"For example, if an educator is faced with a fixed budget (always the case), and that budget will buy them 5 Macs or 12 PCs for the school, which will they buy? Same holds true for system administrators. It is really common sense. "
I work at a school where they make the same baseline assessment of Macs vs PCs.
They're upgrading to Pentium 4s...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I'd like to see 'Apple's Year' cut prices on the pro line. By about...15-20%!
apple's future is very dim, the lack of tech roadmaps and last gen hardware is quickly catching up with them. that gimpy market share is only going to get worse, as wintel continues to nullify the "user experience" gap.
right after mwny: serial-ata, dual-channel ddr, and sub 3Ghz chips are going to make it even harder for apple to keep selling at such grossly high markup too.
apple deserves the dark cloud it has growing above it, and i will enjoy seeing their stock value go to shite.
And yes Im prepared to buy 5k+ machine (mac or pc we'll se july17, if apple screw this up the dual g4 will be the last mac I own, and I whont be bothering you no more).
If your not into 3D and Video then you'll find what you need in the current hardware. If you find our bitch'n offencive then your probably not into 3D and Video, wich means you dont need any of the new hardware, wich is why your bitch'n. If theres no 3D and Video for the macs then why would the schools need them? Macs are too expensive to only run office and internet?
MacOSX is a great system, it deserves some decent machines to run it. Also poor performance = less software developers are willing to port their applications to mac.
There is no way to accurately measure marketshare. I am sick and tired of hearing about marketshare numbers (from both sides).
Sure you can look at the number of Macs sold last quarter, and if Apple sold more computers than it did the quarter before that, great, but what does that mean?
How can you obtain the accurate number of PCs sold? You have so many companies from Dell to House Branded PCs (which may account for nearly 60% of new PCs sold). There is no way to track this. The little local PC shop does not report the number of PC's they sold to anyone (except maybe for their accountant). The Mac marketshare could have grown or could have shrunken. Nobody can really say for sure. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is patently false. All publically traded companies must file quarterly shareholder reports, and pertinent information (in this case, units sold) are quite clearly noted there. This information is easily tracked, and indeed there are companies whose entire business model is based on tracking such data.
[quote] According to a source, there are currently up to six (6) enclosures undergoing internal testing. Features vary and it's unknown which features may make it to the final hardware... but some features include: white speaker, front mounted headphone jack, 4x512MB RAM, new motherboard, bays for two optical drives.
Certainly nothing earth-shattering, but of interest for those following closely...
MacWorld Expo NY is only 10 days away, and expectations are upgrades to the current PowerMac line.
<hr></blockquote>
Oh boy. New enclosures. Just what you guys wanted.
Hmmm.... 4x512MB RAM... Doesn't Apple have another machine with that kind of memory config? Oh yeah-- it starts with an "X", ends with an "e" and in between is "serv".
OMG! This thread is so *ucked up I haven't a CLUE what ANYONE is talking about anymore. STOP THE INSANITY! LOCK IT FOR GOD'S SAKE! (add more ranting like a mad man)
<strong>It's a discussion about Apple's future hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. It's an endless rant about EVERYTHING which just happens to bump into Future Hardware every couple dozen posts. At this rate it'll never fall off the board until they lock it. I say LOCK IT and start a new one with the same name if ya like. Posts like mine and yours are exactly WHY it needs to be locked. Too much chatting. (yes I know I'm not helping buy posting either) Am I alone in this opinion?
Now, let's just lock it and move on, shall we...? The Directory topic is Future Hardware... The Thread topic is MWNY-2002... pretty vague... it might as well ALSO be called Future hardware.
<strong>Curious, of all the people bitching I pose 2 questions-
Do you currently have the top dual gig?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. But I do have a new TiBook 800. I've played with a dual gig tower... it's a little faster than the TiBook, but I didn't deem it fast enough to trade off portability.
<strong>Are you prepared to spend $3k+ and monitor if needed etc in 2 weeks?</strong>
Well, I don't need to buy a new monitor. I upgraded to the TiBook 800 a mere four months after buying a TiBook 667, just to get the DVI port. I bought a 22" Cinema Display at the same time. It's very nice.
If Apple wows me enough with new Power Macs at MWNY, me and my wallet are ready to go. What will it take to wow me? A 1.4 GHz dual with a faster bus that takes full advantage of DDR would be a good start.
<strong>I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit...</strong>
For 90% of the "shit" I do, my TiBook at 800 MHz is more than fast enough. But then there's that 10% where I do notice a need for more speed. That 10% means a lot to me... because it's my own software that I've written. That same software (it's Java -- the same code runs cross-platform) is noticibly, significantly faster even on my two-year old 1.1 GHz AMD PC.
<strong>...or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so.</strong>
Apple's been getting a fair amount of my money lately... I've purchased 3 TiBooks in a span of less than 18 months, an Airport, and a very expensive display. I've been far from miserly.
The PowerBooks still are a good value in my opinion. I can tell you for sure that resale value on eBay has been great. I think the TiBooks are going to need a fair sized speed boost in the not-to-distant future, but it's not so critical as it is for the Power Macs.
The current Power Macs are simply not a good value. Even if you're willing to pay a premium for Apple hardware, the price/performance gap has simply grown too wide.
If Apple provides the goods, I'm definitely in the market.
Is it whining to call it like I see it about the current performance and value of the Power Macs? Is it whining to hope and pray that Apple comes out with a great new machine that will not only please me personally, but that will help Apple and all Mac users in general, doing what Apple needs to do to both hang on to and to increase market share?
At any minute Moto could subtly change the process and voila, volume production of 1.5Ghz parts is not only possible, it's easy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for giving me a good chuckle. Nothing is easy in producing high end CPUs and certainly there is nothing easy about increasing clock speeds or for that matter maintaining current speeds. Engineers fight a hundred different fires each day just trying to keep their process tools running in spec. There are process tweaks that can be performed to speed up a part, and each of those tweaks takes time to carefully experiment with and implement in an orgainized fashion. But by 50% instant boost that is quite a stretch and unrealistic by somethign as 'easy' as a process tweak.
[quote]
A good friend of mine worked for Bookham Technology as senior process engineer up until Oct 2000. They had been struggling to get decents yeilds on a process, because 1 stage involved dunking each wafer in acid, drying them for a few hours then applying a different process. It took 18 hours per wafer.
To increase efficiency they hired a consultant. He took one look at the process and grabbed a box of wafers, dunked them in a bucket of acid, and left them to dry.
<hr></blockquote>
What year was this in? They really needed an outside consultant to bring up the idea of batch processing?
[quote]
So in a few minutes they increased yeilds by 30 fold simply because a new guy had different experience and knew there was no danger in doing huge batches rather than single wafers. Previous thinking had believed it wouldn't work.
<hr></blockquote>
No they increased throughput by 30 fold. Throughput increases have little to no correlation to yields which measure the % of die on the wafer that function properly, nor does it correlate to bin splits which tell you what % of your parts run at what speed.
[quote]
The point is, things change fast in the semi-conductor world, a jump from 1Ghz to 2Ghz might require the tiniest process tweak. It just needs somebody to try it.<hr></blockquote>
And my point is that while Motorola could indeed introduce a 1.5 or 2.0GHz processor at some point in the future it was not a result of some simple tweak, but rather months or years of hard work by design and process engineers. Some of which didn't even work for Motorola .
This is patently false. All publically traded companies must file quarterly shareholder reports, and pertinent information (in this case, units sold) are quite clearly noted there. This information is easily tracked, and indeed there are companies whose entire business model is based on tracking such data.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. I agree with you 100%, but as you stated "publically traded companies". What about the mom and pop local PC shops that sell house-branded boxes and are not publically traded. Are they tracked as well? What about the number of PCs that they sell?
Is that number tracked? And by whom?
Anyways, isn't marketshare base on percentage of new computers sold, and not the number of systems (Mac and PC) that are currently in use?
Apple supposely has 5% of the Personal Computer Market. Question is my 233 MHz beige G3 considered part of that market? If so, who do I contact when it dies?
Face it, a true representation of marketshare is unobtainable.
Final machines have been seeded a while ago with updated hardware. That means they were in their final case designs and processor speeds. There is a much more professional look to them and the design is cleaner that the older case design. There is more chrome and metallic accents.
Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.
A more detailed case description will be coming soon.
i love weeks preceding MacWorld. i'd love for these latest specs from Dorsal to be true but it's two weeks before the show. i doubt that these machines would still be in testing.
Comments
I work at a school where they make the same baseline assessment of Macs vs PCs.
They're upgrading to Pentium 4s...
Lemon Bon Bon
PS. I'd like to see 'Apple's Year' cut prices on the pro line. By about...15-20%!
right after mwny: serial-ata, dual-channel ddr, and sub 3Ghz chips are going to make it even harder for apple to keep selling at such grossly high markup too.
apple deserves the dark cloud it has growing above it, and i will enjoy seeing their stock value go to shite.
And yes Im prepared to buy 5k+ machine (mac or pc we'll se july17, if apple screw this up the dual g4 will be the last mac I own, and I whont be bothering you no more).
If your not into 3D and Video then you'll find what you need in the current hardware. If you find our bitch'n offencive then your probably not into 3D and Video, wich means you dont need any of the new hardware, wich is why your bitch'n. If theres no 3D and Video for the macs then why would the schools need them? Macs are too expensive to only run office and internet?
MacOSX is a great system, it deserves some decent machines to run it. Also poor performance = less software developers are willing to port their applications to mac.
The Mac/PC discussion boils down to habit. 90% of my friends could care less what computer or os they use as long as it works.
I totally agree that PCs are cheaper (duh) but I am willing to pay the extra buck (or two) to use something that I LIKE to use.
Can we please get back to sensless rumormongoring? thank you
<strong>
There is no way to accurately measure marketshare. I am sick and tired of hearing about marketshare numbers (from both sides).
Sure you can look at the number of Macs sold last quarter, and if Apple sold more computers than it did the quarter before that, great, but what does that mean?
How can you obtain the accurate number of PCs sold? You have so many companies from Dell to House Branded PCs (which may account for nearly 60% of new PCs sold). There is no way to track this. The little local PC shop does not report the number of PC's they sold to anyone (except maybe for their accountant). The Mac marketshare could have grown or could have shrunken. Nobody can really say for sure. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is patently false. All publically traded companies must file quarterly shareholder reports, and pertinent information (in this case, units sold) are quite clearly noted there. This information is easily tracked, and indeed there are companies whose entire business model is based on tracking such data.
Here's the latest from MacRumors:
[quote] According to a source, there are currently up to six (6) enclosures undergoing internal testing. Features vary and it's unknown which features may make it to the final hardware... but some features include: white speaker, front mounted headphone jack, 4x512MB RAM, new motherboard, bays for two optical drives.
Certainly nothing earth-shattering, but of interest for those following closely...
MacWorld Expo NY is only 10 days away, and expectations are upgrades to the current PowerMac line.
<hr></blockquote>
Oh boy. New enclosures. Just what you guys wanted.
Hmmm.... 4x512MB RAM... Doesn't Apple have another machine with that kind of memory config? Oh yeah-- it starts with an "X", ends with an "e" and in between is "serv".
The admins ought to make a filter
<strong>
<snip>
</strong><hr></blockquote>
WE HAVE A WINNER!
What does it all MEAN????????
It's a discussion about Apple's future hardware.
<strong>It's a discussion about Apple's future hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No. It's an endless rant about EVERYTHING which just happens to bump into Future Hardware every couple dozen posts. At this rate it'll never fall off the board until they lock it. I say LOCK IT and start a new one with the same name if ya like. Posts like mine and yours are exactly WHY it needs to be locked. Too much chatting. (yes I know I'm not helping buy posting either) Am I alone in this opinion?
* Bitching about their current hardware;
* Discussing their solvency, or their market share;
* Trolling (detah, that means you);
* Dragging out car metaphors and other silly things
Future Hardware is for rumors and speculation about what Apple will release. Note the future tense.
The rest of the above, to the extent that they belong on the board at all, belong in General Discussion.
This thread is perilously close to getting locked.
My cat's breath smells like cat food!
Pizza is good.
Shoes go on your feet.
Now, let's just lock it and move on, shall we...? The Directory topic is Future Hardware... The Thread topic is MWNY-2002... pretty vague... it might as well ALSO be called Future hardware.
Time to close. "Good bye!"
<strong>Curious, of all the people bitching I pose 2 questions-
Do you currently have the top dual gig?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope. But I do have a new TiBook 800. I've played with a dual gig tower... it's a little faster than the TiBook, but I didn't deem it fast enough to trade off portability.
<strong>Are you prepared to spend $3k+ and monitor if needed etc in 2 weeks?</strong>
Well, I don't need to buy a new monitor. I upgraded to the TiBook 800 a mere four months after buying a TiBook 667, just to get the DVI port. I bought a 22" Cinema Display at the same time. It's very nice.
If Apple wows me enough with new Power Macs at MWNY, me and my wallet are ready to go. What will it take to wow me? A 1.4 GHz dual with a faster bus that takes full advantage of DDR would be a good start.
<strong>I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit...</strong>
For 90% of the "shit" I do, my TiBook at 800 MHz is more than fast enough. But then there's that 10% where I do notice a need for more speed. That 10% means a lot to me... because it's my own software that I've written. That same software (it's Java -- the same code runs cross-platform) is noticibly, significantly faster even on my two-year old 1.1 GHz AMD PC.
<strong>...or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so.</strong>
Apple's been getting a fair amount of my money lately... I've purchased 3 TiBooks in a span of less than 18 months, an Airport, and a very expensive display. I've been far from miserly.
The PowerBooks still are a good value in my opinion. I can tell you for sure that resale value on eBay has been great. I think the TiBooks are going to need a fair sized speed boost in the not-to-distant future, but it's not so critical as it is for the Power Macs.
The current Power Macs are simply not a good value. Even if you're willing to pay a premium for Apple hardware, the price/performance gap has simply grown too wide.
If Apple provides the goods, I'm definitely in the market.
Is it whining to call it like I see it about the current performance and value of the Power Macs? Is it whining to hope and pray that Apple comes out with a great new machine that will not only please me personally, but that will help Apple and all Mac users in general, doing what Apple needs to do to both hang on to and to increase market share?
<strong>
I always find it odd when people say this...
At any minute Moto could subtly change the process and voila, volume production of 1.5Ghz parts is not only possible, it's easy.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for giving me a good chuckle. Nothing is easy in producing high end CPUs and certainly there is nothing easy about increasing clock speeds or for that matter maintaining current speeds. Engineers fight a hundred different fires each day just trying to keep their process tools running in spec. There are process tweaks that can be performed to speed up a part, and each of those tweaks takes time to carefully experiment with and implement in an orgainized fashion. But by 50% instant boost that is quite a stretch and unrealistic by somethign as 'easy' as a process tweak.
[quote]
A good friend of mine worked for Bookham Technology as senior process engineer up until Oct 2000. They had been struggling to get decents yeilds on a process, because 1 stage involved dunking each wafer in acid, drying them for a few hours then applying a different process. It took 18 hours per wafer.
To increase efficiency they hired a consultant. He took one look at the process and grabbed a box of wafers, dunked them in a bucket of acid, and left them to dry.
<hr></blockquote>
What year was this in? They really needed an outside consultant to bring up the idea of batch processing?
[quote]
So in a few minutes they increased yeilds by 30 fold simply because a new guy had different experience and knew there was no danger in doing huge batches rather than single wafers. Previous thinking had believed it wouldn't work.
<hr></blockquote>
No they increased throughput by 30 fold. Throughput increases have little to no correlation to yields which measure the % of die on the wafer that function properly, nor does it correlate to bin splits which tell you what % of your parts run at what speed.
[quote]
The point is, things change fast in the semi-conductor world, a jump from 1Ghz to 2Ghz might require the tiniest process tweak. It just needs somebody to try it.<hr></blockquote>
And my point is that while Motorola could indeed introduce a 1.5 or 2.0GHz processor at some point in the future it was not a result of some simple tweak, but rather months or years of hard work by design and process engineers. Some of which didn't even work for Motorola
<strong>
This is patently false. All publically traded companies must file quarterly shareholder reports, and pertinent information (in this case, units sold) are quite clearly noted there. This information is easily tracked, and indeed there are companies whose entire business model is based on tracking such data.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Right. I agree with you 100%, but as you stated "publically traded companies". What about the mom and pop local PC shops that sell house-branded boxes and are not publically traded. Are they tracked as well? What about the number of PCs that they sell?
Is that number tracked? And by whom?
Anyways, isn't marketshare base on percentage of new computers sold, and not the number of systems (Mac and PC) that are currently in use?
Apple supposely has 5% of the Personal Computer Market. Question is my 233 MHz beige G3 considered part of that market? If so, who do I contact when it dies?
Face it, a true representation of marketshare is unobtainable.
Thanks
Dave
Processor speeds start at 1GHz and go up to ~1.5GHz with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM support. Detailed specs have already been discussed but the processor speeds fluctuated. It is now certain that 1-1.5GHz will be final speeds. Duals will also be there but we have not had access to final dual machines yet. I asume the higher end processor will make up the dual machine.
A more detailed case description will be coming soon.
Keep it comin Dorsal.
Any info on audio in/out on these? 2 full drive bays? ATA133? R300?
This could be good.
i love weeks preceding MacWorld. i'd love for these latest specs from Dorsal to be true but it's two weeks before the show. i doubt that these machines would still be in testing.
na