app for his “benchmarks”. Hmmmm… Yep, just like Apple's own website using Mac only optimized photoshop benchmark tests to show that the G4 is ?% faster than the P4. What comes around goes around! Unfortunately for you and all you other Mac faithfull, is the mere fact the 3.06 P4 just bitch slapped your Mac and you just can't seem to get over it. So much for your advanced Altivec eh? - by I laugh also… |
| Performance (8:49pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Well, I do agree that tons of user today (both Mac and PC) are wasting their system's performance. I've built a Athlon XP 2000+ machine for an user who likely will never need anything more than Athlon XP 200+ (If they ever have that), but absolutely demands a 2GHz Intel processor. Managed to convince her to use AMD processor, but that's the best I can make her to change her mind. The stupid requirement list from accounting course is to blame for that. Most users don't EVEN use 3D the most animation they ever saw other than flash is their OS boot up logo. But everyone of them demands highest processor spec. What they need is not processor speed, is some basic education on computer performance. Or else we would be seeing more of these sad combos: Yes, I've see user wave those stupid combos at me and demands me to lower my price to match. I just tell them to buy it from them and I'll charge them for the time pulling them out of the hole they dug. For most users, those low power/low cooling requirement processors would suffice. Like that VIA's low power, passive cooling motherboard with CPU built-in. A virtually silent computer is one very nice thing to have. For the power users, they know what they want, they will spec their own system and we need not to worry about them. - by Maniac |
| So mature… (8:56pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I love the great responses you get on boards like this. Anyway, I think Motorola sucks also and Apple needs fasters CPUs. Case in point: #quick This is a Mac oriented site that has benchmarks showing a middle-of-the-road 2 GHz PC kicking the butt of the top-of-the-line dual G4 Power Mac. However, it doesn't mean the BS/biased comments from various Wintel bigots have any credibility. - by Maclectic |
| Mac is slow (8:56pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Sure you can argue that a P4 is innefficent, sucks down the watts, throws off more heat. bla bla. But saving half the time in video rendering! Cmon! I'll take the extra $2.50 on my power bill to save me 6 hrs of rendering time. My 6 hrs of time is EASILY worth $2.50. Wasting double my time and making me pay $600 US more for it…. well…. Can Apple punish me more? - by |
| Goodbye MS, Apple, Linux, Unix, Intel, AMD, Moto… (9:04pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I think we need to shift away from all these manufacturers/developers. Whatever happened to truly innovative technology companies who tried to redefine computing? Both MS and Apple are making efforts - I see MS as the more capable and focused of the two - at doing this, but noone is out there to put the pressure on them to take strides. WIMP UIs have played their roles, as well as Command Line UIs. UI, memory/storage systems, file systems, and interconnectivity ideas have seemed to screech to a halt while everyone sees who can make a new product with it most resembling an original PC or Macintosh. I defend Microsoft quite regularly on this site because most of the disgust aimed at them is not because of their lack of ability, but because they are so successful. True, large companies have the ability to stumble and make mistakes but they are also the ones that brought about major change in their fields and have the resources to do it again. I just wish Mac-Fanatics would realize that Apple is capable of wrong too. It's time for the markets to step up and unseat the current leaders of the tech industry if they are unfit to make change happen. - by ProCapitalist |
| I wish the p4 3.06 wasn't the fastest chip (9:04pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I can't argue with the numbers. I do video editing so I do appreciate the differance between 2.5 ghz and 3.0 ghz. I want Intel to have competition it will speed progress and lower prices. - by liquidEric |
| Batman… (9:32pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I've never heard of the guys at digitalvideo.com but Maclectic seems to think their tests are skewed. So here is a benchmark made by a respected website that I think we can all agree on. Now before someone says something, yes the test are done by a well known mac affecionado, but they are more than fair. They test on more than just Photoshop, and they point out the Macs shortcomings and victories. It is a bit outdated, and compares a Dual 1.25 G4 with a 2.0 P4 and a 1.6 Athlon. Since then it seems as if Apple has been unable to produce pentium-stomping chips as it used to. This is okay, because you'll notice that the company's marketing has shifted from promoting raw processing power to over all balanced system performance and eas of use. In this category no other PC comes even close to rivaling the Mac. Need proof? I did something I thought was unbelievable yesterday: I was burning a CD (External USB), downloading some videos from Limewire, playing the Bad boys 2 video in the front and had Entourage and Explorer running in the back. And all of a sudden, the Finder icon started jumping in the dock… I said to myself “oh f**k” and clicked Apple+Option+Escape and I saw “Finder” written in Red (Crashed). So I clicked on Relaunch… My CD is okay, my videos continued to download, my quicktime movie which had paused continued to play and I even received an e-mail in my inbox… Was this a Dual 1.25 G4? No… Was this even a 1 Ghz G4? No… It was my upgraded Rev. D 433 Mhz G4 iMac 160 Mb RAM at home running OS X… Umm.. can anyone do that with XP? - by doesn't matter |
| Speed (9:50pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) ….You obviously don't own a Subaru Impreza WRX - turbocharged, intercooled, 2.0 liter, 227 horsepower, 217 lb-ft torque, full-time allwheel drive… WHEEEEEE!!!! - by RIX WRX. Nice car, but I just could not get into the styling. I will, however, see your 227hp/217lb-ft and raise you 350hp and 355lb-ft. As long as we stay on payment…. But, this also illustrates that not evry machine is made to everyone's liking. If you prefer cheap, generic components, then a PC is for you. You may then have a preferrence for Intel or AMD, MS or Linux or FreeBSD. Or you may prefer something less ordinary. That may take the form of a Macintosh, or even a SPARCStation and Solaris (if that floats your boat). Despite the market success of MS and Intel, alternatives exist. As long as alternatives exist, there is hope for technological innovation. That is where we should be headed. For those of you who get “stoked” on how fast your processor ticks, keep in mind that the performance gains you may be able to directly correlate, barring any other improvements in the overall system, are relavant only within that processor series. If you really want to get a basis for judging the systems performance, look at benchmarks that are pertinent for the specific tasks at hand. Leave the MHz/GHz to the marketing folks. - by I Can't Tell You…. |
| RE: doesn't matter (9:52pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) “can anyone do that with XP?” Ummmm…Let's see shall we, with my AMD XP1800 using 512 333MHZ DDR Ram, Nvidia GeForce 4 Ti 4600 128 DDR, I am using for my video store. Today and pretty much everyday, I am running Coldfusion MX server with IIS, Playing DVD's, Running my POS (Point of Sale which is all connected by serial port to my Visa/Interac Machine) Software for running my business. When it hits slow periods, I download music and other stuff from Kazaalite and at the same time play online games either (Counterstrike, Medal of Honour, or NHL 2003) Did I mention my computer is running Coldfusion Server because my website is running of this tower. Let's talk shall we… I guess I've anwsered your piddly little question when it comes to using Windows XP Professional. Oh I am burning a cd right now as I am typing! - by It does matter! |
| why clock speeds are all we talk about… (9:52pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) “Whatever happened to truly innovative technology companies who tried to redefine computing?” Good point ProCapitalist. They all died from shrinking margin once the windows/intel monopoly took over. Thank god for AMD, who later created competition over processor speed at least. If it weren't for them Intel never would have been motivated to do so much over the last few years and reduce price so much. But the same hasn't happened in the OS space. People are much less willing to switch an OS than a processor. Apple is only a mild motivator for Microsoft to do much. Hardware vendors are highly motivated to innovate, they're killing each other for market share all the time, but they only have single digit margins for R&D. Microsoft gets all the margin, as they've created a market where they skim the margin cream off the top and the hardware venders barely survive. Dell has done well mostly because web based direct sales gave them a mere 6% margin advantage. It's brutal. As a result, you'll see no rapid or serious innovation beyond clock speed for a long while. Now if we were to break up Microsoft, however… - by owlmonkey |
| …continued (9:54pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Oh one more thing when one of my games froze I just control+alt+deleted the application and wow everything else is still downloading and my POS is still working fine without rebooting. Well XP is as stable as a rock! - by It does matter! |
| Of course! (10:11pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) If your explorer.exe crashes on an xp machine you can restart it with your taskmanager and still be burning your CDs etc.. Why should any decent system crash all of your apps just because the windowmanager crashes? - by duh? |
| … continued! -) (10:13pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) You applemaniacs seem to brag with features you suspect apples are the only machines capable of and don't even know other systems…. - by gheee! |
| Speed (10:20pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Im surfing on a 300 mhz ibook. Its fast enough to run OS-X although its 3 years old. Do I care about speed? Nope, I have been wirelessly surfing for 3 years (how many Wintel owners claim that?) With OS X 10.2 this machine has never locked up. Guess that is my priority. Oh yes when I want speed this 50 year old drives his Subaru WRX. (see above post!) Innovation, be it OS or AWD rules. Mediocrity does not cut it. “But the new Windoze is just like a Mac….” Do these people really not have a clue when they gripe about their OS that there is something so much better out there? - by TWRX |
| Heat (10:36pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Oh yea, something else. My wife's job requires her to use an IBM laptop from home on our Airport 802.11 net. (The number of hours to configure it to work with Airport compared to the 2 minutes needed to get a new Mac on is a story in itself.) So on the lap that IBM gets too hot for her. I run through an entire battery charge on the iBook in comfort. She simply can't get enough time with a battery when her work runs long so always uses it on AC. So who cares if a notebook is over 1ghz when you can't use it on your lap and it won't work on battery for useful periods. I doo have a desire for a faster notebook. A 1ghz Powerbook G4 would be nice but that has more to do with the 15.2″ widescreen and the Ti case. Why carry a 9 pound notebook when you can have one that's only 5.4 pounds. I have a friend who owns one–If you have not tried this computer you owe it to yourself to see what Apple can do. TWRX - by TWRX |
| Can any one of you read? (10:56pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) I said the FINDER (PC language: the Operating System, not just any app) crashed and everything else still worked… Can you do that Video-man? Let me keep it short: No. Because when Windows crashes it takes everything down with it… Yeah, yeah I'm an idiot and your copy of Windows never crashes… I've heard it all before so spare me… And don't tell me the FINDER isn't the underlying Operating System because I know that too. But when Windows crashes you can't get to DOS either. Point is, it's the only interface I've got, and I was able to not only finsish what I was doing succesfully, but I didn't have to reboot. And windows can't do that… Get it? Got it. Good. - by doesn't matter |
| SpecINT and SpecFP (10:57pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) There is no doubt that balaced system performance is a good thing. There is also no doubt that productivity gains from a great user interface are huge. And the Stability offered up by Mac Os X is tantamount to the new Mac experience. All of these lead to a great cost of ownership, and the Mac is a truly productive get work done tool. But the processor rut is truly there. And for most folks this does not realy matter that much. But if you are cranking through genomic databases doinf BLAST searches you probably are using some IBM super computer with the Power4 architechture. If you are serving up millions of mail messages every week you are probably running Solaris on a big Sunfire. And if you are running SHAKE to render frames for the next hot blockbuster movie you are probably running 2Gig Anthelons and RH Linux. If you want to get an idea of the battle being fought on the performance front check out this list of benchmarks So why is the Mac not there? Well it is about SpecINT and SpecFP. The G4 gets cooked when it comes to hard core number crunching. Some of this is comppiler technology, and IBM really shines here, but a good amount of it is SpecINT and SpecFP number. The Mac really hurts when hard core number crunching requires double precision FP. The Altivec/Velocity Engine just does not help. Although it really shines when single FP can be used with Altivec, this is apparent when using CODECs, like MP3 encoding or MPEG2 encoding. G4 is really quite fast. In any case bring on Power4 and the 970 and do it quick, because some of us really do need the processing power. |
| Too bad… (11:31pm EST Mon Dec 30 2002) Gotta go… I was looking forward to see which one of you Peecee boyz would call me a dumbass first… I understand, your still going back to my first posting trying figure out what the Finder is… Or your Pentiums have hyper-crashed and your busy rebooting… You know, you guys are the ones that should learn something about another operating system before posting your obviously arrogant comments. I've read comments by Mac-bashers which I've respected, because they had good points and even better arguments. But you guys have never even sat in front of a Mac in your entire lives, and claim to be know it alls… What's worse, you even think you know so much more than you actually do… Sad to be you two miserable wretches…. - by doesn't matter… |
| doesn't matter: Finder != OS (12:01am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) “I said the FINDER (PC language: the Operating System, not just any app) crashed and everything else still worked.” Finder is not the OS. Finder on OS X is roughly analogous to Explorer (the OS shell) on Windows XP/2000/NT. - by jet tredmont |
| doesn't matter (12:42am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) “Or your Pentiums have hyper-crashed and your busy rebooting…” It seems like you love your Mac so much you have it deep up your you know what! Maybe the last time you used a windows machine was way be in the Win98/95 Days. For your information, WinXP PRO and Win2000 doesn't reboot when it crashes, you just control+alt+delete go under processes (Finder in your language) and quit the application while the rest of the other apps that are simultanouesly running is still happily running. Oh by the way, how do you like when certain Music CD's crash your mighty OSX and you, yes you have to reboot! |
| IT'S HAMMMMMERRRRRR TIME!!!!!! (12:50am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) WHEN IT COMES TO HAMMER THERE IS NOT NO POWER PC 970 THAT CAN COMPETE AND LOOK AT THE BENCHMARKS YOU MORONS - by JPC |
| 2.4 GHZ cordless phone (1:24am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) being nitpicky like everyone else, Yes. 2.4GHz phones use 2.4GHz solid state chips to transmit that frequency. How do you think they get that freq? They certainly do not use klystrons or traveling wave tubes (TWT's)!!! They use a oscillator and a freq. mulitipling chip. And yes, your computer has one. - by Dan P. |
| You can't afford it. (1:38am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) For those who complain about the prices of Macs, get over it. If you can't afford one, you're too poor!!!!!. Get a better job!!!!! I have 5 PCs with Athlons and P4s, and 6 Macs. I still find the Mac far more useful than the PCs for database work, graphics, audio, video, etc., etc., Even Internet Explorer on Mac OS X beats the pants off Explorer in Windows XP when it comes to shear usefullness. I open 20+ webpages all at once when I log on. Explorer on Mac at lease cascades the windows, on XP it doesn't. CPU speed is not everything because I'm more productive on the Mac then the PC. I don't usually play games because life is too full and wonderful to be sitting for hours staring at a computer screen playing someone else's life. In case I have visitors, the PCs can be used for games, the Macs everything else. By the way, It is nice to have 11 computer screens on your desk. I like multitasking. - by Get a life sucker |
| The reason of the season. (2:49am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Without Apple, Intel and Microsoft would not be pushed as far as they have had to go to get a decent usable GUI based operating system. Yes, Apple took the idea from Xerox and made it better. Windows users need Apple more than they realize because without them where would Microsoft be as of now? OSX is a wonderful OS, elegant and easy for the novice and for the UNIX folks who march to the beat of a different drum they have that option. Yes Apple is behind the times, and yes they are over priced. But we use Apple and their operatings systems because we have found them to suit our needs. That makes us different, unique. Fanatics? Perhaps, but apple has millions of users worldwide that look to apple for different innovations beyond that of a standard PC. Its more about the experience of using an Apple OS, the “Not in your face.” comfort level so many of us find with Apple. I am excited that Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola all strive to create the next big thing and a big part of the reason they do just that is there are diverse OS's out there that use these CPUs like Apple. As been said in here many times before, speed is not the most important aspect of a system. Besides, the OSs can't even keep up with the current technology. Example, I still have an Amiga 2000 with a 16mhz MC68000 16 bit CPU that does things faster than even my Athlon 1800XP or Powerbook 1Ghz and it was multitasking in 1985. Instead of all of this “Speed up the chips!” talk, what about “Optimize the OSs.” Please be kind as I use both systems. But I am a huge Apple fan. Its a wonderful experience on an Apple Computer. I still miss my Atari 800, now that was a great machine!!! - by E.S. Tyre |
| It does matter, it does, it does, it does!!! (3:07am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) It does matter” reminds me of the sorry bastards who'll purchase anything to enlarge their members (re: penis). I think “Doesn't matter” was trying to make the point that he (or she?) could do more with OS X using less. Therefore, you haven't answered the “piddly little question.” Could you, using similar specs, do the same with XP? BTW I can accomplish the same at the same time as “Doesn't matter” on my mac including running an openGL screensaver as my background. Can you do that? - by yousillyfatbastard |
| Speed of Recovery (3:19am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Many people like to point out the amount of time they save rendering on a PC. I run a mixed network of multimedia PCs and Macs and while the PCs may render faster, they take much longer to format and re-install the OS (Windows or Linux) than the Macs. And the answer to fixing a problem on a Windows box is all to often to format and re-install. Not to mention the time it takes me to explain to a co-worker how to print/scan/share files on a PC is riduculously long compared to the intuitive Mac OS. - by J. Alfred |
| There is no question (4:53am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) I work in a professional production environment, and I can safely say there is no competition between Mac and PC. In my office, the PC's do what they are supposed to do…check e-mail, open up word files off a floppy disk, surf the internet, and play the occasional game. These are new Wintel boxes running XP Pro, and all that other stuff you PC people think really makes a difference. On the other hand, our macs earn money. They render, process, and perform beautifully all day/night, and generate income easily. Audio, video, and anything else I need goes in and comes out hassle free. In the 1 year I have worked on my personal workstation, the only problem I have ever had was a blown hard drive. That has more to do with the hundred's of gigs being moved each month through my system than apple. My computer has not crashed the entire time I have used it. Now, rather than focus on the Ghz argument, I would like to speak about the important parts of a computer. First, my mac looks good, something PC users will never understand, much less care about. However, every client I have ever had always comments on my beautiful flat screen, and the sleek silver box that purrs through each project. This is important in any graphics field as people who are going to pay your salary want to make sure you have a good sense of personal/aesthetic style, since that is what they are paying you to create. - by Forever Mac |
| There is no question part Two (4:54am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Second, connectivity. In a professional environment were huge files are being moved around all of the time, there is no question to the advantages of Unix. To have a massive cluster of file nd render servers is a nightmare in the wondows world. No one can argue that. If you do, look at the facts…all of the big boys run UNIX in some form or another. Just ask ILM if you don't believe me. So how do you reliably get your windows box into that environment without creatibg a IT disaster. You dont. You have to hire a bunch of overpaid, windows certified technicians to constantly fix all of the problems. This is stupid. It is stupid in professional production, and even worse in corporate america. Just because you might pay less for the upfront machine, doesn't mean you wont pay more in the maitenance. If you put a mac in that environment, and a person who knows a little about UNIX, you can reliably create a professional working environment that is capable of massive data rendering/storage/transportation. There is a reason all of the important companies in film/graphic design/audio/etc require you to know UNIX and thankfully MAC. They are not concerned with a measly little P4, unless it is doubled up and powering there rendering server. - by Forever Mac |
| There is no question part Two (4:54am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Second, connectivity. In a professional environment were huge files are being moved around all of the time, there is no question to the advantages of Unix. To have a massive cluster of file nd render servers is a nightmare in the wondows world. No one can argue that. If you do, look at the facts…all of the big boys run UNIX in some form or another. Just ask ILM if you don't believe me. So how do you reliably get your windows box into that environment without creatibg a IT disaster. You dont. You have to hire a bunch of overpaid, windows certified technicians to constantly fix all of the problems. This is stupid. It is stupid in professional production, and even worse in corporate america. Just because you might pay less for the upfront machine, doesn't mean you wont pay more in the maitenance. If you put a mac in that environment, and a person who knows a little about UNIX, you can reliably create a professional working environment that is capable of massive data rendering/storage/transportation. There is a reason all of the important companies in film/graphic design/audio/etc require you to know UNIX and thankfully MAC. They are not concerned with a measly little P4, unless it is doubled up and powering their rendering server. - by Forever Mac |
| There is no question part 3 (4:55am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Finally, let me just touch on a personal frustration. Wintel users moan on and on about how long it takes to render on a mac, and how much faster it is on their PC. Let me tell you, with the exception of Avid, you guys have nothing to really contribute to this section. And even with Avid, it has very little to do with your machine. At least with Final Cut, you can begin the process of professional editing. On the PC end, believe me, no one will take you seriously when you tell them you just created your life's masterpiece on Adobe Premiere. Also, I would like to know, what the hell are you guys doing in Photoshop. It seems to me that you are just sitting around trying to render the biggest files you can find, to prove each other wrong. I work with some enormous files, and while the P4 usually does beat my Mac, it is only by seconds. Even on the prosumer video level, the mac is only slightly behind the PC. I would gladly trade the stability and capability for a meager amount of speed. - by Forever Mac |
| enquire about institue (5:15am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) dear sir , i wounld like to know about mac feature and its tranning instuites in india (mumbai ) pls sent me a detail about classes that teach mac operation system and its adminstrator thank for |
| enquire about institue (5:16am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) dear sir , i wounld like to know about mac feature and its tranning instuites in india (mumbai ) pls sent me a detail about classes that teach mac operation system and its adminstrator email id :- nadeemmerchant_1@yahoo.co.in thank for |
| Not True (6:08am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) You are right dude RICS is much more superior than CISC a.k.a Ps but 'till now i think it safe to that that both have equal performance. - by suckerdude |
| Finder vs Explorer crash (7:09am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) For those who say that a Finder crash in OS X is similar to a Windows Explorer crash in XP. This is not so. In MacOS X the Finder is just a process that runs outside of the kernel, while in Windows Explorer is a part of the kernel. A Finder crash will not touch the kernel in any way and so will not have any influence on any other process. If Windows Explorer crashes you have a part of the kernel crashing. This may have no influence on the rest of the kernel, but it may just as well lead to instability. - by Terje |
| dumbass (7:40am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) “The Altivec/Velocity Engine just does not help” I don't think those Spec benchmarks use Altivec AT ALL. - by another dumbass |
| Same Ol' Arguments (8:03am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Why the same old arguments … Mac clock speeds to slow? FICTION! PC Users too stupid? FICTION - (for the most part, most seem too biased) Macs too pricy? FICTION! Dollar for dollar, peformance is comparable … you just have cheaper options in the PC world for doing your word processing, maybe some spreadsheets, and low-level browsing (non-video or heavy downloads). I use multiple platforms, using various processors/architectures … each has their strengths and weaknesses. Open your minds people … - by Hugh Jass |
| Video Editing (9:43am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Well.. who cares about videoediting on PC? They don't have Final Cut, and soon they wont have Shake either. FinalCut is becomming the “standard” in serious videoediting. Most new trailers are exclusivly made with Final Cut (example. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc) - by ct |
| Video Editing (9:43am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Well.. who cares about videoediting on PC? They don't have Final Cut, and soon they wont have Shake either. FinalCut is becomming the “standard” in serious videoediting. Most new trailers are exclusivly made with Final Cut (example. Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc) Try running Final Cut on a Pentium or AMD. Good luck, I doesn't excist! - by ct |
| Crash?(1) (9:47am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) While you two parties arguing about which OS wouldn't crash… May I remind you something from the early/mid 1990's was already capable of THAT when both Windows and MacOS are stuck with Co-op multi-tasking (or should I say task switching?). Mac only got better just recently, earlier ones were just a pain for me to use. Had to use one with the massively slow school network. Well I don't have a choice on that. Then there's Windows 98, managed to make one installation completely unuseable within one month. Yes, I'm one demanding user. Until recently, I've been using OS/2 as my main production machine (web server, FTP, DHCP, SMTP, POP, and everything that a workstation should do). And it worked wonderfully. On for month on end, if anything crashes, I just close them. Couldn't care less about reboots and stuff that windows 9x/Me users have to do to make their machine more stable for a little while. Nor would I be expecting that bomb like dialog that I often see on Macs. Now, my OS/2 machine retired for both the hardware is getting old, and I could not find the original discs to do a proper reinstall on a newer machine. Plus I do plan on switching over to Linux for more availability of server softwares. And another machine was also built to handle other tasks, and I had installed Windows 2000 on it. Well, I have to say that MacOS users' attack on it is quite biased to say the least. It is NOT as stable as OS/2 that I got used to, but it is close. Considering that this WAS going to be the next OS/2 until both IBM and MS decided to part their ways. As for speed, W2K hungries for memory, not clock speed. PMMX 233 runs it just fine with 256MB of SDRAM. |
| Crash(2) (9:48am EST Tue Dec 31 2002)
As for MacOSX, I never really used it. And I really don't plan to… I prefer real mouse, and proper multi-button support built into the OS. KISS principle applies both ways, more button allows a function to be dedicated to them and that's less work for me to activate that function. As for install time, I find the install time for most being very short. Unless you need a full HDD format (always a good idea). While MS have many failures (and yes I hate them), at least they design their install routine so that you can go and do something else while the machine is installing itself. As for Linux, I find the recent installation I did was even simpler… input the setup parameter into the GUI installation program, and let'em rip. - by Maniac |
| OS/2? (10:26am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Yeah, I'm running this great OS called QDOS. Sure I've been asleep for twenty years but I know my servers. My BBS has never crashed!!! Does anyone still use FTP? Plus I do plan on switching over to Linux for more availability of server softwares… like imap. three bits of advise, if I may. 1) Nearly every daemon you want to run can be built on any OS mentioned here *except* the two you mentioned (Win2k and OS/2). Even those BeOsers have a better time. 2)Running FTP on the same server that houses http, pop (why?) and smtp daemons makes you an easy hack. Invest some of that money you are spending on Ethernet cards (you know, for your DHCP server) and go buy yourself a five dollar router and a few more PII boxes. Or get some real money saved up for a three button mouse. 3)Post a lot on high tech forums which deal with the most advanced processors and OS's. Tell eveyone with a usefull machine that your OS/2 doesn't crash running software from the same time period. By the way, my mac plus never crashed either, and doesn't need real multitasking because I've never found two usefull pieces of software to run on it. - by Crazyman 56636 |
| Windows-loosers (10:33am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) I'm tired of hearing comments like “Mac will die” or “Mac sucks” comments from Windows-heads. Most of those loosers have never used a Mac, so they don't know what they're talking about. I've used Linux, Solaris and Windows so I'm know what I'm talking about. Judged by user interface, Windows 2000 was step backward compared to the Windows NT 4. Just look at the DCHP Manager in NT 4 Server and try the W2K version to see it. Just keep clicking right mouse button everywhere, yeah what a fun! - by MacMan |
| Round 9874…… (11:45am EST Tue Dec 31 2002) ….Only thing interesting this time around is Apple is apparently gearing the Motorolas to the iMacs, which makes me wonder if Apple isn't planning on supporting 32 bit Motorolas in the iMacs and 64 bit 970's in the towers. Interesting but I wonder how feasible it will be in practice. Then again it may just be a phasing out strategy. As for the rest of it, well, “Cheers” you kind of put your foot in it. Does Apple want to regain marketshare or continue making computers for elitists such as yourself? How many people can afford to buy a new top of the line computer anytime they please? Good if you're a millionaire (or pretending to be one) but not so hot for the average person. And the video editing–well, if Apple only makes it for Macs doesn't really vindicate them. It's just the secret sauce approach, they'll buy our stuff because they have to in order to get the wares. Ask SGI or Sun, it's worked for them. Lastly, the whole processor speed thingy. Macs can't have their cake and eat it too. Saying they're fast enough the average user (I guess in the 40K-80K salary range) won't notice, but still able to keep up with PC's is a bit much. If that were true Apple wouldn't be looking at alternative processors. We now return you to the FlameFest, bring marshmellows…… - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| blah blah blah (12:37pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) you guys are missing the boat here… ENTIRELY Jeez, i thought you were supposed to be a smart bunch. Don't you see the beauty of this situation? |
| Not the mouse comment again… (2:18pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Maniac, Have you tried plugging a two button mouse into a Mac running OS X. I have. I plugged a MS optical USB mouse into my ibook and it worked. The two button stuff is in OSX just Apple choose not to supply them. Why is another matter… P.S. I have 2 PCs and an ibook. I prefer the ibook. - by Caveman |
| Anyone read the article above? (2:34pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) So many of you Mac-Lovers or Wintel-Heads see an article about Apple, and you run here to spew out all your stupid reasoning of why one platform is better than another. The article is about new chips that Apple will be using. Yes, I agree that current chips aren't fast enough. Benchmarks and GHz aside, they aren't fast enough for me yet! (Yes I have a dual 1.25) It is clear that the move to 64-bit will help in video editing/rendering. I say it is a must for Apple to stay innovative. Also, IBM has plans to make its own version of Linux to run on this chip. That would allow people to purchase an IBM computer with the new PowerPC 970 running Linux! If the chip performs well, who knows, maybe M$ might port a version of Windows to it also. Then you could have once chip run OS X, Win, and Linux. Then bring me some benchmarking and we'll talk… - by Batman |
| Re: Apple never ahead always behind! (2:50pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) “Apple… overpriced, overhyped and always behind. I could see in now from digitalvideoediting.com “Power Mac v.s. P5/AMD Hammer — Gets slaughtered again even with a 1.8 - 2.0 PowerPC” Ohhhh Paaalease. First off, about 5 years ago it was Apple's machines that had more CPU power. Apple's machines have not always been behind. Stuff like this flip-flops. It always has and always will. Hell, look at the graphics card industry… it does the same thing. And as for “digitalvideoediting.com” … seriously, who the hell pays a couple grand for a PowerMac workstation and doesn't run Final Cut Pro on it? Those guys at digitalvideoediting.com did all of those benchmarks with Adobe's video editing solutions. Most of that crap doesn't even support AltiVec on the G4. I highly advise using a Mac with Final Cut in order to actually understand why millions of us use these things every day. Go to a local college… use a computer lab or something. - by Patty Cakes |
| Now, now Ziwi… (4:22pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Behave… You take things so personally… I wouldn't want you to get the shits or anything… I'm not picking on you… I just read a comment another bloke posted about you and thought I'd be funny… I'm not a millionaire, but I am getting close… And even if I was, I wouldn't buy a computer every month. But I do change computers every year, because its one of my business expenses and, what the heck… And no, I'm NOT a graphic designer… In fact, I work ANZ World Markets (Australia and New Zealand Bank) and the only reason I even have time to post is because there is no work for me during the holiday season! But, honestly, you don't have to be rich to afford a Mac, just like you don't have to be rich to afford a Mercedes. You just get someone else to pay for it! Well, that's my two cents. Ghz and Hyper-whatever isn't really my thing… And I don't really care about whether Apple goes with IBM or not… So I'll let you folks be… Happy New Year… |
| I'm kinda curious now… (5:04pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) I've been following the whole “doesn't matter” vs. “it does matter” argument, and… can we get some insight here? I think I know what “doesn't matter” is saying, but I'm not too sure about “it does matter”… In any case, can “it does matter” really do what “doesn't matter” says, or are they both full of crap? That is, can the Finder or Windows crash while other apps continue to run? And can you relaunch the Finder or Windows without rebooting, after a crash? I'm still on Windows 98 and OS 9, and I haven't really used X or XP, so if someone could let me know… - by does it matter? |
| Caveman (5:38pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) >Have you tried plugging a two button >mouse into a Mac running OS X. I have. >I plugged a MS optical USB mouse into >my ibook and it worked. The two button >stuff is in OSX just Apple choose not >to supply them. Why is another >matter… I know that perfectly well, I use Logitech's Cordless MouseMan Optical, yes, THE one… It WILL work on Mac, just that the apple in their infinite wisdom (or stupidity) decided not to do anything about the rest of the buttons (4 buttons on this thing), on most PC OS, I can at least use 2 or 3 buttons, with NO configuration effort from my part. You see, PnP… >P.S. I have 2 PCs and an ibook. I Comparing Apple's notebook and Fujitsu's P2120 (Transmeta Crusoe), I kinda prefer the latter. I don't own a Mac at the moment, and unlikely to get one for the reason “try it out”. I never encountered ANYTHING like those problems described in Apple's switch commerical. I found that one talking about printer failing to print, and the guy pulling and plugging expansion card to be extremely amuseing. If that guy is doing that, he definitely need to do a little RTFM. Tho usually I just tap the driver and it's ready to print. Or in my home setup, enter the IP of my network printer and click ok. It is really simple. If that guy use a newer model USB printer, his installation work would not be too different from using a Mac, and should work similarly. Those Mac commerical are quite amusing tho… - by Maniac |
| I miss NOTHING!!! (9:38pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) I used to be a PEECEE user awhile back. My last one was a 2.4GHZ P4, 1GB RDRAM, GeForce 4 Ti 4600, WinXP Pro, all the goodies. Then a friend introduced me to Mac OS X. WHOA! WinXP is way to intrusive. It WANTS to know all your personal info. I had to re-activate the OS because I installed a new Gigabit ethernet card. What a bunch of poo! So I took the plunge and bought a PowerMac G4. I found the new OS better, and I installed a Geforce4 Ti and I didn't have to go through the crap of “Add New Hardware”. It recognized it and work with 0 configuation. Do THAT on a PC o' crap! Ease of use, you bet! When I installed OS X.2, what? No serial number? No activation? Was I on the wrong platform (Winblowz)! He uses SMARTER things, is smarter - by A “Switcher” |
| Happy new year to Crapple Folks! (11:21pm EST Tue Dec 31 2002) Aside from digital video producer/digitalvideoediting.com's link: - by It does matter |
| Crapple (7:49am EST Wed Jan 01 2003) Oh very clever… As mentioned above I've got both an apple and a couple of PCs and have come to realise that the GHz race is a bit of a waste of time. I've got PCs that are powerful enough to do the jobs I need of them. I have a 800Mhz Via EPIA 'cos all I wanted was an server and this does the job. I've got a AthlonXP 1700+ to play games on. The Geforce4 in it makes more difference than the processor for that machine. When I want a good user experience and to just enjoy using a computer I use my ibook. Sure it isn't the fastest thing on the world but using it feels much nicer than the PCs. OK if you're counting the seconds that something takes to render or whatever then thats great. Personally I don't care - with OS X I get the best of both worlds a great UI and the power of Unix. Each to their own. It's only computers after all. It's not anything really important what you use as long as you're happy with it. - by Caveman |
| re: Cheers! (10:01am EST Wed Jan 01 2003) *Slapping my knee* You're such a funny person. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| Switcher (10:09am EST Wed Jan 01 2003) Well, that's the reason why I stick to Windows 2K and not XP, and threatened to stop helping my friends out with their computer if they installed XP. W2K is much more useful than XP… Don't have those fancy graphics, but I don't need those fancy graphics. And I need something that can work well with my 3D games. Don't think Mac is working too well on that. Most Mac version video card is quite expensive to say the least. GeForce 3 Ti200 for $250, you call this a bargain? - by Maniac |
| Happy New Year! (2:00pm EST Wed Jan 01 2003) Peace and goodwill to all PC and Mac users! And a special arm of sympathy going out to It does matter for being sad enough to be posting less than an hour before the New Year. I feel your insecurities man, but trust me, a social life beats paranoid zealotism any time of the year, hands down! - by NM |
| Same here with Windows 2000 (2:56pm EST Wed Jan 01 2003) I never saw the point of winxp, since all it is in my opinion, is the stable backbone of NT/2000, but with candy coating to make it look cuter! Well how nice. But I would rather have all the speed i can muster. Like at work, I use Mac OS9 instead of OSX. Why? I want speed. Resizing the itunes window is the biggest joke ever (yes thats with the dual 1.25), and I can even feel the lasso tool in photoshop is “slower” under OSX. Apple can make people believe that Mhz doesnt matter. But when their mother board is slower, memory is slower, CPU is slower. well um why would i pay more for that? i dont get it. I love doing things fast. period. So when im on the mac its OS9, and when on the PC its windows2000. which one is faster in all things, for the dollar? Well a dual amd 2200 with 1 gb ddr and a quadro4 card can be gotten for less than the best of apples offerings. And If you really need some videorendering speed, with 3D modelling speed, for the dollar, it aint no Mac, and until th 970 comes out, it will never be. Remember though, even though Intels Itanium is poo, the AMD hammer will not be poo, and will be 64 bit, and has the potential to ahve dual cores (already predesigned for that necessary step) It is IBM and AMD that will be leading the next wave. And I am sure, for the dollar, it will still be better economically to have a PC to do everything. Punish the Macheads harder Apple, their screams and tears give you your almighty 5% power! - by |
| Same here with Windows 2000 (2:58pm EST Wed Jan 01 2003) I never saw the point of winxp, since all it is in my opinion, is the stable backbone of NT/2000, but with candy coating to make it look cuter! Well how nice. But I would rather have all the speed i can muster. Like at work, I use Mac OS9 instead of OSX. Why? I want speed. Resizing the itunes window is the biggest joke ever (yes thats with the dual 1.25), and I can even feel the lasso tool in photoshop is “slower” under OSX. Apple can make people believe that Mhz doesnt matter. But when their mother board is slower, memory is slower, CPU is slower. well um why would i pay more for that? i dont get it. I love doing things fast. period. So when im on the mac its OS9, and when on the PC its windows2000. which one is faster in all things, for the dollar? Well a dual amd 2200 with 1 gb ddr and a quadro4 card can be gotten for less than the best of apples offerings. And If you really need some video rendering speed, with 3D modelling speed, for the dollar, it aint no Mac, and until th 970 comes out, it will never be. Remember though, even though Intels Itanium is poo, the AMD hammer will not be poo, and will be 64 bit, and has the potential to have dual cores (already predesigned for that necessary step) It is IBM and AMD that will be leading the next wave of 64 bit. And I am sure, for the dollar, it will still be better economically to have a PC to do everything. Punish the Macheads harder Apple, their screams and tears give you your almighty 5% power! - by |
| look (9:27am EST Thu Jan 02 2003) my windowses two thousund is so leet I post comments twice! - by |
| Poor investment. (10:35am EST Thu Jan 02 2003) When I dug in my car seats and found $150 million for a cash infusion in Apple several years ago, I knew it would help our monopoly suit with the Justice Dept, but I didn't know it'd be such a poor investment. - by Bill Gates |
| Apple still sells hardware (11:03am EST Thu Jan 02 2003) Wups! I was wrong. [See how easy that was?] - by JJ Brannon |
| lol (12:56pm EST Thu Jan 02 2003) you guys stink - by |
| does it matter? (1:39pm EST Thu Jan 02 2003) The answer to your question about whether other apps can continue to run if Windows crashes, is, of course, “it depends.” It depends on the severity of the crash. If XP blue-screens (this is the most common type of crash and is often due to a hardware malfunction or driver bug), you have to re-boot. However, it is possible to shut down the “explorer.exe” process (or have it crash, but I've never seen that)–this is the process that puts icons on your screen and allows you to use the start menu–without interrupting other applications. You can then re-launch explorer.exe by pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del, which, in XP, brings up the Task Manager and allows you to launch a new task. In fact, I just did this while typing this message in Mozilla, and the Mozilla window was entirely unaffected. - by Grover |
| Sorry JJ! (5:14pm EST Thu Jan 02 2003) But that didn't sound like an _apology_ to ME! “If these reasons seem spurious to many and if Apple remains a ::hardware:: company by the end of 2002, I will return here on 1 January 2003 to apologize.” -JJ Brannon, October 2001 Anyways, I guess we _now_ know how many grains of salt we need to take with 'ol JJ's “pontifications” |
| re: Gropo (6:39pm EST Thu Jan 02 2003) Oh, I dunno, about as many as it needs for a bicycle riding freak to hide behid his ego and believe he's just gotta be somebody……. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| seems strange (5:07am EST Fri Jan 03 2003) Seems strange how people feel they need to be a machead or a pchead not a bit of both. Like if a mac crashes the user reboots quietly and hope no one noticed then tell everone how great macs are and how they never crash! I know they do!. Once Macs have dissapeared to the levels of the Atari it'll be the same arguments between intel and AMD users. ho hum… - by Duncan |
| win2k xp? (10:42am EST Fri Jan 03 2003) In my experience I have found no real difference between the two. You say you don't need XP for the looks, well I don't either, and those graphics can be turned off and you have the win2k interface on winxp. I don't know if there is really any difference, but XP does seem to me to manage memory better. And as far as drivers or games or whatever, they run the same things since they are nearly the same operating system. (Pro versions of course). As for crashes, I run my XP box as a server and use it for my daily computing needs which are not limited to video compression, programming, gaming, and general internet use and it hasn't crashed since I setup the server last year. I do reboot every 2-4 weeks, but no BSOD. I have had better luck with XP as compared to 2K but as many would say, hardware is a big factor. As for Mac's, I used some back in high school, They didn't appeal to me. The 2 that I used seemed to crash alot, but I will not bash them as the OS seems to have come along way. - by get out of the box |
| hmm (11:30am EST Fri Jan 03 2003) “Oh, I dunno, about as many as it needs for a bicycle riding freak to hide behid his ego…” 'dunno about this “hide behind his ego” bit. Seems like you're grasping at straws there, Zi. “…and believe he's just gotta be somebody” Kinda like someone who bolsters his platform choice arguments by touting the piddly little awards he's won? No more banal arguments for Gropo, back to /. where his karma speaks for itself… Oh yeah and where the “Macs are Overpriced and Overhyped Trolls” get modded to oblivion so he doesn't have to wade through them. Just had to come back and settle that long-standing pecker-matching contest with that sadly misguided JJ character. Taa! - by Gropo |
| I heard something very funny! (4:59pm EST Fri Jan 03 2003) Windowz is solid as a rock… If so, why Unix still exists, even them doesn't pretend their OS to be solid as a rock. Congratulation to you man! It's the first time you can enjoy a cheap copy of an OS that protect processes. Wow, it has been invented 20 years ago… wow. Power PC architecture is quite efficient for big jobs, so you can choose you platform with a little evaluation of your priority. If you want a computer that can close a window 1 second faster than a mac : Buy a PC. If you want to do some big calculation, and your priority is to finish the calculation the first time you run it (faster or not), then buy a Sun, IBM or even a mac… what ever… a Risc platform. A computer doesn’t need 4GHZ to run well, it need to be equal, balanced, parts going at the same speed, having the same rate of execution. I don’t find those PC very impressive, it’s gonna be a P4 3ghz with 133mhz bus… yeah. Or a super graphic card that is not use by the OS to process what’s on screen. OR a PC of 3ghz and the only way to have external hard drive is with that cheap USB 12 MBIT/s. Or, if you try Firewire it will work 1 time on 3 and not as fast as it supposed to be. Almost no one that use a mac would change it for a PC, but the thing is, they really know why. They have good reasons, because we’ve all tried once a PC to get a less expensive computer, but if the argument is : It don’t worth the price I’m saving…. It’s because it’s true. 1 hour of non-working could cost me 1000$. For some, it’s 10000$ and others it’s a lot more. As there is a market for big IBM server, for Sun and for PCs, as long as Apple listens to his customers (witch they do it very well) there will always be a market for Macs. The war will continue, and customers will still have a choice. I don’t wish for you that apple win the war, it will mean loose your job if you’re a PC Tech. - by Esi |
| Grover (6:26pm EST Fri Jan 03 2003) Thanks for taking the time to answer my question… So, if I understand it correctly, under XP you can shut down and even relaunch an app that is crashed. Cool. But these guys are talking about their whole operating systems going down (the Mac guy says the Finder crashed, the PC guy says Windows), while their other tasks remained unaffected (the Mac guy even said he was burning a CD on a USB burner…). I have a geek friend that says that USB isn't a “hardwire” connection, so if the OS crashes, it can't possibly keep on sending data. If anyone knows how to do this PLEASE LET ME KNOW… - by does it matter? |
| re: Gropo (10:59pm EST Fri Jan 03 2003) Well, at least I actually won awards, and on a platform that supports the software I use. I could be more like you and base platform choice on how pricy, er, “high quality” it is and how well the case design matches your interior design philosophy. Yes, your karma does speak for itself, often in complete opposite of what you're typing. *winkie* - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| to “Patty Cakes” (11:40pm EST Fri Jan 03 2003) If you think adobe after effects is video editing software, then you have no idea what you're talking about and really should get a mac so it can tell you how to do your job. - by e-motion graphics |
| Esi… (4:34pm EST Sat Jan 04 2003) Salut mon ami! T' as reason… C'est vrai que un Mac est dix fois mieux que un PC, mais les gens ici pense avec ses poches, pas ses tetes. Alors, ne perds pas ton temps de discute les benifices au niveau de l'experiance d' utilisateur, les gens ici sont seulment interese de discuter les performances des microchip qu'ils ne comprenent pas. If your not French, excuse me for assuming… If you are, parding my spelling… It's been a while… - by Joie de Vivre |
| Well, (8:28pm EST Sat Jan 04 2003) en plastique et assez ne faites pas un bon ordinateur. La différence entre les utilisateurs de Apple et les vrais utilisateurs d'ordinateur est des personnes de Apple les pensent seulement sont futée. If you can't understand it blame Babelfish. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| Nothing better to do at 3 in the morning (10:10pm EST Sat Jan 04 2003) Sigh, can't believe I read all these posts! I don't have a life, whats your excuse? - by a computer user |
| Video editing (11:07pm EST Sat Jan 04 2003) What makes a project good is the editor not the editing app. If you rely on an app to bring in clients you must be very mediocre. If you are good at your craft you will be good with any app. So don t come up with that b.s. of fcp. fcp is good but it is not the only good app. macs are good but pc are just as reliable for video editing. If profesional production is so keen why waist your pc for office stuff network them with yous macs and truly make money. BTW pixar animation co owned by you know who, uses pc only. richard m. - by ricahrd m. |
| Video editing (11:09pm EST Sat Jan 04 2003) What makes a project good is the editor not the editing app. If you rely on an app to bring in clients, or to make your self look more hip or professional you must be very mediocre. If you are good at your craft you will be good with any app. So don't come up with that b.s. of fcp. fcp is good but it is not the only good app. If professional production houses are so keen why waist your pc on office stuff network them with yous macs and truly make money. BTW pixar animation co owned by you know who, uses pc only. richard m. - by ricahrd m. |
| Choice is good (11:27pm EST Sat Jan 04 2003) I'm surprised that in the midst of all these PC vs. Mac arguments, nobody has acknowledged that competition between the two is good. If you're a PC user, it's not in your best interests for Apple to disappear. First, the PC world has benefited from many Apple innovations. Second, without competition from Apple, AMD, Motorola, and IBM, the Intel/Microsoft duopoly would be slower in providing new features and performance. Regardless of your preferences, as a computer user, wouldn't you prefer an environment with true competition? - by Infonaut |
| re:Infonaut (12:19pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) True, but real competition would be mainstream materials, kind of like ATI and Nvidia fighting over video cards or Intel and AMD over processors. Apple has fallen into the niche market where the buyers “in the club” will take pretty much anything that's put up by Steve. PC users go more by price and performance. As cited ad nauseum by Mr. Unappreciated Champion of the Mac Cause (he knows who he is) Apples are all about “quality” and “style,” but sadly not bang for the buck. Also, let's not forget all the wonderful PC innovations that Apple has adopted, such as IDE drives, AGP video, PC-100 and now DDR ram, and so on. Or the innovations done by someone else, such as IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) 1394, which Apple calls FireWire. Or the mistakenly assigned “innovations,” such as the ADC connector which is a specified part of the DVI standard that nobody else is bothering to use. If Apple was more like 30 or 40% percent of the market then there'd be “real” competition. 5% and slipping isn't enough. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| Heh! (4:08pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) That excellent logic Ziwi! I suppose Microsofts' R&D dept has never seen so much as looked at the Mac OS since…..1984 (well, only 5% percent share, so it may as well not exist then!). I just love all the bitchy quips about who invented what, by the way! For the record: Oh, and 'ricahrd m', Your quip about Pixar was nice, how about you read this: Ah, the spread of FUD continues! Remember kiddies, if you don't have anything new to say, just make it up! - by Nookster |
| Ziwi you're an idiot… (7:28pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) And you obviously don't know a god damn thing about marketing or competition. Do you think market share has anything to do with competition? Do you even think that product has anything to do with competition? Competiton exists in overlapping markets. Example, a travel agent and a used car dealership are in competition. Why? Because you may take trip or buy a used car. This type of competiton is usually not researched because the spin-off is unquantifiable. Primary and Secondary competion, which are far easier to quantify, exist between related products, alternative products that offer the same or similar benefits. Not only are Apple and Microsoft in competition, they are prime competitors. Windows XP and Mac OS X are products that illustrate an almost text-book definition of monopolistic competition (i.e. Many buyers and sellers, Differentiated products, Sufficient product knowledge, No barrier to entry*). The reason I say “almost” is because, while in theory anyone can make an OS, there is a severe barrier to overcome to make it establishment. And if there is one thing that everyone here can agree on: it's that barrier, and not innovation, that is keeping Microsoft in business. My name is Peter, and I'm a derivative Market Specialist - by Peter |
| re: Peter and Nookster (10:10pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) Well Peter I'll mind you not to curse and swear in my presence, it's bad manners and will come back to haunt you. If you take the view you got from your marketing textbook then yes, they're in competition. But how meaningful is it? If you take the look at the what most people here are talking about, which is innovations that supposedly are made by Apple and imitated or copied by everyone else then it's bogus. The only markets Apple is remaining influential in are graphic design (2d stuff) and education, and those are waning. Movie editing may be the only new thing coming up, mainly because Apple owns Final Cut and recently bought Shake. Apples at one time were very different machines from PC's, but over time have adopted so many PC features that aside from the Motorola processor and some bits deliberately set to be different they almost are PC's. (Can't wait to hear the flames on that one.) You've also ignored the extreme brand loyalty that Mac users have, part of the reason why the company stayed afloat before the return of His Jobsness, and how that loyalty is different from what the average PC user considers in buying a 'puter. Which kind of goes with what I saying, that Mac users will take whatever is Steve is putting out. And also, marketshare and product *do* matter. If you're selling a product that's not able to stand up to the others and you're a small portion of the market then you're not going to have much of a voice, ergo you're ability to change things is going to diminish or disappear. Ask Osborne or CompuAdd. I really hope for your sake you're not working at a job doing this kind of market research. Expect the usual blithe reply you make hundreds of thousands doing just that…… - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| re: Peter and Nookster (2) (10:12pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) And Nookster, you got me on the 1394, but it's still not an Apple only product as a lot of people seem to think it is. (I think you also know how long ago it was developed.) USB 2.0 is better anyways. I'll bring marshmellows for the replies. Didn't bother refuting all the PC innovations, eh? I'm sure Microsoft has looked at and tried to take apart every OS they could get their hands on–I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Also, don't forget Apple was more like 10% of the market several years ago. I think Microsoft is more worried about the various governments and agencies balking on their licensing and going with open source than fretting about how best to use Apple as an idea source. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| (1)Ziwi… (11:42pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) If you go back and read what I wrote you'll see that it's hardly textbook stuff. In fact, the “Travel Agent vs. Car Dealership” argument was the same one I based my final paper in University. Marketshare, as mentioned earlier, does not fit anywhere in the competition equation, except perhaps as a factor that can lead to economies of scale. Economies of scale, if leveraged vigorously, can lead to a barrier to entry which is *exactly* what Microsoft did. Apple is the only computer manufacturer (to my knowledge), that has been able to bypass the barrier Microsoft has set up, only because it manufactures the hardware its software operates on. Because of this, Apple is Microsoft's primary competitor in the Operating System arena. And the 5% market share Apple has is very significant in an industry that measures success in basis points. Think about it, if 5% was so insignificant to M$ would develop Office for the Mac? - by Peter (DMS) |
| (2) Ziwi… (11:43pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) The actual product being sold is also irrelevant. You are right when you say that PCs and Macs are built with 95% the same parts. But from the consumer's perspective these two products are quite different: they represent two different schools of thought. These two products are in competition only if they can satisfy the same needs. Because of the convergence of computing platforms, both of these products are suitable for most users. Here's a more clearcut example: imagine the consumer need being, say, typing reports. In such a case a typewritter and a computer, two totally different products, are competing for the same consumer dollar. These are very basic logical concepts, so I would start to worry if you didn't consider them self-evident. And since marketing may not be your thing, let's discuss what you're saying, which is… “If Apple was more like 30 or 40% percent of the market then there'd be “real” competition. 5% and slipping isn't enough.” Let's agree on two things first: 1) Macs are availible in most civilized countries… and the United States. 2) Humans are logical and emotional beings, that will always use logic and emotion, in varying degrees, when making a purchase in a free and democratic society. - by Peter (DMS) |
| (2) Ziwi… (11:44pm EST Sun Jan 05 2003) The actual product being sold is also irrelevant. You are right when you say that PCs and Macs are built with 95% the same parts. But from the consumer's perspective these two products are quite different: they represent two different schools of thought. These two products are in competition only if they can satisfy the same needs. Because of the convergence of computing platforms, both of these products are suitable for most users. Here's a more clearcut example: imagine the consumer need being, say, typing reports. In such a case a typewritter and a computer, two totally different products, are competing for the same consumer dollar. These are very basic logical concepts, so I would start to worry if you didn't consider them self-evident. And since marketing may not be your thing, let's discuss what you're saying, which is… “If Apple was more like 30 or 40% percent of the market then there'd be “real” competition. 5% and slipping isn't enough.” Lets agree on two things first: 1) Macs are availible in most civilized countries… and the United States. 2) Humans are logical and emotional beings, that will always use logic and emotion, in varying degrees, when making a purchase in a free and democratic society. - by Peter (DMS) |
| (3) Ziwi… (12:08am EST Mon Jan 06 2003) If then, Apple does make a product that is clearly superior to the competition, will people not buy more Macs? According to you, they won't because Apple has only 5% market share !?! The correct answer is, with mathematical certainty, they will… in the long run. In a market where no barrier exists (in theory) the differential in consumer satisfaction will result in instant volatility. But in real life, consumer needs are complicated and multi-faceted, not everyone is in the market simultaneously, and selection criteria vary. This results in decreased volatility. But make no mistake: Even the largest company in the world (currently Walmart, by the way) cannot continuously dissatisfy its clients and stay on top market forces will take over and roles will reverse… Market share isn't written in stone, its a result not a cause… |
| re: Peter (8:27am EST Mon Jan 06 2003) Final paper, eh? There's also a difference between applying generalized rules and knowing what's going on in the individual industries. Plus, there's that ole' shenanigan of bias and preference that people have which flies against logic. The Mac users support themselves as much as Apple does–some wouldn't touch anything other than a Mac for love or money. Apple makes their computers and hardware, which makes them more akin to SGI or Sun than with Microsoft, and let's not also forget Apple started out a little earlier than Microsoft. Apple already had a user base by the time Windows came along. Apple was originally fighting IBM and command line versus GUI interfaces…. Which kind of negates your “barrier to entry” argument. A new company starting out today would have a very significant barrier, and I'd say supporting useful apps would be just as important as fighting Microsoft. As for the marketshare thing (again!) when I owned a G4 most of the people I knew had never even *seen* a new Apple, and the few that found it interesting were immediately put off by the price, and one newer user couldn't see any value in it over a PC. Assume the best and Apple is making a clearly superior product (Which I don't feel they are) the price is still a turn off, as is having to buy Apple specific hardware that is often PC capable hardware done to work only with Apples. (Video cards come to mind.) If Apples were cheap and came with a comparable speed processor and part everywhere and a huge inventory of available apps (more than what's out now) then things migh change. Instead I know of a few companies that have stopped developing at all for Macs, partly from the low marketshare and also because Macs now have two major operating systems, Classic and OSX. OSX is picking up, but it's still a fraction of Apple's pie. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| re: Peter (2) (8:28am EST Mon Jan 06 2003) Lastly about Office for the Mac, Office has been developed for Macs for several years. Back in the mid nineties Macs were 10% of the market and therefore more viable, judging by how poor Office for the Mac has been selling in the latest version I don't think Microsoft would want to start fresh and develop it today. Besides, it also kept a viable Office competitor from being developed on the Mac platform ad thus migrating into the PC world. (Open Office may be taking that role, so who knows.) Lastly, if marketshare is a result, why has Apple declined from 10% to 5%? So there. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwwiw |
| Peter writes for C|NET? (9:32am EST Mon Jan 06 2003)
“No matter what happens on Tuesday, “The innovation ratio will be much higher than Apple's 5 percent market share,” Doherty said.” - by HoPi (-_-) |
| correct URL: (9:34am EST Mon Jan 06 2003)
- by HoPi (:P) |
| Groping for banality (11:42am EST Mon Jan 06 2003) Some people have difficulty grasping simple ideas. Also, some people are deceitful. Gropo is one of them. Since he posted the link, let me repost the criteria there. I know there's difference of opinion on this but I'm basing this on several criteria. 1] The PC market is flat. 2] Technological history tends that the consumer market will adopt the minimum feature set at the lowest cost and marginalize the best technology at the premium price. Call this the Betamax vs. VHS lesson. 3] Motorola is considering spinning off the chip division as unprofitable. 4] Investors and venture capitalists will not invest in a flat market on a marginal product. 5] Current machines are sufficient for most ordinary consumer purposes. 6] Discretionary consumer income is evaporating and unemployment is on the rise. Christmas sales season is expected to be flat for all consumer electronics. 7] School sales, despite isolated spikes, are eroding as Dell poaches that market. 8] Apple stores are an expense, requiring staff outlays and will push independent dealers into receivership. They count, in the larger context, as a negative. 9] Pixar buys Apple workstations. They are a huge customer. Please don't insult me by insisting that profits from Pixar don't find its way into Apple's coffers. This trend will end as competing companies with non-Apple products, reduce Pixar's share of the digital film market. 10] The war will further decrease market investment. If these reasons seem spurious to many and if Apple remains a ::hardware:: company by the end of 2002, I will return here on 1 January 2003 to apologize. Criteria 1,2,4,5,6,7, & 10 seem to apply while 3 is yet-to-be, 8 requires more data pertaining to the fate of independents, and 9 is questionable. All of which doesn't matter. The outcome is different than I predicted and I admitted I was wrong as I promised I would. Gropo simply can't comprehend basic English. - by JJ Brannon |
| Ziwi… you're impossible!(1) (11:54am EST Mon Jan 06 2003) 1) Yes, Microsoft did create a barrier to entry when it negotiated its licensing contract with IBM (who took the deal out of desperation to compete with Apple). Apple was the new kid on the block and IBM had been around for nearly 60 years. PC manufactering firms had to choose which of these two platforms they were going to support. Given the level of uncertainty surrounding the new technology and industry, they choose to play it safe and go with IBM. None of these guys, especially not IBM, knew that they were writting history. 2) Can't we get off the price topic? You've beaten that ol' horse into sausage! Yes, Macs cost more. Apple knows that price is a surrogate indicator of quality, and yes, it's called prestige pricing (and they can get away with it!). It's also due, in part, to the higher cost associated with building Macs. So what? Some women pay 300$ for shoes that were made in Italy by some guy that beats his kids to work the leather! Should no one buy a BMW because a Mustang is just as fast, but cheaper? - by Peter (DMS) |
| Ziwi (2) (12:04pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) 3) OK there… Office X was developed while Apple was at 5%, and yes, M$ poured alot of money into that project, (which BTW is better than the Windows version). Maybe one day M$ won't make Office for the mac anymore, but for the time being it looks like Bill still needs Steve to undermine the competition… I guess you didn't follow the anti-trust lawsuit either… That's OK. 4) Apple's market share slipped primarily as a result of bad business decisions made before 1997 and of other factors beyond the company's control. Since then, Apple has been a world leader in computer innovation, with award winning products like the iMac and iPod, and ground-breaking technologies like Firewire, Airport, Gig-Ethernet, Mac OS X, Quicktime and Final Cut Pro. Apple continues to be a popular choice for schools and graphic design professionals and has gained ground in many other segments as well. 5) The PC vs. Mac debate is simply a matter of opinion. In my opinion, Windows is an outdated and outdone, archaic OS that needs to be right-clicked on and moved to the recycling bin. Go ahead, tell me that I buy whatever Steve puts on the market. Maybe I do (…not really). - by Peter (DMS) |
| re: Peter (1:32pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) (DMS–Director of Marketing Services?) Trust me, that G4 and OSX cost me far more than any Windows machine has or will. And yes, I own legitimate copies of my software. And, duh, Anti-Trust, what's that? Maybe part of the reason the world went IBM early on was Apple refused to license their OS and didn't license machines at all until too late, and under terms that pretty much nixed the idea of the clones making a difference. The other was some people realized all that IBM had control over was the BIOS, and if you made a compatible BIOS without IBM code then you could make what you wanted, hence the army of clones that ran over us in the 80's. You think IBM was happy about that? And what would these clones run as the OS? Intel based chip and no license or port from Apple so what do you get? I guess the clone makers were also run by Microsoft. Lastly, IBM was if I remember right wanted people to go to a Unix based operating system even as early as the 286, but the world was already using DOS by that point, and people didn't want to change. Also don't forget about OS/2, even though MS helped work on it OS/2 was still IBM's puppy. Apple could have become the leader and they blew it, unless of course you believe that Apple was the font of all creativity and everything that's happened was part of some evil scheme by IBM/Bill Gates/My Dog to keep Apple down from saving the world. As for the rest, gimme a break, the education market is slipping, FireWire was developed back in something like 1995 just not implemented until recently, and the only thing that's really taken off has been the Apple Stores, even though Apple has laid people off on the manufacturing end. Once the novelty wears off I don't know how well the stores will fare. You're starting to read like a marketing blurb for Apple, but on the other hand I think you're showing what you're really up to…. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| Refuting innovations…ME? Come on now Ziwi, I embrace any technology that helps me get my work done, irrespective of its origins (and I'll thank you not to make assumptions on my part, I'm bi-lingual BTW). Would you really be so stuck on this whole Firewire thing if Intel had developed it? How very zealous of you! Leave the marshmallows at home, you've got enough flames going there already! Here's another telltale Zealous quip: “USB 2.0 is better anyways” How, exactly? It's not even aimed at the same market, (and it's not even any faster). Oh, but wait a minute…. It's INTEL hardware, and thats all that matters eh? As long as it has nothing to do with Apple, then it's OK by you. Better not mention the MPEG4 standard then, because that'll really cheese you off! Can't wait for you to have a go at that! Is your first name Charlie by the way? ) - by Nookster |
| RE: Ziwi (3:04pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) DMS… that's Derivatives Market Specialist. I don't know why you're insisting on this when I already explained to you why everyone sided with IBM in the first place. - But what could they have done, asks Ziwi? - I dunno, maybe buy out Apple for a few million, and own it all? No one did. Not even M$. When they got IBM they were doing jumping jacks! It wasn't till after the deal was signed that they realized how big it really was. That's when IBM realized how bad it was. I'm tired of arguing with you… So I'll agree with your version of history… Bill Gates is a genius, Windows is the best OS on the market, Microsoft is an ethical company, PC manufacturers joyfully and eagerly signed up with M$… Am I forgeting anything else…? Oh, yes, M$ and Apple are not in competition, M$ has never stolen an Apple concept and apply it to Windows… and lest we not forget… Apple is going under and the number one hint that you're a disillusional-neurotic-psychopathic |
| BTW (3:11pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) Nookster's right too…. - by Peter (DMS) |
| re: Nookster and Peter (4:18pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) I can't believe you don't like marshmellows…. Anyways I already knew about Mpeg-4. USB 2.0 *is* faster than FireWire and has better device support and is backwards compatible with all those USB 1.1 devices hanging about. I don't care who developed it. No, I'm not Charlie, but I did know a Charlie Brown once, his first name was James. And Peter–you must be wet behind the ears. The cloners copying IBM's BIOS and the refusal of Apple to license their OS back in the 80's are all well known and documented facts. If Apple had been willing to license the OS the world may be different, I'm sorry you can't accept that. And regards your earlier comment, BMW's and Mustangs may be nice but most people drive Tracers and Tempos. Think about it in marketspeak. Lastly, it's spelled troglodyte, but then considering your emotional state I can imagine a few typos are in order. So quit screaming like a banshee and calm down, take a break or a nap, have some warm milk or something like that. I'll be here when you get back. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| OK… (5:08pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) Lets settle this like men… You play Chess? - by Peter (DMS) |
| BTW… (5:31pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) Yeah I know about the BIOS thing, I just don't see where that fits in what we were arguing about. I'm not aware if Apple has, or ever had, a restriction on the use of its OS per se, but it doesn't really matter cause they've restricted the use of there ROM. What do you do for a living anyway ? - by Peter (DMS) |
| re: Peter (6:07pm EST Mon Jan 06 2003) As I said, all IBM had control (licensing) over was the BIOS. Once that was nicked anybody could make their own computer that behaved like an IBM and could run IBM software. Ergo competition like crazy to sell cheaper computers that were IBM compatible. Quality varied but prices dropped and they became more affordable. The main OS was DOS, and even early Windows had some competition like Geoworks (Or whatever Digital called it back then.) Like I said, most people drive Tempos and Tracers, bread and butter machines. You think I wouldn't have a dual Xeon with 2gb of Ram if I could afford it? Which kind of relates to a question I've asked several other people–what does Apple want to do? Regain marketshare and influence, or continue making computers for a very small group? I could crank up my own OS (hypothetically speaking) and it could do X fairly well. I would be in competition with Microsoft but unless I had something really killer in terms of performance or price or availability I wouldn't have very many users and I don't think Microsoft could care less. The competition isn't meaningful. An alternative OS running on the same machines with wide app support(Linux being the most likely one around) is what would be needed to face Microsoft. Telling a new user they can buy a machine anywhere and run the alterna-OS on it is much more viable than telling them they have to buy a specific and narrow range of machines with it's own apps to do anything. In that regard, as I said above, Apple is more like SGI and Sun in that regard, just they want to try being mainstream. BTW, don't tell me you're playing “Chess” and then turn right around and ask what I do for a living. That's not even good form for Poker. - by Ziwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwiwi |
| thanks (10:47am EST Sat Jan 07 2006) This is an excellent site thanks for the information! - by andy |
| For Cypriot People (8:54am EST Mon Aug 14 2006) I need friends cYpriot in New Zaland - by Georges Azas |
Please Login to post a Comment. Not Registered? Click Here.
Forgot Username / Password?