or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Finally an interesting G5 story
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Finally an interesting G5 story - Page 8

post #281 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>

But could you not at least let us know what ApplePI really is?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I doubt that very many know much about it. It stands for Apple Processor Interface, and is a way of connecting the processor(s) to memory and other motherboard functions. That's all I think I know. Since Apple is in the Hyper-transport group, it may be related to that in some way.

[ 12-05-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
post #282 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Jesus, what a numbnuts...

Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. If you need 25%, then you don't. The share doesn't justify the investment, though it *might* identify a measure where that investment breaks even (and in a growing or shrinking market, doesn't even do that.)

Since we have NO idea what Apple needs in units to qualify the Xserve as a success, we're not in a position to argue that 1% is good or bad. Consider that in the light of a market twice the size, the same 1% is twice as successful, a market half the size, the 1% could be a horrible failure.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Reply
post #283 of 441
Does anybody know whether a dual core 970 would have dual altivec engines? Or would both chips share the same one? Oh and FireWire 2 should be out in the next revision of the PowerMacs.

From <a href="http://www.macrumors.com" target="_blank">www.macrumors.com</a>
While widely suspected, Firewire 2 ports were indeed designed/evaluated for the most recent PowerMac design that was released in August. This is based on an Apple design PDF which was unintentionally exposed on Apple's servers. The PDF was quickly removed.

1394b (or Firewire 2) was approved this year in March, however, due to the lag time before finalization it was not expected until late summer at the earliest.

For whatever reasons, Firewire 2 did not make its way into the most recent revisions. This, however, does seem to indicate that Firewire 2 will be coming soon.

ALSO:
Powerlogix says they will have a 1.2Ghz Cube chip out soon. Does this imply that apple is about to make another large speed boost? Since in the past Powerlogix etc were not allowed to have the top end apple chips. Also Motorola would have to have good yields to sell them to the Upgrade companies would they not.

I'm wondering if the top end iMac will go dual? I mean since the 970 is going to be so much faster than the G4 wouldn't it be good to go ahead and make a dual top end iMac?
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #284 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>Does anybody know whether a dual core 970 would have dual altivec engines? Or would both chips share the same one?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Each core would have its own VMX unit -- these execution units are too tightly tied to the core to be effectively shared.

I'm waiting on more ApplePi info... I'll post when I get useful data.

MacLuv: I wasn't arguing that x86 isn't the defacto standard (who can argue that given that its &gt;95% of the desktop market?), I was merely pointing out that it is the "ISA" that is the standard not a "processor". As you well know there are many x86 ISA processors (386, 486, K6, Pentium, P-II, P-III, P-IV, Athlon, Cyrix, etc). Just because x86 is the standard for Windows machines doesn't mean Apple should make it the standard for Macs. There are advantages to PowerPC that Apple has been enjoying for years now, and the performance deficit has only existed for about 2 years now. This deficit is not inevitable either, IBM has a great deal of potential now that they've picked up the ball the Motorola deliberately dropped.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #285 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>

Jesus, what a numbnuts...

Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it.

&lt;true stuff snipped&gt;

Consider that in the light of a market twice the size, the same 1% is twice as successful, a market half the size, the 1% could be a horrible failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>

IIRC Apple were aiming for 5% share of the MP3 market with iPod in order to break even.
meh
Reply
meh
Reply
post #286 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by johnsonwax:
<strong>

Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. If you need 25%, then you don't. The share doesn't justify the investment, though it *might* identify a measure where that investment breaks even (and in a growing or shrinking market, doesn't even do that.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny.

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #287 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Its my turn to feed the troll:

Macluv, I love reading your posts! Although, its for the same reasons that make the Jerry Springer Show entertaining.

How many people ridiculing you from the audience will it take for you to step back and figure out why people perceive you in this way?
post #288 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>Macluv, I love reading your posts! </strong><hr></blockquote>

Thanks a bunch! I love you too! I'd prefer it, though, if you stopped sifting through my mail. Some of that stuff is about &lt;whatever&gt;.


:eek:


Hey, you must be a fan of McCarthyism.

:if the beat's fat i use it:

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #289 of 441
i think all of my quotes are from MacLuv (i think your name is a good sign that you can't move away from apple even if you want to right?)

[quote] Apple is in no position to be picky about speed right now. By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. A better speculation would assume that Apple is trying to devise a new business design that would allow the release of OS X onto x86. Thanks to Apple's own "processor wars", consumers are wise to CPU performance. If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers. From a business perspective, x86 offers a lower-priced performance solution with a standard upgrade pricing ramp. Investors are happy, customers are happy--it's a win-win across the board. All that is needed at this point is a strategy to make it work--and I'm not sure Mr. Jobs is our man for the task. <hr></blockquote>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970?

[quote] Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering <hr></blockquote>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money i think they will put enough of it in R&D to reach their final mark of a 10 times faster system than todays fastest (see top 500-supercomputer-list <a href="http://www.top500.org/list/2002/11/" target="_blank">here</a>).
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays G4-performance to a factor of 3 performance will not be of any interest any more (cause anyone can have a machine that is as fast as the Wintels AND have all the benefits of the mac). if you like to explain why x86 should change the situation for apple at those points, please let us know.?.? again: apple can switch 4 to 16 970-cpus into their machines and let them fly with os x now. as far as i know the G4 we have now isn't that good in multiprocessing with &gt;2cpus. and again - if you like to present us your experiences with pentium4-multiprocessing, please let us know.
[quote] Yes, Apple's profit design right now is based on perceived value rather than actual value. It is dependant upon people who do not yet realize PCs have become a commodoty market. It leeches off of what I call the Loyal Apple User Base (LAUB), locking us into a proprietary system that only Apple can control. Like you say, this means we pay extra for hardware that is outperformed by the competition--just because it looks pretty. <hr></blockquote>
i think x86 won't change the price of a mac!? i know the PCs and see that they all have problems - i don't know if it is windows or the cheap hardware which is the reason for these but i don't like to get a PC which stops working if i install some sofware or plug in a second graphics card. so i'm happy with mac and will be glad if i can continue to use my machine without re-configuring all the time. could be that os-x-on-x86 will change some of these problems but the machines would still be more expensive and will still look much better
[quote] Even if the migration to x86 seems unlogical from a developers' perspective, it can still be done. Everybody has a price. <hr></blockquote>
... for which customers have to pay more again for new HW/SW (from a business-standpoint) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. <hr></blockquote>
i like this sentence (really)
[quote] There is general speculation on this and other boards that Microsoft somehow would be able to fault XP on an AMD CPU if AMD supported Apple. Since AMD recently announced it is pursuing the technology rather than the market they are in a better position to support Apple. Big Blue has its own agenda, and if one recalls, the whole reason Motorola was brought into the AIM alliance is because Apple did not trust IBM. IBM, at any given time, presents so many conflicts of interest to Apple that it's not worth the risk, especially if Apple is counting on OS X to see Apple through the next 15 years. <hr></blockquote>
if microsoft will stop supporting x86-AMD-cpus we can see how x86 will die completely as AMD with their 64bit-on-x86-efforts are the only ones which will keep x86 alive. to this part another question: will x86 continue it's way up into the Ghz-heaven if intel will concentrate on itanium more and more? i thought the fast progress Mhz-wise is a result of the intel-AMD-x86-war? and can we trust intel more than IBM? can we trust AMD? i don't know...


could be that i've many things wrong in my post but if so,please try to explain a "normal" person (i hope i am) why x86 in an apple-mac will change all things or will be so much better? what excactly will be the benefit? what will apple so with the x86? will it sell less expensive macs? will iTunes or iMovie be better on x86? will i be happy? and why do you have an eMac? i thought you like to join the industry standard? i really don't get this ... i think i must be stupid. *oregs*
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #290 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by JCG:
<strong>from Cube Owner:


It sounds like Moto has moved the G4 to a smaller manufacturing process, and that they will have sufficient 1.2 Ghz chips sometime after January to supply Apple, and the upgrade manufacturers....Good news for me and my Cube. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Another thought, could this signal the end of the G4 in the PowerMac line? Think about it, if the PowerMac lost the G4, then Apple would be buying a lot less G4 processors. At the same time, the ones they buy Apple would want a lower power requirement, and heat disipation so that they could put them in iMacs and PowerBooks....yes this is rampent speculation....but a nice thought all the same.
post #291 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by dfiler:
<strong>
how many people ridiculing you from the audience will it take for you to step back and figure out why people perceive you in this way?</strong><hr></blockquote>

i think he will stop if something else will become more interesting - this could be:

- a new car
- something to drink
- a new girlfriend
- a new XP-machine
- a new puzzle
- a new business-standpoint-gong-gong-report
- something to eat
- something to sleep (with?)
- someone real to beat
- a broken leg
- unreal tournament 2003
- an egg ("an egg? why the hell...?")
- ...

:confused: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #292 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by JCG:
<strong>

Another thought, could this signal the end of the G4 in the PowerMac line? Think about it, if the PowerMac lost the G4, then Apple would be buying a lot less G4 processors. At the same time, the ones they buy Apple would want a lower power requirement, and heat disipation so that they could put them in iMacs and PowerBooks....yes this is rampent speculation....but a nice thought all the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>

good thought - i agree with this completely
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #293 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>

IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not sure where you got that statistic but it's a load of <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-843710.html?tag=rn" target="_blank">crap</a>. I'm not even sure you know the difference between server and computer market right now.

IBM has led the server market for some time and only the recent merger of Compaq and HP has really threatened that. Dell has never been a force in the server market because their business model really hasn't been condusive to it. It's also worth noting IBM's market share has been increasing over the past few years.

As I said you really just don't know what you are talking about. There's no need to bother correcting each of your ideas, which would take more time than I really care to spend away from other activities (pay my consultancy fees for the time it'll take me and I'll gladly do it), when it is clear the person stating them lacks credibility.

On a side note try going to an IEEE conference and telling people IBM isn't on the cutting edge of research and see how many agree with you. Each year the top researchers at IBM publish a lot of papers on a lot of topics and their reasearch is very well respected. To say otherwise really does just make you look ignorant.

Finally I never made comment about your intelligence I just said you were lacking experience and understanding of the topic area. Big difference there. If you take that as an insult to your intelligence then that's your neurosis and really not my problem.

Edit: Sorry just have to pick up on this as well.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment... </strong><hr></blockquote>

Worldwide the server market is US$40 billion. To go from 0% - 1.2% means Apple just captured in excess of $400 million in revenue, assuming the number carries over worldwide. That's significant.

What's more in a shrinking market where Apple has previously had no presense and no respect to have a 1.2% share 6 months after launch is fine. It gives them a launch, considerable revenue and something to grow on.

You really do seem to know absolutely nothing about business.

[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #294 of 441
Hans-Georg Wagner, head of the communications and networking unit for the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, has high hopes for Linux on Intel: "In about three years time," he says, "I think Linux on Intel will be eating massively into the server market, and this will include datacentre applications."

When I read this in the Register, I immediately saw why IBM is also interested in using the 970 for their own lower end servers. They obviously see the threat from x86 hardware running Linux, and will pull out all stops to keep the server market. This is really good news for Apple, who will have a supplier that is very motivated to have the best possible chips for this market.
post #295 of 441
With regard to serves. For big servers price is not important quality is. Imagine that Ford or Walmart has all their inventory databases going down. They will lose the first million dollar in minutes and some hours that will add up. In this context you buy the solution that minimize such scenarios not with the smallest price tag.

This is a different world than personal computers were if A is twise as fast or half the price B but it craches once a year most people would by A not B.

Back to the G5.
If a 1GHz G4 dissapate 30W and a 1.8 GHz 970 is estimated to be about 42 W. Apple might not need 1.5 G4 or G5 for the portable computers but will use 1.5 GHz 970 instead. For the eMac and iMac the difference in heat output is trivial.

Back in 1997 and the 350 MHz 604E in the 9600 tower the promise that risc CPUs scaled better than cisc seemed to come true. It would be nice to be at least in the same range clock wise. Motorola has just got into the one point something GHz and Intel has left the two Ghz range behind, even their budget CPU celeron has reached the two GHz range.

My guess is that there will be no Motorola CPUs at all at Apple in 2004 but with Apple is hard to know. They had the PB 150 with a 33 MHz 68030 out until October 1995! At that time the laptops were using either 486dx4 or pentiums And Apple had 8500 with 604 CPus out in between that the 60040 still was around as was the old 601 and the newly introduced 603.

Having 5 different CPUs around at the same time with very different performance per clock cycle for very confusing line up. The higher numbered 040 was substantially faster than the 030 at 33 MHz. A 120 MHz 604 not 4 times the speed of a 33 Mhz 030 but much faster. The higher numbered 604 was a bit faster than the 601 if both were at 120 MHz but the 603 that also had a higher number than 601 was still substantially slower at the same clock speed.

If Apple take
G3 the current one
G3X with 200 Mhz bus and larger L2
G4 the current one
G4X with faster bus and other stuff
970
Then we are back to a similar mess.
G3=G4 unless VE
G3X faster than G4 VE you get the picture.

Apple should have a clear lineup were it is easy to figure out trade offs in performance between a iBook, BP or iMac-eMac-Tower.

One solution is to scrap the G3 as soon as possible. If the Velocity Engine aka Alti-Vec was the the future of computers back in 1999 why then sell computer lacking this important feature 2004 <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

So what about the G5? Well it is not and will not be!
post #296 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>
(pay my consultancy fees for the time it'll take me and I'll gladly do it)
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Consultancy fees for what?

:confused:

I'll deal with you when I get back from the airport...
post #297 of 441
Poll.

How would you best describe Macluv?

A troll [ ]
'Challenged' [ ]
Ignorant [ ]
Just plain stupid [ ]
All of the above [X]

This is my favorite quote so far.
[quote]I'll deal with you when I get back from the airport...<hr></blockquote>
Ooooohhhhh, Telomar you better run and hide before you get bludgeoned with yet another barrage of stupidity.
post #298 of 441
MacLuv gets his kicks from being different. Just remember Big Blue is always watching you!
\tYea and I think you could use a good girl, as long as she doesn't work for AMD.
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #299 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>
Not sure where you got that statistic but it's a load of crap. I'm not even sure you know the difference between server and computer market right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I'm not sure you know the difference between analysing market penetration and evaluating total market worth.

I said, in a quick reply to another question:
[quote]<strong>
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, I was talking about estimated units shipped per 3Q. I realize I'm using the term "market" here loosely but as a *ahem* "consultant" I would expect that you knew what I was talking about. Sorry. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> (I also realize this wasn't the greaest of rebuttals, but what do you expect at 3AM? The fact that you couldn't point out my own mistake properly suggests a lack of depth on your part.)

Of course, when I mentioned market penetration I got this lovely joke:

[quote]from johnsonwax:<strong>
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. {...}
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm sorry if I thought this was funny as it tries to dismiss the importance of market penetration by mistaking ROI analysis with a break-even analysis. If only it were that easy.

I realize what the post is trying to convey, but market penetration has nothing to do with financials--it's about sales/marketing. (at least, for the sake of this argument it is. I'm not going to split hairs with this sh*t.) If I'm talking about market penetration, evaluating what an industry is worth and who's on top of it has already been done.

I would expect a "consultant" to know all this.

[quote]<strong>
Worldwide the server market is US$40 billion. To go from 0% - 1.2% means Apple just captured in excess of $400 million in revenue, assuming the number carries over worldwide. That's significant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

First, you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, then use a share figure I've gotten from a completely different report to support your own argument. I'm sorry Mr. Consultant, but you're fired.

PS. The statistic that you say is a load of crap was pulled from the same source your article pulled it from--Gartner Dataquest. Do your homework before you try to take me to school.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #300 of 441
Fired? Oh I see that was supposed to be funny. hahahahaha...yea ok.

NEXT!
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #301 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Algol:
<strong>NEXT!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh don't get me started about that company.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #302 of 441
Hey MacLuv your post count is 133. The Bus speed of 3000 dollar Apple Computers for years.
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #303 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<hr></blockquote>

i think he will stop if something else will become more interesting - this could be:

- a new car
** i just got one (used) but i hate driving. I'm from New York and I miss the subway.

- something to drink
** at times i feel a bit parched but this wouldn't stop my obsessive posting behavior.

- a new girlfriend
** i have a "wife", but she's gone to Thailand/China for 8 weeks with her friend, so I've got a bit of time on my hands

- a new XP-machine
** i don't know if this would help... :confused:

- a new puzzle
** now you're starting to sound like my mother-in-law

- a new business-standpoint-gong-gong-report
** :confused: hey, some people geek out to technology, I geek out to business.

- something to eat
** no thanks.

- something to sleep (with?)
** if you already haven't been able to figure it out, i suffer from chronic insomnia when I'm worried

- someone real to beat
** i'm not a big fan of violence. Sarcasm, sure.

- a broken leg
** i think that would make my posting habits worse

- unreal tournament 2003
** now we're getting somewhere... if only i had a faster machine! D'OH! I have a PS2, but haven't seen any good games recently...

- an egg ("an egg? why the hell...?")
** hmm...

- ...

*** i really want one of those micro racers. That would be cool.


Krassy, you're alright.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #304 of 441
Yea... this thread is starting to suck.

Hey and MacLuv you could use the egg to "egg" Krassy's car. Ummm on second thought don't they come in dozens? hehe
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
"People don't want handouts! People want hand jobs!" ~ Connecticut governor William O'Neil at a political rally, followed by riotous applause
Reply
post #305 of 441
This thread needs to be moved to Fireside chat. No one seems to even be debating, the possiblly included in a Power Mac IBM 970 that migh be called the G5, anymore. Instead it is just bashing MacLuv. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
post #306 of 441
Feeding of trolls is prohibited. Let them hi-jack threads some place else.
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
I heard that geeks are a dime a dozen, I just want to find out who's been passin' out the dimes
----- Fred Blassie 1964
Reply
post #307 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
- a new girlfriend
** i have a "wife", but she's gone to Thailand/China for 8 weeks with her friend, so I've got a bit of time on my hands
</strong><hr></blockquote>

wow i was close enough i'd say. ok


so what about my other post. why excactly should moving to x86 help apple to stay in business (better than with the 970 which is my favourite)?

greets

edit: hey MacLuv - i hope you know much of my statements are more for fun than for bashing you - just wanted to point this out. also i'd really like to hear your words about how x86 will help given the fact that i don't think that apple will cut prices...

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Krassy ]</p>
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #308 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by Krassy:
<strong>

so what about my other post. why excactly should moving to x86 help apple to stay in business (better than with the 970 which is my favourite)?

</strong><hr></blockquote>

... I've read your post and I'm actually preparing a case right now... as people like bashing brains in here i'm trying to make it as "airtight" as I can-- I'll post another thread when it's done. It will address a lot of stuff mentioned in this thread. I've been working on this for a long time, actually, so we'll see what happens.

[quote]<strong>
edit: hey MacLuv - i hope you know much of my statements are more for fun than for bashing you - just wanted to point this out. also i'd really like to hear your words about how x86 will help given the fact that i don't think that apple will cut prices...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, don't worry about it... people love to bash, and I've been around long enough to know an elbow in the side from a kick in the nuts. I love those "Troll Feeding" posts... they remind me of the people who find enjoyment booting people out of chat rooms.

Like, way to be original, dudes.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
post #309 of 441
MacLuv, where are your statistics? You didn't provide a link. What I get from the link so generously provided by Telomar is the following:

2001 Worldwide server marketshare (not Unix seerver marketshare or Intel server marketshare):

IBM: 29%
Sun: 15.4%
Compaq: 13.9%
HP: 12.8%
Dell: 6.4%

Couldn't get any clearer than that.

Here's the quote for those who don't want to go to the link:
[quote]<strong>Big Blue cemented its first-place spot in the worldwide market, increasing its share from 25 percent to 29 percent. The increase mirrors similar changes in the North American server market... Worldwide, second-place Sun dropped 2 percent, to 15.4 percent, while third-place Compaq dropped 0.9 percent, to 13.9 percent, and fourth-place HP dropped 0.1 percent, to 12.8 percent. Fifth-place Dell Computer eked out a 0.1 percent gain to 6.4 percent.</strong><hr></blockquote>
post #310 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
Couldn't get any clearer than that.


</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure you can. Considering that's not the data I was referring to, it's pretty cloudy. Why don't you just post the stats for the Dallas Cowboys while you're at it? It may prove just as useful.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

I'll give you another shot to find the data I was referring to yourself. Then you might learn how to do research on your own. I didn't post the link because I was replying to "consultant boy"--who apparently "charges" people <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> to hit the Google search button and post the first piece of evidence he finds that supports his argument. Even if that evidence is bogus and out of date.

If you stop harassing me and ask nicely, I'll post the link for you. But you might have to beg.

[inner dialouge]
What's with these ****in' people?
[/inner dialouge]

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #311 of 441
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Oh yeah. I hate to break it to you, but we're at the end of 2002.

You want to look for market penetration specs for servers sold by unit. Estimates. Not total market evaluation. Dig?

Once you have that data, determine what Apple's market penetration is and estimate growth potential.

You know you've got it right when it makes you laugh.

Now go away and do your homework.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #312 of 441
This is what happens when I'm bored.

This is for Telomar

<a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/17758.html" target="_blank">*** EL LINKO ***</a>

[quote] The UNIX Market

But overall, challenger Sun is the Goliath in the UNIX server segment, and the company padded its already hefty 50.7 percent market share by an additional 3.3 percent, reaching 54 percent. Meanwhile, third-place IBM saw a 4.1 percent loss in that market, from 21.3 percent to 17.2 percent.

UNIX server seller Hewlett-Packard increased its market share from 16.6 percent to 19.8 percent, unseating IBM to take the number two spot. However, analysts said they expect this gain will crumble as a result of Compaq's long-term phaseout of UNIX servers in the wake of the recently approved HP-Compaq merger.

According to Gartner, the UNIX server market accounted for 40 percent of the US$4.3 billion in total server sales in the United States, making it the largest single segment despite a sales decline of 5.3 percent, from $1.8 billion to $1.7 billion. <hr></blockquote>

Hey, how about that. IBM is in third place this year. Considering that Apple is now making a UNIX server, this is the only data that is relevant to us. And it doesn't even cover *ahem* market penetration, which Apple has only attempted in the US. Thus, the worldwide market is of no concern to us right now.

Now Telomar, tell me, what sort of consultant are you? A CutNPaste Consultant? Don't bring a knife to a gunfight, kid.

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />

PS... stay cool.

<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
post #313 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by snoopy:
<strong>When I read this in the Register, I immediately saw why IBM is also interested in using the 970 for their own lower end servers. They obviously see the threat from x86 hardware running Linux, and will pull out all stops to keep the server market. This is really good news for Apple, who will have a supplier that is very motivated to have the best possible chips for this market.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are we talking servers or PCs?

IBM will kill Xserve. How is Apple supposed to compete in the server market? With no room to grow, Xserve will either drain funds from Apple's consumer products or die a slow lingering death.

<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
i'm wondering if Apple could license it's OS as a Linux alternative to Big Blue.
post #314 of 441
Data? Figures? Stats? Business models? market Penetration?

who the hell gives a f*ck?

Christ, if apple is populated with guys that think like this then no wonder we're screwed.

all we want is an insanely powerful killer computer in a killer designed unit that is so fast we have to find ways of slowing it down just to be able to use it.

Think different.

screw the economy. that's just something that people with a skewed education feel they ought to be "experts" in in order to have a valid viewpoint.

Economics is a religion - nothing more
Business is a religion - nothing more.

lets actually talk about the machines we (I assume) love and gate with equal abandon.

I've just set up an athlon XP on a mates machine and it just kills my Dual 450. Not just a bit - by a mile. This is enought to concern me that the end of the road beckons for apple if they can't get their asses into gear. However, it is not enough to convince me that moving to amd or intel would be in apple's interests. Apple always find a way to shoot themselves in the foot - usually price/performance.

if anyone wants to talk business then go read the Financial Times and leave us alone.

Lets talk powermac - a real future.

lets not settle for less

lets think different

Greatly Insane
Reply
Greatly Insane
Reply
post #315 of 441
And the award for best actor in a supporting role goes to:

SPOOKY!

*Applause*




Great performance, man, I really dug it. Where's the wrap party?

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #316 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by spooky:
<strong>I've just set up an athlon XP on a mates machine and it just kills my Dual 450. Not just a bit - by a mile.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's funny, my dual 1 GHz kills a Dual 450 by a mile too.

[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #317 of 441
"....all we want is an insanely powerful killer computer in a killer designed unit that is so fast we have to find ways of slowing it down just to be able to use it."

Amen to that!!!

They need to be so fast it'll give you a nosebleed just trying to comprehend the insane speed.
Just wishful thinking.

I know it will never happend. Well be stuck with the G4 until 2004 and then Apple will go chapter eleven. Just my prediction <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
post #318 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>With no room to grow, Xserve will either drain funds from Apple's consumer products or die a slow lingering death.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And why doesn't it have room to grow?
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #319 of 441
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
i'm wondering if Apple could license it's OS as a Linux alternative to Big Blue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
this a good thought. i saw it already in another thread. the idea was just to license the OS X Server to IBM. this would be a smart move in my opinion.
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
go AAPL, go to $70 !!! © 2004
Reply
post #320 of 441
"....all we want is an insanely powerful killer computer in a killer designed unit that is so fast we have to find ways of slowing it down just to be able to use it."

Amen to that!!!

They need to be so fast it'll give you a nosebleed just trying to comprehend the insane speed.
Just wishful thinking.

I know it will never happend. Well be stuck with the G4 until 2004 and then Apple will go chapter eleven. Just my prediction <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Finally an interesting G5 story