or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF - Page 3

post #81 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>1. anecdotal evidence (especially with such a small "n") is fairly poor.
2. using a macnn quote ("ordering" instead of the actual Apple press release ("choosing"). And, education customers (not individuals, but institutions) DO get to "choose" their OS, iirc.
3. using someone's speculation on how Apple gets their numbers, and then deciding that their numbers are meaningless because of the way the data are gathered....if you don't KNOW how they get the number, you cannot evaluate the accuracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok, I'll admit it, my response was partially in jest but:

1. My quoted sample is small, but that was just last week's work. I can say with a degree of certainty that out of approximately 120 Macs across four sites precisely two are running X on a fulltime basis. If I were to expand on this I could probably cite something like... 300-400 machines, of which no more than 10% (at best) would be running X - all of these are G3+ so capable of running it.

2. I looked on the Apple site and could not find the press release within <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr</a> so, the only source I had seen was the only source I could cite.

3. I don't know, you don't know, I doubt Apple is telling... but my instinct is that these figures quoted are not accurate - essentially because I don't believe there's any way to measure this (and because the figures are deliberately hyped by highlighting specific sectors without really saying what percentages of the user-base those represent or how they are delimited).

But if SJ says at MWSF that he got his 20%, then I'm not going to argue about it - just not sure if I'll believe it.

[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #82 of 237
Thread Starter 
FROM CLIVE ------What are you on!? First you're saying 970s for MWSF, now you're talking Q2 03, which in a worst case is going to be close to six months later.

You have no logic because you have no understanding of what "sampling" means - test units, in small quantities, not for production.
-------------------------------------------

I know what sampling mean and I read IBM press release. Thank you very much. But its just a press release, this release is for general public as well as other smaller computer customers. Apple is probably the most important one because SJ is talking about market share and who wouldn't like it. Semiconductor firms like volume. If importance is a key, anything is possible.
post #83 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>Trying to go back on topic...

It's safe to completely, totally, 100% assume that the "G5" (at least, as we would know it) is dead, right? I've followed AI as well as the stories from Architosh as well as other sites and it's my general understanding that for all intents and purposes, you can pretty much stick a fork in the G5...

I'd like to know from the more technically-minded people here just how possible it is for these reputed new versions of the G4 (7457, 7457-RM) to actually be produced. From what I understand, trying to graft on a faster bus or DDR-support onto the G4 would be almost impossible...</strong><hr></blockquote>

There is no evidence that a Motorola G5 desktop processor exists.

The 7455 currently shipping has a slightly faster bus (167 MHz) and the rumours for the 7457 claim faster still (200 MHz). The leaked Moto documents which refer to the 7457-RM describe a G4 variant with an on-chip memory controller and a RapidIO bus. The 7457-RM would be a fairly significant project at Moto, but far less effort than a fully new core. We aren't likely to see the 7457-RM for quite a while, if ever. Hopefully the 7457 ships Real Soon Now.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #84 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>That's the thing, IBM uses both fiscal and real Q-dates. It's rare that they distinguish, so for all we know it may be real or fiscal. Optimism says it's fiscal, but reality says they are talking about a real Q2.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The 970 was announced mid-October, and they said sampling Q1 '03, production 2H '03. That's less than a 1 quarter delay from the announcement. If it was earlier then they probably would have said "sampling this quarter" or "sampling now". They also said production in second half which isn't the same as Q3.

I think way too much attention is being paid to Apple not "allowing" IBM to announce anything. Before the recent series of G4s most of the PowerPC chips were announced at the October conference well in advance of Apple's adopting them in product. And that was when IBM was involved.

Anecdotal evidence about MacOS X adoption is pretty much pointless as we have no way to judge who is a more representative sample. Since Jaguar arrived, however, MacOS X has become a much more usable system. I bought a new Mac to run it, and I know a few other "professionals" who bought new machines and they are all running Jaguar. One of them is also single-handedly responsible for evangelizing at least two of shops into converting from Win32 machines to MacOS X. There are a few areas where adoption is being held up by software (audio & Quark being the well known ones), but for a large number of users Jaguar is just fine. Terrific, actually. I'm very happy with the move from MacOS 9.1 to 10.2 -- I haven't yet booted into MacOS 9, and aim to never do so. I rarely even launch Classic. For an immature OS it feels remarkably solid compared to the Win2K environment I have to work in all day at the office. Yes this is all anecdotal too, but I suspect that many users have straightforward needs that are being met very well by X.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #85 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong> The 7457-RM would be a fairly significant project at Moto, but far less effort than a fully new core. We aren't likely to see the 7457-RM for quite a while, if ever.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ah, that was kind of what I was trying to figure out. Thanks for the info. What I actually was trying to find out was what the technical barriers were in the G4 that makes DDR support or a faster bus so darned hard to put into the G4...I don't suppose you could shed some light on this?
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
"Do you know this company was on the brink of bankruptcy in '85? The same thing in '88, '90, and '92. It will survive. It always has."
-Former Apple CEO Michael Spindler
Reply
post #86 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by rampancy:
<strong>Ah, that was kind of what I was trying to figure out. Thanks for the info. What I actually was trying to find out was what the technical barriers were in the G4 that makes DDR support or a faster bus so darned hard to put into the G4...I don't suppose you could shed some light on this?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh, its a lot of work?

Heh, sorry for being cheeky. I can't really tell you why because I'm a software guy, not a hardware guy. Even if I could tell you in detail you probably wouldn't understand the description and it wouldn't fit in this little message box. In cases like this I usually fall back on an analogy... imagine Porsche taking its design for the Boxster-S and trying to convert it into a tracked hill climber. They could do it, even use some parts that were already designed for something else, but it would be quite a bit of work to build something marketable.

Does that help?
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #87 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Transcendental Octothorpe:
<strong>

That might just be their only option.

I hope as much as anyone that the 970 will appear this Jan, but I don't really expect it. Apple may not have been able to swing a deal with IBM that required IBM's total silence on the 970 until Apple's release. Bear in mind that Apple didn't really have any other options, so if IBM says "we don't work that way, take it or leave it" Apple had little choice.

Oh, and for those still unsure whether Apple is even going to USE the 970 (some still seem to doubt), I have no doubt. I have been told by those who would know at IBM that "we have won all Apple business". Think what you like.</strong><hr></blockquote>

IBM's total not be good for Apple. Apple needs IBM to spend as much money as possable telling the world how great the 970 is, so that when Apple finally anounces that they are shipping 970 based computers they dont have to sell the 970's merits as well as their computer. What Apple dosnt need IBM to do is say, "oh yea, next month Apple is releasing a Quad 970 based computer for under $5000."
post #88 of 237
I believe the SEC rules governing the release of information require a company to use calendar dates. If IBM said 2H then they meant after June. Also, IBM can't mislead through public disclosure. They can't say 2H and then the 970 show up in January. Everyone here could think of a fruity stock that would be substantially affected were that to happen.

BTW, I hate Monobasic Sodium Phosphate!!
post #89 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Programmer:
<strong>

Uh, its a lot of work?

Heh, sorry for being cheeky. I can't really tell you why because I'm a software guy, not a hardware guy. Even if I could tell you in detail you probably wouldn't understand the description and it wouldn't fit in this little message box. In cases like this I usually fall back on an analogy... imagine Porsche taking its design for the Boxster-S and trying to convert it into a tracked hill climber. They could do it, even use some parts that were already designed for something else, but it would be quite a bit of work to build something marketable.

Does that help? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Not meaning to nitpick, but Porsche has most of those parts develready for the Carra 4 and the 911 before it, which various versions have run the Baha 500 for many years (at least back to the 80s). The Boxter uses a lot of standard 911 components, the biggest problem that they would have to overcome would be how to raise the Boxter so that it could have the needed ground clearence. Even then it would probably be a very stable performer due to the very low center of gravety and weight distribution thanks to the flat mid-engine design that goes back to the 914, 917, 904, and the 550.
post #90 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by @homenow:
<strong>Not meaning to nitpick, but Porsche has most of those parts develready for the Carra 4 and the 911 before it, which various versions have run the Baha 500 for many years (at least back to the 80s). The Boxter uses a lot of standard 911 components, the biggest problem that they would have to overcome would be how to raise the Boxter so that it could have the needed ground clearence. Even then it would probably be a very stable performer due to the very low center of gravety and weight distribution thanks to the flat mid-engine design that goes back to the 914, 917, 904, and the 550.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's not nitpicking, that's exactly right. And Motorola has a SoC fabric, memory controller & RIO interface in the PPC 8xxx which they could retrofit in place of the G4's bus interface and load/store units. It would still be a piece of work.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #91 of 237
PPC970 aka PowerMac G5 will debut (at least be announced) at MWSF, with double pumped FSB (low end = 266, high end = 333.) that DDR ram can finally flex it's muscles.

New enclosure ? hell yeah glass-metallic.
post #92 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>That'll make all the difference - PR blather, that's all that is. Either way:

"The company said that educational customers are ordering 50% of the its Macs with Mac OS X as the default OS"</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's because educational customers CAN order which OS the want on the machine.
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 #93 of 237
Considering the manners of the poster, are we sure that Macluv didnt start this thread?

Just a theory....

Anyway I just have to refute this.

[quote] Mac platform lacks apps and file formats are not compatible <hr></blockquote>

Have you ever heard of Quicktime, Graphic Converter and Debabelizer? They have been with the platform for years and are on OSX now. GC is shareware for cry eye!

An OSX machine out of the box supports more file formats than any PC with Windows or Linux. Windows supports primarily bmp for graphics and AVI for video PERIOD. If not for third party developers that would be just about it even if we weren't talking about a machine just out of the box.

However, fine I'll bite on this thread. I agree that IBM is probably talking Calendar rather than fiscal. No way in January and believe me I wish I was wrong.
post #94 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

That's because educational customers CAN order which OS the want on the machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>

And they all order directly from Apple?

Either way, come up with some method to derive these figures and I'll roll over - otherwise it's just PR hype.

Just to re-emphasise the figures: if Apple says 80% of our professional customers, we can guess that they mean some subset of PowerMac buyers - Apple's own figures say that PowerMac sales were only 25% of units sold last year, therefore this huge figure actually means they are referring to just 20% of new machines sold. Chances are they are actually referring to sales in the last quarter, or at best in the last half of the year - so the "professional user" they are citing probably accounts for somewhere between 5-10% of units sold last year.

Not such a good headline though, is it.

Come up with your own construction, if you like. That's what Apple did.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #95 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>1. My quoted sample is small, but that was just last week's work. I can say with a degree of certainty that out of approximately 120 Macs across four sites precisely two are running X on a fulltime basis.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sorry, that's a small lie. I just remembered that there's an additional G3 iMac that is running X (plus two G4 towers), but AFAIK it was bought for some unknown reason and no one ever uses it - it's always in sleep mode when I see it and has no apps installed.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #96 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

And they all order directly from Apple?</strong><hr></blockquote>

We're talking educational institutions here - not single students.


[quote]<strong>Just to re-emphasise the figures: if Apple says 80% of our professional customers, we can guess that they mean some subset of PowerMac buyers - Apple's own figures say that PowerMac sales were only 25% of units sold last year, therefore this huge figure actually means they are referring to just 20% of new machines sold.</strong><hr></blockquote>

That does not mean that the rest of the Macs bought are running Mac OS 9.

Furthermore PowerBooks would fit into the pro segment.

[quote]<strong>Chances are they are actually referring to sales in the last quarter, or at best in the last half of the year - so the "professional user" they are citing probably accounts for somewhere between 5-10% of units sold last year.</strong><hr></blockquote>

They are talking about the current status. When you look at sales to decide your strategy, you use the sale of previous quarters to get an idea of what the trend is, and currently 80% of all professional buyers are using Mac OS X.

Not all of Apple's pro customers are in the publishing segment.

The number for non-professionals are probably higher.
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 #97 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

Sorry, that's a small lie. I just remembered that there's an additional G3 iMac that is running X (plus two G4 towers), but AFAIK it was bought for some unknown reason and no one ever uses it - it's always in sleep mode when I see it and has no apps installed.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Gee, no apps! And you wonder why noone use it?

Lots of graphic pros have made the switch, and when you switch, you switch.

You just don't place a Mac in the corner that people can 'play' with - most tend to work at their computer.
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 #98 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

That does not mean that the rest of the Macs bought are running Mac OS 9.

Furthermore PowerBooks would fit into the pro segment.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse.

We all know that Apple is going to struggle to get to their stated target of 20% of the *entire* userbase running X by the end of 2002 - for a lot of reasons: sales of new hardware are down, inertia on the part of users, Quark not native (this is a red herring)... So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #99 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Gee, no apps! And you wonder why noone use it?

</strong><hr></blockquote>


Perhaps I'm not being clear enough? Someone, not me, bought the iMac. It's unclear why they bought it, and no one seems to have a use for it. So as to state its obvious uselessness "it has no apps on it". To further state its uselessness in context - no one could be bothered to even install 9.x/delete X/set it to start-up in 9.x - they just left it pretty much how it came out of the box (hint, the dice is loaded in X's favour as the "default" OS).

That this machine is running X in at this site is a symbol of its redundancy, nothing else.


[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>
Lots of graphic pros have made the switch, and when you switch, you switch.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I know quite a lot of graphics pros, all over the world, and most of them are using 9.x.

As far as "when you switch, you switch" goes - what's that mean? You're so enamoured with X that you cant stand 9.x anymore? If that's what you think then you couldn't be more wrong. I know plenty of "early adoptors" who've "tried" to switch - and regularly "re-try" to switch, but end up bouncing back to 9.x because they just want to get some work done.

I've no idea what you do, but I work in graphics, prepress and new media - I've got around 16 years commercial experience, and I've been using Macs since 1988. As well as being a "production" animal my company supports three other commercial studios, totalling around 120 Macs (and perhaps 15-20 Windows boxes, plus a couple of Suns). I have friends working in large studios in many countries within the EU, US and Australia - so I think I have a pretty good grasp on what "graphic pros" are doing: trying to spend as much time as possible in a productive environment, with as few hitches as possible.

You know what? 9.x gives them that environment, in known and reliable quantities. X does not.

You'll note that this argument is analagous to the XPress v InDesign debate.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #100 of 237
If Apple announces the G5 @ or around MWSF, it's going to be the MPC7457 and a lot of ridicule will come their way.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #101 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>...but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually they probably get that figure from things like .Mac connection information and tech support calls.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #102 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Your reasoned arguments are now null and void. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #103 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by tiramisubomb:
<strong>I know what sampling mean and I read IBM press release. Thank you very much. But its just a press release, this release is for general public as well as other smaller computer customers. Apple is probably the most important one because SJ is talking about market share and who wouldn't like it. Semiconductor firms like volume. If importance is a key, anything is possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

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

You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm still waiting for you to make sense.
post #104 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>

Actually they probably get that figure from things like .Mac connection information and tech support calls.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh, 80% of their support calls are X related? Sure, I can believe that. :-)

I think if they had a "method" that was viable and established to measure such things then they'd say so. You know, if you're citing some statistic it's normal to say something like "Sample of 1,000, adjusted to profile of all users, interviewed over the weekend of 12/12/02 by telephone on behalf of Apple Computer. Research undertaken by the Gallup Group Inc".

But there's no such data, or at least nothing that's publically available. This statement wasn't even an "official" press release - it's not on the Apple site. If you have any confidence in it then you're probably the same people that were buying Apple stock at $130.00.

I'm an Apple fan, I wouldn't use anything else, but this G5 stuff, and 80% user base for X is just delusional.

Here's some stats: 100% of the Macs on Clive's desk aren't running X. But, 100% of the Macs on the next desk to the right are running X.

Wasn't it Oscar Wilde that said "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics"?

[ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #105 of 237
Clive has made some good points. I work at a large company that developes text books for publishers like Harcourt, Glencoe, and HRW. We have not moved to OS X yet, and probably wont for the next 12 months. This is partly due to production concerns with Quark, and partly due to the economy (a site license for 150+ Macs is a lot of green). The computers that we are currently buying have X installed, and out IT reformats the drive with a standard disk image using OS 9.2. I think that we have no more than 5 computers running OS X a the 3 sites where we have Macs installed. Now Apple is getting their figures from somewhere, but I doubt that those are acurate when you take into account their overall install base.

One of the big issues is Quark for companies like mine. We keep files active for at least 4 years through various revision cycles, so we have to have a stable and workable solution. As much as I would like OS X to be that, at this time it isnt. What Apple needs to do now is to get Classic to work seamlessly with OS X (ie fix printing problems and seamlesly integrate AppleScript between the two "systems"), and give their large customers a compelling reason to upgrade, becouse it will be a lot of work for the IT departments of these companies.

InDesign could help out Apple as well. I've used it a little, and it is an impressive program. However, it is not the best program for a heavy production invironment. It is memory intensive, slow, and potentially too "feature rich" for production. This means that even production computers need to be more powerfull, which is going to cost the publishing industry lots of money in upgrading (a note, at least at my company, production gets the "old" computers from the Design, Digital Media, Prepress and Imaging department, and right now there are still a few G3 towers bieng used for Production, and we still have a few PowerComputing models bieng used as Port of Entry computers).

What is even more compelling is the InDesign/InCopy workflow solutions. These have large publishing companies investigating InDesign right now, and may actually sell them on what will be an expensive "switch" for them and their service providers. The problem that I see with this right now is that InCopy is not a final product as it stands today, and is only (mostly) sold through "solution providers" who customize the software for the client (BIG $$$). This is a problem, both in the initial investment in time and $, but also can put limits on how you work with freelancers, and outside service providers. Quark is also building workflow solutions like InDesign/InCopy's, but at present I am not familiar with their product.

I guess the bottom line of what I am saying, is that for smaller graphic buisnesses the switch to OS X, and InDesign might be viable solution. Apples numbers might be representative of this, but the battle wont be won untill the large Graphic buisnesses feel that it is safe to move up, or are forced into moving up. Given todays economic conditions forcing them to spend that kind of money isnt the best solution, becouse they might find it less expensive to move up to Windows instead of OS X.
post #106 of 237
Well, again I want to start by saying I agree with Clive's points in general. Still, I have to take issue with:

"You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse."

Just because we don't know how they calculated that number does not mean we know they "pulled it out of their arse". I have seen, for example, many scientific papers (unfortunately) where the methodology is so poorly explained that one cannot determine where a certain number in the results section was derived. I would NOT, however, then decide that this means they made it up, or that my personal experience should have just as much weight ("why, all the people *I* know who had colon cancer lived, so those numbers are ridiculous").

And this: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity." No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?


Fish
post #107 of 237
I just want to echo something that @homenow wrote above: integration is a big deal in large studios with complex workflows. That integration relies of things like AppleScript and printing working seamlessly. When that doesn't happen, and it doesn't happen in X, yet, you don't want to know about potential benefits, you just want to know about actual problems and avoid them.

Another thing I've highlighted before is filesharing not working seamlessly between Classic and X - it's just not feasible to be running a production environment when you cannot rely 100% on the kit.

The list of these items goes on and on, and to many of you it's "so what" but to me it's "time out" and time is money.

Anyway, Merry Christmas, and Merry Christmas Apple too - and let's get some decent machines out soon so you get some money in and spend some $'s ironing out the creases in X.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #108 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Just because we don't know how they calculated that number does not mean we know they "pulled it out of their arse".
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that the fact that this was not an "official" press release says volumes. No, we can't say with certainty either way what the facts are here - but we can use our own terms of reference. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "professional" Mac user is, and, from my day to day work experience, I can hazard a guess at what those users are running.

[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>And this: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity." No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well the statement I've seen doesn't say anything about "new" users, it just says this: "Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS" and "To accommodate a minority of our pro customers still running Mac OS 9 applications such as QuarkXPress, Apple will continue to offer a 1.25GHz dual-processor Power Mac that will boot into Mac OS 9 until June."

From: <a href="http://news.com.com/2102-1040-977881.html" target="_blank">http://news.com.com/2102-1040-977881.html</a>

Ok, you could read that a number of ways, but you know how I'm reading it.

I think the figures are bogus - Apple has the chance to demonstrate otherwise, but would prefer to talk in soundbites. The bottom line to me is that the figures have no context and no established terms of reference - we can't even guess at what they mean by "pro users" - they are therefore meaningless, you know: "eight out of ten cat owners say their cats prefer Whiskas" (talking cats!?).

Take your choice.

[ 12-24-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #109 of 237
Clive: I think that the fact that this was not an "official" press release says volumes.


I am not certain why you think that is I just went and looked at Apples Press Releases, and I dont see any of them talk about methodology. E.g., <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/feb/18japan_buyers.html" target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/feb/18japan_buyers.html</a> lists percentages of Japanese iMac purchases who are Wintel converts, but nope, no methodology.

Clive: No, we can't say with certainty either way what the facts are here - but we can use our own terms of reference. I think I have a pretty good understanding of what a "professional" Mac user is, and, from my day to day work experience, I can hazard a guess at what those users are running.


But you are missing the point that is precisely why anecdotal evidence is suspect. I, too, feel I have a pretty good handle on what the professional Mac user is, at least in my profession (oceanography) and at the 2 universities I have worked at in the past year (just switched jobs), and it is dramatically different from yours. In my experience, the vast majority of the Mac users are using OS X. The difference is, I do not believe that my experience is a random subsample of professional users.


quote:

Originally posted by fishdoc:
Clive: "So, coming out with figures stating 50% of this, or 80% of that (ie multiple times the stated goal) are simply meaningless - to argue otherwise is just stupidity."

me: No, those numbers are not meaningless, just difficult to interpret. If the stated goal is 20% of the total user base, and current purchases are several times above that goal, then by coupling that information with sales, one could estimate when the goal would be achieved. How is that stupid?


Clive: Well the statement I've seen doesn't say anything about "new" users,


Actually, it does remember? The 50% you cite as meaningless in your previous post is a reference to EDU customers ordering with OS X. It is a few lines below the bit you quote.


Clive: I think the figures are bogus - Apple has the chance to demonstrate otherwise, but would prefer to talk in soundbites.

Isnt that what Press Releases are for, official or not? And I have not seen their numbers challenged in any of the press, so who should they be trying to prove their numbers to appleinsider forum posters?


Again, I agree with your other points, but I think you are being a little myopic on this.


Fish
post #110 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>I am not certain why you think that is I just went and looked at Apples Press Releases, and I dont see any of them talk about methodology.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Er, crossed wires, I don't really care about the methodology - what I'm trying to point out is that Apple hasn't put this out as an official press release, ie it's something a spokespaerson has said to a journalist - this means that they don't have to defend it to their investors or the SEC or whatever - it's unofficial.

Whatever way you look at it the figures have a lot less veracity than if it had been an official statement.

If someone can find it on the Apple web site then I'll eat the above - otherwise I'm sticking with that line.

[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>But you are missing the point that is precisely why anecdotal evidence is suspect. I, too, feel I have a pretty good handle on what the professional Mac user is, at least in my profession (oceanography)...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think you're kind of picking out the bits you want to argue with and not seeing the bigger point. My point is that, guess what, these figures are pretty meaningless (not utterly meaningless - we have a clue as to how to interpret them), because of underlying context issues like: what is a pro user anyway!?

Now, I'd say that my terms of reference on a "pro" user are probably more mainstream than yours - I'd say Apple means design and media people. But that doesn't make your terms of reference wrong - and maybe Apple is saying "bugger those design blokes, the whole business is down the toilet anyway, the oceanographers are our "pro" sample".

But again, I think this just points to how relatively meaningless these figures are. We can't even say whether Apple's sample is global, North American, or restricted to the San Francisco Bay area.


quote:


[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Actually, it does remember? The 50% you cite as meaningless in your previous post is a reference to EDU customers ordering with OS X. It is a few lines below the bit you quote.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok, so I'm at least half wrong again. :-)

[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>Isnt that what Press Releases are for, official or not? And I have not seen their numbers challenged in any of the press, so who should they be trying to prove their numbers to appleinsider forum posters?</strong><hr></blockquote>

C'mon, get serious - the press just recycles what they're fed (that's an over-statement of the facts, but it applies well to the Mac press sector). When was the last time you saw any real analysis on any Mac related web site? Ok, MacNN just rolled through the K10 and pulled out some highlights - but that's like a once a month highlight. Look at the original story at cnet, where's the critical eye there? It's just a bunch of quotes strung together with some contextualisation to fill the page up.

[quote]Originally posted by fishdoc:
<strong>
Again, I agree with your other points, but I think you are being a little myopic on this.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't think it's myopic to cast doubt on these figures. Look at Apple's k10 statement, even that is in part contradictory to this, is says something like "the forecast boost to PowerMac sales upon the release of a native X Photoshop failed to materialise".

You know what - the forecast boost to PowerMac sales upon the release of a native QuarkXPress will also fail to materialise. Do you know why? Because Quark is still struggling to get its userbase to upgrade from v3.x to v4.x - despite the fact that the current version is 5.0. Quark is still selling 4.1 upgrades a year after they released 5.0 - who else does that?

The "pro" graphics market will not rush to buy a new version of XPress, native or not, any more so than they are rushing to InDesign (Adobe reckons it has around a 10% market share).

Given that Apple is forever going on about Photoshop or XPress in one way or another we have to accept that they believe that user sector is a core and important market - and I tell you that market's going nowhere, whatever Apple's unattributed statements say.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #111 of 237
HA-hahahahahaha..... I can't believe that such a worthless thread has grown to 3 pages... only on AI... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #112 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>

Furthermore, whogivesafsck? You have no evidence except what you see, I have no evidence except what I see - but I think that we can both understand that Apple's 80% figure is pulled out of their arse.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You just can't accept that people are using Mac OS X can you?

Don't you think that Apple does market research?
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 #113 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>As far as "when you switch, you switch" goes - what's that mean? </strong><hr></blockquote>

I mean that if you have decided to do the switch, you just don't install Mac OS X ojn your Mac and try to play with it once a month.

If you want to switch you try to work full time in your new environment. That's what I meant.


[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I've no idea what you do, but I work in graphics, prepress and new media - I've got around 16 years commercial experience, and I've been using Macs since 1988. As well as being a "production" animal my company supports three other commercial studios, totalling around 120 Macs (and perhaps 15-20 Windows boxes, plus a couple of Suns). I have friends working in large studios in many countries within the EU, US and Australia - so I think I have a pretty good grasp on what "graphic pros" are doing: trying to spend as much time as possible in a productive environment, with as few hitches as possible.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Can I touch you?

The two largest producers of phone books here in Denmark have switched to Mac OS X without problems, and that was 800+ Macs.

The word from several ad agencies is also a Mac OS X switch without any problems worth mentioning.
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 #114 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by SpiffyGuyC:
<strong>HA-hahahahahaha..... I can't believe that such a worthless thread has grown to 3 pages... only on AI... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Worthless? I won't be the judge of that. But I would venture a guess that it is slightly off topic.

just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #115 of 237
.... and the topic was
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 #116 of 237
Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.
post #117 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by mortigi tempo:
<strong>Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>

(Just to echo what you're saying...) There are graphics pros making the switch right now in the US. Companies that are switching have the mentality that "if Quark doesn't have an osx version in 6 months we're switching to indesign."

There is one large national company moving all their workstations nationwide to osx and their timeframe for completion is the next 3 months. There are approx 500 workstations nationwide. BTW, indesign is being tested right now and the time it takes to move templates over to indesign from xpress is minimal.

Quark better wake up!
post #118 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by mortigi tempo:
<strong>Graphics pros might not be using os x yet, but lots are considering it. I was working at a large magazine publisher in London a couple of weeks ago and was told they are currently actively testing it and will switch relatively soon after Quark is available native. Also, people I know say the Guardian Newspaper is in a very similar position. Seems like even if there hasn't been take up, there is definitely a critical mass that will be unleashed as soon as Quark is available.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Quark is not a graphics program, it's a page layout program. I'm pretty sure a lot of 'graphics' pros are using X, or will be soon, because PS 7 is better then PS 6 in 9. Unless they use PS and quark, then they may be stuck.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #119 of 237
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>

Can I touch you?
</strong><hr></blockquote>

LOL
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #120 of 237
enough of this 970 talk already!
you people just dont get it do you?
if apple releases a G5 at MWSF2003 it wont be from ibm!
this is what i think apple stratagy will be.
the 970(IF APPLE IS GOING TO USE IT)will be for the VERY high end.
mark my words.
XSERVE will get these as will high end "workstations".
dont even think for a minute that you will get these babys in a computer for less than 2 coins.
capiche?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple is going to release G5 in MWSF