That would forward thinking on Apple's part. They purchased all of last years Flash memory for the next iPhone.
You have to get it by now. By last years parts but charge a premium for The APPLE LOGO.
The 4th generation should kick ass on 1995 phones. It's All about the Apple Store and not about the Phone. Steve is briliant.
u
Future. iPhone was a big hit, Apple road the wave until it sank. Apple iPod Market is in the dumbster (error in spelling intended).
Apple made money for the shareholders for 1 reason. The iPhone.
Mac sales are crap, ipod sales are crap.
Apple currently has the iPhone and a number of analysts have pointed that out today.
Apple will continue to reduce their Mercedez Profit for Dell profit in the computer arena.
Flash will become Standard on All "non Apple" Smart Phones.
I give it 3 years at the most. Ride the wave while you can because margins are going to be cut and the Apple Store will be (and is) a thing of the past for letting me know what I can have on my Phone.
The trolls are like fortune tellers of doom. They've said Apple is doomed for decades and all been wrong so far, no matter, they will predict it again. They are as bad as the stupid TV psychics, if something doesn't work, they'll have a convenient explanation as to why it went wrong without admitting they were wrong.
That would forward thinking on Apple's part. They purchased all of last years Flash memory for the next iPhone.
You have to get it by now. By last years parts but charge a premium for The APPLE LOGO.
The 4th generation should kick ass on 1995 phones. It's All about the Apple Store and not about the Phone. Steve is briliant.
u
Future. iPhone was a big hit, Apple road the wave until it sank. Apple iPod Market is in the dumbster (error in spelling intended).
Apple made money for the shareholders for 1 reason. The iPhone.
Mac sales are crap, ipod sales are crap.
Apple currently has the iPhone and a number of analysts have pointed that out today.
Apple will continue to reduce their Mercedez Profit for Dell profit in the computer arena.
Flash will become Standard on All "non Apple" Smart Phones.
I give it 3 years at the most. Ride the wave while you can because margins are going to be cut and the Apple Store will be (and is) a thing of the past for letting me know what I can have on my Phone.. ...
Your argument is written like a crazy person and contradict yourself several times here. Mostly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about either. To knock just a few of your "points" down ....
- Despite the size of the buy, they are only really securing next years flash, the intel technology is not going to be in production by then.
- The iPod market is not "in the dumpster" by any means. There is an iPod in every iPhone and the market is doing rather well regardless.
- Apple won't drop it's margins, and the gross margin has stayed the same despite the recent price drops.
- Mac sales are actually *up*
- The Apple store is one of the most profitable retail operations in the history of retail and is nowhere near being "a thing of the past."
Why do you even post here when you obviously don't know anything about Apple, business, product developement, the market in general, etc. etc. ???
This is a smart move. There has been little investment in capacity for advanced flash in the past 18 months, and there is a supply crunch coming, assuming the semiconductor market continues to show signs of picking up.
I really wonder about those DDR2-800 DIMMs used in today's MacBook when the MacBook Pros, heck, every other Mac uses DDR3-1066. Not that I care too much, had I the funding a nice new aluminum MacBook Pro would be my new baby.
The speed difference between 667 to 800 and 800 to 1066MHz RAM is insignificant. The biggest effect it has is on integrated graphics and that's still only going to be about 5-10%
A lot of companies are so hamstrung with debt and limited access to additional credit that they can barely run their business much less being able to take advantage of opportunities. Apple is pretty much unaffected by the current credit crunch. Their cash hoard is definitely a competitive advantage.
Now if only other business and individuals could just learn that lesson and not just survive from one loan to the next...
I would like to see the US Federal government learn that lesson.
How about a **real** balanced budget, and only spending what we make?? It is tough to complain about consumers, when the largest consumer in the US, the gov't, is the worst in terms of spending money they (we) don't have.
The speed difference between 667 to 800 and 800 to 1066MHz RAM is insignificant. The biggest effect it has is on integrated graphics and that's still only going to be about 5-10%
Something I find very interesting. Talking about memory bandwidth and Nehalem.
Previously, the frontside buss was declaimed as having too little memory bandwidth. But now, Nehalem has too much, it appears.
While memory tests show that using three channels and faster RAM make a big difference in memory bandwidth, other teats show that it makes no real difference in program speeds.
While there will be some advantage for servers and many small files, it doesn't seem to matter for most every other program. The mount of memory is more important.
I wondered why Apple limited the Mac Pro to 1066, when Intel's specs for those Xeons said 1333. But it seems that the faster RAM makes no difference. Anandtech did tests on a Nehalem machine using RAM up to 2,000, and found now difference that mattered above 1066. As ECC RAM gets much more expensive above 1066, it was a good idea for Apple to use that. Though, according to the owner of OWC, who told me in a conversation, Apple actually limits the speed of faster modules to that speed, though he said that he couldn't tell me why, he did know.
Something I find very interesting. Talking about memory bandwidth and Nehalem.
Previously, the frontside buss was declaimed as having too little memory bandwidth. But now, Nehalem has too much, it appears.
While memory tests show that using three channels and faster RAM make a big difference in memory bandwidth, other teats show that it makes no real difference in program speeds.
While there will be some advantage for servers and many small files, it doesn't seem to matter for most every other program. The mount of memory is more important.
I wondered why Apple limited the Mac Pro to 1066, when Intel's specs for those Xeons said 1333. But it seems that the faster RAM makes no difference. Anandtech did tests on a Nehalem machine using RAM up to 2,000, and found now difference that mattered above 1066. As ECC RAM gets much more expensive above 1066, it was a good idea for Apple to use that. Though, according to the owner of OWC, who told me in a conversation, Apple actually limits the speed of faster modules to that speed, though he said that he couldn't tell me why, he did know.
Intel's FSB wasn't a serious limitation to 1P and 2P systems, but four processors could saturate it (or even 4+ cores on two processors when Intel was making MCM processors where each die connected to the FSB). Prior to Nehalem, Opteron killed Xeon in quad-socket server sales. The situation hasn't exactly reversed itself but Intel has regained the lead in high-performance computing.
As for Nehalem, I think the memory bandwidth is there, but it's simply not used by any applications. The main reason for giving each processor its own memory controller is to avoid the problems caused by multiple processors fighting over one bus for memory access. So the types of computers Apple sells won't see much benefit faster RAM or an integrated memory controller. Maybe they will when we've got 8 or 16 core processors.
Limiting the Mac Pro to 1066MHz RAM could be a simple EFI setting. Apple might have a good reason for doing so, or they might just want to advertise faster RAM as an update in a future revision of the Mac Pro. Apple has been doing that sort of thing quite a bit recently.
Intel's FSB wasn't a serious limitation to 1P and 2P systems, but four processors could saturate it (or even 4+ cores on two processors when Intel was making MCM processors where each die connected to the FSB). Prior to Nehalem, Opteron killed Xeon in quad-socket server sales. The situation hasn't exactly reversed itself but Intel has regained the lead in high-performance computing.
As for Nehalem, I think the memory bandwidth is there, but it's simply not used by any applications. The main reason for giving each processor its own memory controller is to avoid the problems caused by multiple processors fighting over one bus for memory access. So the types of computers Apple sells won't see much benefit faster RAM or an integrated memory controller. Maybe they will when we've got 8 or 16 core processors.
I thought it was a little more complicated than that. The previous generation multi-socket systems had one bus per socket, which isn't terribly different in memory bandwidth than having the memory controller on die if you didn't have major device I/O. I think the P4-based Xeons did have all sockets fight for one bus, and it was a slower bus at that. I thought on-die was supposed to reduce latency and give bandwidth back to regular device I/O.
I thought it was a little more complicated than that. The previous generation multi-socket systems had one bus per socket, which isn't terribly different in memory bandwidth than having the memory controller on die if you didn't have major device I/O. I think the P4-based Xeons did have all sockets fight for one bus, and it was a slower bus at that. I thought on-die was supposed to reduce latency and give bandwidth back to regular device I/O.
Yes, giving each processor its own FSB and switching to FB-DIMMs were Intel's attempt to mitigate the problem. Sort of a brute-force approach. I don't know if it was ever intended as a permanent solution. It certainly made things more expensive and complex.
Intel's FSB wasn't a serious limitation to 1P and 2P systems, but four processors could saturate it (or even 4+ cores on two processors when Intel was making MCM processors where each die connected to the FSB). Prior to Nehalem, Opteron killed Xeon in quad-socket server sales. The situation hasn't exactly reversed itself but Intel has regained the lead in high-performance computing.
As for Nehalem, I think the memory bandwidth is there, but it's simply not used by any applications. The main reason for giving each processor its own memory controller is to avoid the problems caused by multiple processors fighting over one bus for memory access. So the types of computers Apple sells won't see much benefit faster RAM or an integrated memory controller. Maybe they will when we've got 8 or 16 core processors.
Limiting the Mac Pro to 1066MHz RAM could be a simple EFI setting. Apple might have a good reason for doing so, or they might just want to advertise faster RAM as an update in a future revision of the Mac Pro. Apple has been doing that sort of thing quite a bit recently.
Yeah, it was more the number of cores per socket that was a problem. With two cores, the FSB didn't always keep up. With four, it was hopeless. That's why so much cache.
Comments
That would forward thinking on Apple's part. They purchased all of last years Flash memory for the next iPhone.
You have to get it by now. By last years parts but charge a premium for The APPLE LOGO.
The 4th generation should kick ass on 1995 phones. It's All about the Apple Store and not about the Phone. Steve is briliant.
u
Future. iPhone was a big hit, Apple road the wave until it sank. Apple iPod Market is in the dumbster (error in spelling intended).
Apple made money for the shareholders for 1 reason. The iPhone.
Mac sales are crap, ipod sales are crap.
Apple currently has the iPhone and a number of analysts have pointed that out today.
Apple will continue to reduce their Mercedez Profit for Dell profit in the computer arena.
Flash will become Standard on All "non Apple" Smart Phones.
I give it 3 years at the most. Ride the wave while you can because margins are going to be cut and the Apple Store will be (and is) a thing of the past for letting me know what I can have on my Phone.
****
EDIT:Language.
uuuh... lol wut?
uuuh... lol wut?
The trolls are like fortune tellers of doom. They've said Apple is doomed for decades and all been wrong so far, no matter, they will predict it again. They are as bad as the stupid TV psychics, if something doesn't work, they'll have a convenient explanation as to why it went wrong without admitting they were wrong.
That would forward thinking on Apple's part. They purchased all of last years Flash memory for the next iPhone.
You have to get it by now. By last years parts but charge a premium for The APPLE LOGO.
The 4th generation should kick ass on 1995 phones. It's All about the Apple Store and not about the Phone. Steve is briliant.
u
Future. iPhone was a big hit, Apple road the wave until it sank. Apple iPod Market is in the dumbster (error in spelling intended).
Apple made money for the shareholders for 1 reason. The iPhone.
Mac sales are crap, ipod sales are crap.
Apple currently has the iPhone and a number of analysts have pointed that out today.
Apple will continue to reduce their Mercedez Profit for Dell profit in the computer arena.
Flash will become Standard on All "non Apple" Smart Phones.
I give it 3 years at the most. Ride the wave while you can because margins are going to be cut and the Apple Store will be (and is) a thing of the past for letting me know what I can have on my Phone.. ...
Your argument is written like a crazy person and contradict yourself several times here. Mostly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about either. To knock just a few of your "points" down ....
- Despite the size of the buy, they are only really securing next years flash, the intel technology is not going to be in production by then.
- The iPod market is not "in the dumpster" by any means. There is an iPod in every iPhone and the market is doing rather well regardless.
- Apple won't drop it's margins, and the gross margin has stayed the same despite the recent price drops.
- Mac sales are actually *up*
- The Apple store is one of the most profitable retail operations in the history of retail and is nowhere near being "a thing of the past."
Why do you even post here when you obviously don't know anything about Apple, business, product developement, the market in general, etc. etc. ???
Apple will be in a good position to capitalise.
I really wonder about those DDR2-800 DIMMs used in today's MacBook when the MacBook Pros, heck, every other Mac uses DDR3-1066. Not that I care too much, had I the funding a nice new aluminum MacBook Pro would be my new baby.
The speed difference between 667 to 800 and 800 to 1066MHz RAM is insignificant. The biggest effect it has is on integrated graphics and that's still only going to be about 5-10%
A lot of companies are so hamstrung with debt and limited access to additional credit that they can barely run their business much less being able to take advantage of opportunities. Apple is pretty much unaffected by the current credit crunch. Their cash hoard is definitely a competitive advantage.
Now if only other business and individuals could just learn that lesson and not just survive from one loan to the next...
I would like to see the US Federal government learn that lesson.
How about a **real** balanced budget, and only spending what we make?? It is tough to complain about consumers, when the largest consumer in the US, the gov't, is the worst in terms of spending money they (we) don't have.
The speed difference between 667 to 800 and 800 to 1066MHz RAM is insignificant. The biggest effect it has is on integrated graphics and that's still only going to be about 5-10%
Something I find very interesting. Talking about memory bandwidth and Nehalem.
Previously, the frontside buss was declaimed as having too little memory bandwidth. But now, Nehalem has too much, it appears.
While memory tests show that using three channels and faster RAM make a big difference in memory bandwidth, other teats show that it makes no real difference in program speeds.
While there will be some advantage for servers and many small files, it doesn't seem to matter for most every other program. The mount of memory is more important.
I wondered why Apple limited the Mac Pro to 1066, when Intel's specs for those Xeons said 1333. But it seems that the faster RAM makes no difference. Anandtech did tests on a Nehalem machine using RAM up to 2,000, and found now difference that mattered above 1066. As ECC RAM gets much more expensive above 1066, it was a good idea for Apple to use that. Though, according to the owner of OWC, who told me in a conversation, Apple actually limits the speed of faster modules to that speed, though he said that he couldn't tell me why, he did know.
Something I find very interesting. Talking about memory bandwidth and Nehalem.
Previously, the frontside buss was declaimed as having too little memory bandwidth. But now, Nehalem has too much, it appears.
While memory tests show that using three channels and faster RAM make a big difference in memory bandwidth, other teats show that it makes no real difference in program speeds.
While there will be some advantage for servers and many small files, it doesn't seem to matter for most every other program. The mount of memory is more important.
I wondered why Apple limited the Mac Pro to 1066, when Intel's specs for those Xeons said 1333. But it seems that the faster RAM makes no difference. Anandtech did tests on a Nehalem machine using RAM up to 2,000, and found now difference that mattered above 1066. As ECC RAM gets much more expensive above 1066, it was a good idea for Apple to use that. Though, according to the owner of OWC, who told me in a conversation, Apple actually limits the speed of faster modules to that speed, though he said that he couldn't tell me why, he did know.
Intel's FSB wasn't a serious limitation to 1P and 2P systems, but four processors could saturate it (or even 4+ cores on two processors when Intel was making MCM processors where each die connected to the FSB). Prior to Nehalem, Opteron killed Xeon in quad-socket server sales. The situation hasn't exactly reversed itself but Intel has regained the lead in high-performance computing.
As for Nehalem, I think the memory bandwidth is there, but it's simply not used by any applications. The main reason for giving each processor its own memory controller is to avoid the problems caused by multiple processors fighting over one bus for memory access. So the types of computers Apple sells won't see much benefit faster RAM or an integrated memory controller. Maybe they will when we've got 8 or 16 core processors.
Limiting the Mac Pro to 1066MHz RAM could be a simple EFI setting. Apple might have a good reason for doing so, or they might just want to advertise faster RAM as an update in a future revision of the Mac Pro. Apple has been doing that sort of thing quite a bit recently.
Intel's FSB wasn't a serious limitation to 1P and 2P systems, but four processors could saturate it (or even 4+ cores on two processors when Intel was making MCM processors where each die connected to the FSB). Prior to Nehalem, Opteron killed Xeon in quad-socket server sales. The situation hasn't exactly reversed itself but Intel has regained the lead in high-performance computing.
As for Nehalem, I think the memory bandwidth is there, but it's simply not used by any applications. The main reason for giving each processor its own memory controller is to avoid the problems caused by multiple processors fighting over one bus for memory access. So the types of computers Apple sells won't see much benefit faster RAM or an integrated memory controller. Maybe they will when we've got 8 or 16 core processors.
I thought it was a little more complicated than that. The previous generation multi-socket systems had one bus per socket, which isn't terribly different in memory bandwidth than having the memory controller on die if you didn't have major device I/O. I think the P4-based Xeons did have all sockets fight for one bus, and it was a slower bus at that. I thought on-die was supposed to reduce latency and give bandwidth back to regular device I/O.
I thought it was a little more complicated than that. The previous generation multi-socket systems had one bus per socket, which isn't terribly different in memory bandwidth than having the memory controller on die if you didn't have major device I/O. I think the P4-based Xeons did have all sockets fight for one bus, and it was a slower bus at that. I thought on-die was supposed to reduce latency and give bandwidth back to regular device I/O.
Yes, giving each processor its own FSB and switching to FB-DIMMs were Intel's attempt to mitigate the problem. Sort of a brute-force approach. I don't know if it was ever intended as a permanent solution. It certainly made things more expensive and complex.
Intel's FSB wasn't a serious limitation to 1P and 2P systems, but four processors could saturate it (or even 4+ cores on two processors when Intel was making MCM processors where each die connected to the FSB). Prior to Nehalem, Opteron killed Xeon in quad-socket server sales. The situation hasn't exactly reversed itself but Intel has regained the lead in high-performance computing.
As for Nehalem, I think the memory bandwidth is there, but it's simply not used by any applications. The main reason for giving each processor its own memory controller is to avoid the problems caused by multiple processors fighting over one bus for memory access. So the types of computers Apple sells won't see much benefit faster RAM or an integrated memory controller. Maybe they will when we've got 8 or 16 core processors.
Limiting the Mac Pro to 1066MHz RAM could be a simple EFI setting. Apple might have a good reason for doing so, or they might just want to advertise faster RAM as an update in a future revision of the Mac Pro. Apple has been doing that sort of thing quite a bit recently.
Yeah, it was more the number of cores per socket that was a problem. With two cores, the FSB didn't always keep up. With four, it was hopeless. That's why so much cache.