or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread - Page 6

post #201 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
#1 I never said that. Why are you trying to quote me, then add your logic, and call it mine?

I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.

I didn't quote you. It was a reply. But, whether or not you like it, it is the same logic.
post #202 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
An $800 - $900 "complete mac system" would steal sales from their better products... snip...

Well lets face it Apple would NEVER make a POS 'complete experience' not while Steve is at the helm anyway. When Steve has his say over something it usually demands (what he thinks is) the best and the day he thinks an el-cheap-o 15" analog lcd with a refresh rate you could see except for the fact that the brightness is so low the refresh rate doesn't really matter thrown together with some less than adequate CPU and GPU... Yea now that sounds like something Steve would sign off on...

Maybe I'm wrong but part of me feels Steve didn't have an easy time moving the mini from 'a real GPU' to the onboard GPU and who knows maybe it was some kinda deal they made with Intel for some political reason or another.

Dave
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #203 of 947
Well some of you might as well face it that Apple is probably not going to backtrack down the processor evolutionary chain when intel is going to be releasing new processors in abundance, and lowering processor prices on existing ones shortly. Apple started with the core processor line, and that line has already seen a speed increase, and price drop between the announcement, and the release of the iMac, and Apple adjusted accordingly.

If anything merom, woodcrest, and conroe could spur a change, and this generation of core processors could go into an adjusted line up, and possibly a machine similar to what your looking for. I will guarantee nothing.

Apple is also in a transitional stage not only between PPC, and intel, but their color scheme, and appearance are due for a change shortly. Apple will probably have a new look for their new OS, processor, and their sudden ability to play with windows. I am anticipating a few new products to add some flash to the Apple lineup, and again change the way we use our products later in 2006-2007.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #204 of 947
I also don't expect Apple to use older cpu designs. That just doesn't make sense. Intel has too many new products coming out for Apple to choose something old.

I'm not sure if we'll see it this year, but I expect some major new case designs as well. These were just to comfort the base users they already have.
post #205 of 947
Obviously what is in an iMac today will be different a year from now and that will probably be true for several of their products. Today intel's dual core pent d is probably the best value cpu they have. I know this is debatable. A year from now it could be ICD. But to offer a value setup now, I think Apple could make a decent system with a dual core pent d. Ars has a piece on systems and they use an AMD sempron in their budget setup. A dual core pent d would easily outperform this. If Apple needs to fill holes in their product lineup, why wait a year for the entire core cpus to be out? Why not do it now and as cpus are released asn prices on existing cpus drop you swap them out.
post #206 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
I said an $800 - $900 POS would steal sales from the iMac. and at the end of the post I concluded that we did not need a POS for people to complain about, and tarnish Apples image. I did not say the mini steals sales from the iMac, and so on. That's your sudden logic. The mini and the iMac are priced far enough apart to separate them from each others market. And the PM is it's own beast. Nothing touches it, and we ( I ) love it that way.

The 800-900 system wouldn't need to be a POS, the general complaint everyone makes is the need for a headless imac. A headless iMac would not be a POS and would automatically be cheaper by not having to include a monitor.

Like I said before:

Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
If it was just a regular shaped pc tower that way it would have the upgradability that people THINK they need but with nice apple styling switchers would appreciate that.

Obviously to accomidate that the product line would need to change a bit (the mini would have to cheaper like 699 MAX) but it could fit.

I'm talking:
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Trayloading SuperDrive
128MB ATI Graphics
AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth

In a tower for $999 but with nice apple case design.

That would kill switchers, most don't want more than a basic computer and get confused or afriad of different sizes or everything built in.

Redesigning the product line to this would be better:

Mac Mini 1.5 Solo - $499
Mac Mini 1.66 Duo - $699
Mac Lite 1.66 Duo - $999
Mac Lite 1.83 Duo - $1499
iMac HD 2.00 Duo- $1299
iMac HD 2.16 Duo - $1699
Mac Pro Dual Something - $1999
Mac Pro Dual Something - $2499
Mac Pro Quad Something - $3299

That covers all their bases and only adds 2 machines.

Then the monitors:

19" Cinema Display - $599
21" Cinema Display HD - $899
24" Cinema Display HD - $1199
30" Cinema Display HD - $2399

Then the Laptops:

MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.5 Solo - $899
MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.66 Duo - $1099
MacBook - 13.3" ATI 128MB 1.66 Duo - $1499
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 128MB 2.00 Duo - $1999
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 256MB 2.16 Duo - $2499
MacBook Pro - 17" ATI 256MB 2.33 Duo - $2999


If Apple did that, I think they'd have a flawless product line.

But I don't see them being that great.

I don't think that would canabalize anyone machine because the imac still offers a lot for less than the price of a Mac Lite plus a monitor.

And no professionals would opt for the lite vs pro so that's of no concern.

This takes into account the processor price drops

Which allows the mini to take 100 bucks off each one.

Goddamn I wish I chose their product offerings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #207 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
The 800-900 system wouldn't need to be a POS, the general complaint everyone makes is the need for a headless imac. A headless iMac would not be a POS and would automatically be cheaper by not having to include a monitor.

Like I said before:



Redesigning the product line to this would be better:

Mac Mini 1.5 Solo - $499
Mac Mini 1.66 Duo - $699
Mac Lite 1.66 Duo - $999
Mac Lite 1.83 Duo - $1599
iMac HD 2.00 Duo- $1299
iMac HD 2.16 Duo - $1699
Mac Pro Dual Something - $1999
Mac Pro Dual Something - $2499
Mac Pro Quad Something - $3299

That covers all their bases and only adds 2 machines.

Then the monitors:

19" Cinema Display - $599
21" Cinema Display HD - $899
24" Cinema Display HD - $1199
30" Cinema Display HD - $2399

Then the Laptops:

MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.5 Solo - $899
MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.66 Duo - $1099
MacBook - 133" ATI 128MB 1.66 Duo - $1499
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 128MB 2.00 Duo - $1999
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 256MB 2.16 Duo - $2499
MacBook Pro - 17" ATI 256MB 2.33 Duo - $2999


If Apple did that, I think they'd have a flawless product line.

But I don't see them being that great.

I don't think that would canabalize anyone machine because the imac still offers a lot for less than the price of a Mac Lite plus a monitor.

And no professionals would opt for the lite vs pro so that's of no concern.

This takes into account the processor price drops

Which allows the mini to take 100 bucks off each one.

Goddamn I wish I chose their product offerings.

Overall I like your thinking. I would change the specs on the Mac Lite as the $1599 version is actually inferior to an iMac yet costs more without a monitor. This is where a different CPU would be helpful as its hard to have so many products built around 2 cpus. Overall though, I like your attempt to fill in the holes.
post #208 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Overall I like your thinking. I would change the specs on the Mac Lite as the $1599 version is actually inferior to an iMac yet costs more without a monitor. This is where a different CPU would be helpful as its hard to have so many products built around 2 cpus. Overall though, I like your attempt to fill in the holes.

Thanks I went back and reduced the price of the Mac Lite.

Me personally I have no problem with different CPUs but like others said I don't think apple would do it.

I don't really think it's a bad idea I just don't think it's too likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #209 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
Thanks I went back and reduced the price of the Mac Lite.

Me personally I have no problem with different CPUs but like others said I don't think apple would do it.

I don't really think it's a bad idea I just don't think it's too likely.

Well I've never said they will do it because I know it's very unlikely. I still think they should do it though.
post #210 of 947
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking

Then the Laptops:

MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.5 Solo - $899
MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.66 Duo - $1099
MacBook - 13.3" ATI 128MB 1.66 Duo - $1499
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 128MB 2.00 Duo - $1999
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 256MB 2.16 Duo - $2499
MacBook Pro - 17" ATI 256MB 2.33 Duo - $2999


If Apple did that, I think they'd have a flawless product line.

In the MacBook- A marginal VRAM upgrade to a virtually obselete card should cost $400?

In the MacBook Pro - adding 128 VRAM and 160MHz should cost more than a brand new Athlon64 3500+ and 7800GTX?
post #211 of 947
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I know I'm a bit late to the party but, IF apple is looking to increase market share and IF they are trying to get them from windows users, they don't have enough product offerings IMO. Many PC users are used to going to Dell or Gateway website and being able to configure a system to their needs and tastes. Right now apple doesn't give many of them enough options. I'm not sure the best way to fill the gaps, but there needs to be a configurable system between iMac and Powermac. With the switch to intel this is easily possible. Why not look at Pent Ds to fill this need? I know that they are not the best technology available but it is familiar to many pc users and intel is aggressively dropping prices. A pent d 820 is now $165. I think Apple is boxing themselves in unnecessarily by only using intel's core chips. I wouldn't buy it but that's me. It may be appropriate for others.

I'd personally like to be able to buy my BTO Powermac without RAM, drives, and GPU, and then buy them all for 25% on Newegg.
post #212 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
I'd personally like to be able to buy my BTO Powermac without RAM, drives, and GPU, and then buy them all for 25% on Newegg.

That's probably as likely as a headless mac running on a pent d.
post #213 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
In the MacBook- A marginal VRAM upgrade to a virtually obselete card should cost $400?

In the MacBook Pro - adding 128 VRAM and 160MHz should cost more than a brand new Athlon64 3500+ and 7800GTX?

You call going from intel integrated 64mb to ati x1600 128mb marginal?

Wow, tell that to all the imac and mbp owners.

Second, I priced the high end mbp the same as the 12" pb which is what it would replace.

No one would complain about that. It's what they want. Essentially a plastic 13.3" mbp. So what they loose a combined 340mhz.

If you want to knock the price down of the 17" mbp to 2899, fine, that's what the old one cost and falls right in line.

I didn't really make my pricing scheme up, I used apple as the example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #214 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
[B]My 15-20% market share comment was nothing more than to show you guys that it's not gonna happen. I'm glad you all figured it out.

BS. You said it, and when you were told that it's unrealistic for Apple to get even 10%, let alone 15-20% with what they offer, you "changed" that to "show them" that it's "not gonna happen".

Quote:
Apple's never gonna reach 20% market share (at least not in the next 10 years)...so it's totally unnecessary to cater to a very select few people that would like to have very specific hardware in their machine.

How do you know it's "a very select few people"? Done any research? Care to back it up?


Quote:
Complain, cry, whine all you want...it's not gonna happen.

I bet you were one of those that said the same thing about Intel. Boot Camp. Integrated Graphics.

Yeah. Good track record.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #215 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by ecking
The 800-900 system wouldn't need to be a POS, the general complaint everyone makes is the need for a headless imac. A headless iMac would not be a POS and would automatically be cheaper by not having to include a monitor.

Like I said before:



Redesigning the product line to this would be better:

Mac Mini 1.5 Solo - $499
Mac Mini 1.66 Duo - $699
Mac Lite 1.66 Duo - $999
Mac Lite 1.83 Duo - $1499
iMac HD 2.00 Duo- $1299
iMac HD 2.16 Duo - $1699
Mac Pro Dual Something - $1999
Mac Pro Dual Something - $2499
Mac Pro Quad Something - $3299

That covers all their bases and only adds 2 machines.

Then the monitors:

19" Cinema Display - $599
21" Cinema Display HD - $899
24" Cinema Display HD - $1199
30" Cinema Display HD - $2399

Then the Laptops:

MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.5 Solo - $899
MacBook - 13.3" IG 1.66 Duo - $1099
MacBook - 13.3" ATI 128MB 1.66 Duo - $1499
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 128MB 2.00 Duo - $1999
MacBook Pro - 15.4" ATI 256MB 2.16 Duo - $2499
MacBook Pro - 17" ATI 256MB 2.33 Duo - $2999


If Apple did that, I think they'd have a flawless product line.

But I don't see them being that great.

I don't think that would canabalize anyone machine because the imac still offers a lot for less than the price of a Mac Lite plus a monitor.

And no professionals would opt for the lite vs pro so that's of no concern.

This takes into account the processor price drops

Which allows the mini to take 100 bucks off each one.

Goddamn I wish I chose their product offerings.

I don't have a problem with that. Maybe some different details, but pretty much the same.
post #216 of 947
The MacLite should be the iMac minus the screen, plus PCIe slot and one extra HD bay. The more parts the different lines have in common the less number of support chips etc does Apple have to support in the OS.

When I bought the G4 spring of 2000 for anyone that wanted to be able to play games you had to buy a tower. The iMac at the time had a crippled ATI 128 with 8 MB RAM. Had something like the 7500, that is a compact box with 2 HD bays and 3 slots that would have been plenty.

There is no point in Apple using PentiumD (sson to be replaced) The new generation CPUs are coming out in a timely manner there is no need for desperate stopgap "Yikes" models.

They also need to keep focused remember whent they had overlappning lines of the "II" series, the Classic series the "LC" series, the "Performa" series, the "Quadra" series and the "Centris". To further the confusion some computers appeard with different names but identical features in differnet series. In 1994 the Powermac added a seventh line up of macintoshes.

With only 3 model ranges we are far from that mess now, and we better stay far from 7 also in the future

post #217 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer
We continue to be very happy in our progress in the Intel transition, said Oppenheimer, who said that the transition would be completed by years-end.

Well that confirms the new MacTower Pro will be out this year.

And if the Apple CFO is willing to go solidly on the record in April, it means the computer is likely scheduled to be unveiled long before December.

For those who were wondering whether Apple would wait for Adobe and Microsoft to catch up before unveiling the Pro Macs, the wondering is over, and the answer is no.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #218 of 947
Who exactly was wondering? I think Apple already stated many times that the transition would be complete before the end of the year. I think we all new we would see it at, or before WWDC.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #219 of 947
Actually, Apple has only officially quoted its original timeline of switching "by the end of 2007."

Of course, many of us knew they were well ahead of schedule.

But AFAIK, this is the first time an Apple official has acknowledged that everything will be switched over before the end of 2006.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #220 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
In the MacBook Pro - adding 128 VRAM and 160MHz should cost more than a brand new Athlon64 3500+ and 7800GTX?

More? Spec'ing out such a laptop from Alienware quickly brings you over $3000. Well over, with a dual-core Athlon. And these just barely qualify as "portable". Anyway, ecking's scheme is just the present MBP lineup. For an extra $500 over the $1999 mdoel you get an increment on everything: +160 MHz CPU speed, +128 MB VRAM, +512 MB RAM, +20 GB HD. Seems realistic to expect the same after a speed bump, with the 17" at a higher price point.

Off topic, but I honestly have no idea how Apple is delivering the MBP at these prices. When you include all their goodies (same RAM and HD, non-IG, BT, DVD burner, wireless), other manufacturers seem to be in the $2500-$3500 range; even with the same CoreDuos. And that for thick and heavy bricks. Gold bricks, I guess.
post #221 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Actually, Apple has only officially quoted its original timeline of switching "by the end of 2007."

Of course, many of us knew they were well ahead of schedule.

But AFAIK, this is the first time an Apple official has acknowledged that everything will be switched over before the end of 2006.

I thought spectators started to presume it when the MacBook Pro was released, but Apple said it when they announced the Mini. I must have been mistaken.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #222 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Actually, Apple has only officially quoted its original timeline of switching "by the end of 2007."

Of course, many of us knew they were well ahead of schedule.

But AFAIK, this is the first time an Apple official has acknowledged that everything will be switched over before the end of 2006.

During Macworld, Jobs stated that they would be finished with the transition this year.

EDIT:

I forgot about this, but was reminded when I read it after my post. During the conference call, Oppenheimer was asked about this, and he said it would be finished by the end of this year.
post #223 of 947
Here's another link about the Yonah.

Without looking through all of the pages, I don't know for sure whether the question about watt/performance came up here or in the iBook thread, but I'm posting it here. This looks PRETTY good.

They had problems with the board, as it isn't a finished product yet, apparently, but the tests speak for themselves.

Remembering that this a portable chip, putting it into a desktop machine is surely interesting. It definately looks good for the coming Core chips, which the Yonah isn't. I hope you'll like it!

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...o/index.x?pg=1
post #224 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Here's another link about the Yonah.

Without looking through all of the pages, I don't know for sure whether the question about watt/performance came up here or in the iBook thread, but I'm posting it here. This looks PRETTY good.

They had problems with the board, as it isn't a finished product yet, apparently, but the tests speak for themselves.

Remembering that this a portable chip, putting it into a desktop machine is surely interesting. It definately looks good for the coming Core chips, which the Yonah isn't. I hope you'll like it!

http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...o/index.x?pg=1

A few quotes from the article

" core duo's performance per wattis unmatched in the world of pc processors"

" core duo's outright performance easisily superior to Intel's supposed flagship desktop processor the pentium extreme edition 965"

"Core duo, Intel's most attractive processor for PC enthusiasts"

"Were it not for the fact that Core Duo can't handle 64-bit addressing, I'd say Intel should transition its desktop and server product lines to this microarchitecture right now rather than waiting for Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest."

All I can say is wow.
post #225 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac


All I can say is wow.

How am I to interpret that? Does that "wow" include a thought of "I'm impressed", and is that an admission that maybe Apple made the correct decision in using this processor to start their transition?
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #226 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by onlooker
How am I to interpret that? Does that "wow" include a thought of "I'm impressed", and is that an admission that maybe Apple made the correct decision in using this processor to start their transition?

I'm impressed. I think Apple is definately correct for using these chips in the computers. I've argued and still believe they could even go down the ladder and use other Intel chips in lower cost machines. Another arguement for another day I guess.
post #227 of 947
Ok, here we go again.

Intel will be fixing much of its memory bandwidth problems: See here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/...atform_tested/
post #228 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Ok, here we go again.

Intel will be fixing much of its memory bandwidth problems: See here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/...atform_tested/

Some addendum's:

price cuts, new Yonah

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31127

Conroe prices

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31126

some Woodcrest specs

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31131
post #229 of 947
This year would be a sad year for Mac users if Apple had stuck with IBM and the G5. Let's all think about it for a moment.

...

...

Yeah, that's right.
post #230 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
This year would be a sad year for Mac users if Apple had stuck with IBM and the G5. Let's all think about it for a moment.

...

...

Yeah, that's right.

What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?


If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.

I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #231 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?


If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.

I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.

It does sound good, no doubt about that.

If Apple had stuck with the PPC, they would be having better sales this year, no question. But, in sacrificing sales for this year, they are insuring much better sale going forward. I thought it was interesting that in the conference call, they said that they told store personnel to tell people NOT to buy the Intel machines if the software they needed wasn't yet out for them. That seemed to impress the analysts.

My impression is that the "end of 2007" was a ruse. It prevented people from not buying during 2005, because the introduction seemed to be far away. It worked for the December quarter. Apple's sales would have been a bit higher, but not by much.

Once they announced the new timetable, sales slowed down. But because they actually had Intel machines to sell, sales still went up by 4% year over year. If the Core Duo chip hadn't had a normal slow ramp-up, Apple might have sold 100 thousand more machines this quarter.

They did a fairly good job of managing expectations.
post #232 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
It does sound good, no doubt about that.

If Apple had stuck with the PPC, they would be having better sales this year, no question. But, in sacrificing sales for this year, they are insuring much better sale going forward. I thought it was interesting that in the conference call, they said that they told store personnel to tell people NOT to buy the Intel machines if the software they needed wasn't yet out for them. That seemed to impress the analysts.

My impression is that the "end of 2007" was a ruse. It prevented people from not buying during 2005, because the introduction seemed to be far away. It worked for the December quarter. Apple's sales would have been a bit higher, but not by much.

Once they announced the new timetable, sales slowed down. But because they actually had Intel machines to sell, sales still went up by 4% year over year. If the Core Duo chip hadn't had a normal slow ramp-up, Apple might have sold 100 thousand more machines this quarter.

They did a fairly good job of managing expectations.

What am I missing? Isn't Conroe and Woodcrest release to market in September? I have heard that Merom may get pushed into 2007 but I thought everything was on track for Conroe and Woodcrest to come out in the second half of this year.
post #233 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
What am I missing? Isn't Conroe and Woodcrest release to market in September? I have heard that Merom may get pushed into 2007 but I thought everything was on track for Conroe and Woodcrest to come out in the second half of this year.

What you're missing is that Apple was expected to have as much as 7.5 million in Mac sales this fiscal year, before they announced the switch to Intel.

Now, their sales are estimated as being no more than about 6 million.

If Apple hadn't announced a switch, December quarter sales could have been at least 100 thousand more than they were, and Marches numbers could have been 250 thousand more. June's Quarter, which are usually pretty high, could have been more than 300 thousand more than they are expected to be.

Some estimates were much higher than those, about double the numbers I just gave.

Remember that Apple has been increasing their numbers about 35 to 45% a quarter over the year before. Apple just sold 1,112,000 computers this quarter. If those sales were in line with many expectations before the switch, it could have been 30% higher, at 1,445,600.

This is what I mean.
post #234 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
What you're missing is that Apple was expected to have as much as 7.5 million in Mac sales this fiscal year, before they announced the switch to Intel.

Now, their sales are estimated as being no more than about 6 million.

If Apple hadn't announced a switch, December quarter sales could have been at least 100 thousand more than they were, and Marches numbers could have been 250 thousand more. June's Quarter, which are usually pretty high, could have been more than 300 thousand more than they are expected to be.

Some estimates were much higher than those, about double the numbers I just gave.

Remember that Apple has been increasing their numbers about 35 to 45% a quarter over the year before. Apple just sold 1,112,000 computers this quarter. If those sales were in line with many expectations before the switch, it could have been 30% higher, at 1,445,600.

This is what I mean.

Programmer was sying he thinks that the Intel transition may not be done until beginning of next year. I guess this may be true if they release new products and not Intel versions of existing products. Otherwise won't the powermac replacement be out this fall and iBook replacement out this spring/summer?
post #235 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I bet you were one of those that said the same thing about Intel. Boot Camp. Integrated Graphics.

Yeah. Good track record.

"I bet you were wrong at one point. Ha ha, that was funny, the time you were wrong, that I made up."

post #236 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Programmer was sying he thinks that the Intel transition may not be done until beginning of next year. I guess this may be true if they release new products and not Intel versions of existing products. Otherwise won't the powermac replacement be out this fall and iBook replacement out this spring/summer?

I don't think that he was giving a date that he thought was the turnover date. He was giving his opinion as to what he thought Apple might have meant.

And, it seemed as though you were thinking that Apple's sales this year would be as good or better than they would have been if Apple hadn't moved over.

Whatever. I was trying to clarify the thinking out there (and mine as well), that Apple's sales were on a higher trajectory this year before people learned of the switch, than they are now, but that the switch will give Apple much better sales in the future.
post #237 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I don't think that he was giving a date that he thought was the turnover date. He was giving his opinion as to what he thought Apple might have meant.

And, it seemed as though you were thinking that Apple's sales this year would be as good or better than they would have been if Apple hadn't moved over.

Whatever. I was trying to clarify the thinking out there (and mine as well), that Apple's sales were on a higher trajectory this year before people learned of the switch, than they are now, but that the switch will give Apple much better sales in the future.

No I wasn't implying your second point at all. As to the third point, I fully agree. I really like the next year or so for Apple with these new Intel chips. They look like they will be very fast indeed.
post #238 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
No I wasn't implying your second point at all. As to the third point, I fully agree. I really like the next year or so for Apple with these new Intel chips. They look like they will be very fast indeed.

Ok, it just seemed that way to me. That's why we can talk back and forth, and clarify matters. But, I will have to leave soon.
post #239 of 947
Two new Yonah OVERVLOCKING reviews. Why wait for a 3GHZ Conroe, when you can have a 3GHz Yonah? Most of the text is in Chinese, but the charts and such aren'y. You can get Yahoo to translate.

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm


This was only done at 2.6GHz.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo
post #240 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Two new Yonah OVERVLOCKING reviews. Why wait for a 3GHZ Conroe, when you can have a 3GHz Yonah? Most of the text is in Chinese, but the charts and such aren'y. You can get Yahoo to translate.

http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm


This was only done at 2.6GHz.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo

I've yet to see a negative review of ICD. Every time somebody does a comparison test they end up gushing about how great ICD is. Really excited about new core lineup. Especially Merom. Can't wait for for MBP with one of those in it. Please SJ give us one this year.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread