Has apple any hope?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Apple computer, the best computer company in the world to be sure. They invented the Personal Computer. It was easy and fun for people to use. Apple was almost gone then steve came back and brought the company back up. But now we are behind again. Intel is pushing 3Ghz while the G4 is stuck at 1.25Ghz. We have a slow bus and Apple computers are still way to expensive for the normal PC buyer to actually get them to convert. And although we have been praying for a G5 that would once again leave intel in the dust...well no G5 can be see even in the furthest reaches of our minds. The economy is gone and no one seems to have money to spend on a computer any more. \tApple can not survive in this market with just looks alone. A G5 or similar new CPU with speeds over 2Ghz will have to surface soon if apple has any hope of getting that greatly needed 5%.

\tIt's not all bad 10.2 is a very solid and great OS better than windows to be sure. It's beautiful to behold and use. As well as easy and fun. Watching windows genie into the dock and transparent windows galore. But it's still new and somethings just don't run as well on it as in 9. I imagine time will fix these little problems.

\tNo one seems to really know what is going to happen with apple. No one knows if they will switch to the IBM chips or what the future holds. No information seems to be out there which I do not take as a good sign.

\t I really think it would help apple if they would just let us know what they plan to do. It's obvious to 90% that they are behind and steve must know this. I believe apple can bring themselves to the top again. But they need a better partner than motorola.

\tWhat does the future hold for our beloved company, the only computer I will ever use out of my own freewill, what will happen? I see a light far off in the distance. It is a faint light with fog all around and everywhere darkness. But Apple has always seen this light they know what to do, I'm sure, but can they do it.

\tWhat future hardware do we need to really catch up? And what are our chances of getting them?

------

In time.



[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: Algol ]</p>
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 78
    If it were up to me I would really like to see a 400Mhz BUS Min. This would really increase the speed of Mac's and really put the processors power to use. G5's at 2Ghz, no questions asked. Apple's kinda been stuck in a speed trap. It's really hard for them to increase performance.250Mhz every 6 month's just won't cut it. Intel is coming out with almost 350 every 3 month's. I love Apple computers and will buy them for life, but come on, whats taking so long Apple!!!
  • Reply 2 of 78
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,131member
    1. I don't care about megahertz. People who are obsessed with Mhz are simply rookies to the computer industry.



    2. I believe that Apple needs to offer what the competition doesn't. When Final Cut Pro came out I attended a bunch of seminars in which the question "when is a PC version coming". Never was my thinking. You don't sell more Macs by offering what the rest of the world has.



    3. Hardware is easy to make great leaps in quickly. OSX as you see it today requires Thousands of Man hours to program. There is no get rich quick" theme for software programming. Hardware on the other hand can be efficiently designed with a fraction of the Engineering talent required for the OS.



    4. Stay focused Apple. .mac was a good thing for the bottomline. More services and success like the iPod will further Apples potential to succeed.



    5. Apple needs to stay in it's place as a premium Computer provider. You CAN buy a Mac for under a Grand...just don't expect a Powermac with a monitor at that price.



    6. Being efficient in OSX requires a different methodology versus OS9. A Multitasking OS means that you can and should seek to enable as many processes as possible. Sitting there admiring how quickly your window open up is a waste of time and efficiency.



    7. Education- It's a shame that crap like Dell is overtaking the education system. Personally I have the opinion that our students should experience a variety of computing models and therefore I am against homogeneous networks even if that means all Apple. Schools are there to teach you have done my child no service if you choose to look at only one option. If schools can't afford more than one Platform then they should disband their Tech Dept and buy books with the money they save.



    Apple is fine. Keep buying them and you will have done all you need to ensure their survival.
  • Reply 3 of 78
    Not if they keep doing what they are now.



    They have a habbit of pulling things out at the 11th hour though.
  • Reply 4 of 78
    Apple is in bad shape. Performance, Performance, Performance, Performance.



    I am hanging my head low....



    <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
  • Reply 5 of 78
    [quote]Originally posted by Merlion:

    <strong>Apple is in bad shape. Performance, Performance, Performance, Performance.



    I am hanging my head low....



    <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Pick you head up. What's the performance problem you speak of.



    Lack of DDR isn't going to kill Apple.
  • Reply 6 of 78
    cubitcubit Posts: 846member
    hmurchison, I think you've got it just about right. Apple is a very special company in a very ordinary, very selfish, and very uncreative industry. The software professionals do not, unfortunately, control their own destinies. They want to design great new programs that run like hell, and make things different and better. Their bosses, and perhaps their bankers and investment counselors as well, want the $ now <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />



    I agree that it is a real shame that something so easy to use is compared unfavorably with butt ugly and hard to set-up hardware running pathetic software (in terms of interoperability). Is there anything better than Office:mac v.X on the Windows side? No, almost as good, but try it in Japanese.... But then the fun starts, one after another the program that make Macs fun iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie and Photoshop.



    I feel great disappointment that a program EndNote is not upgraded for X, since they commit suicide in MacAcademic market with such decisions, but seem to have fallen for the saw that it is so difficult to program for macs. The creative (and open minded and future oriented have no such problems).



    What new computer user would choose the PC experience over the Mac experience if they got the chance. <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 7 of 78
    [quote] Intel is pushing 3Ghz while the G4 is stuck at 1.25Ghz<hr></blockquote>



    Stuck at 1.25Ghz? Where did you come up with that? It just got bumped up to 1.25Ghz. Which i would also like to add is the largest G3/G4 speed bump in history....



    The G4 isn't "stuck"





    yet
  • Reply 8 of 78
    algolalgol Posts: 833member
    The G4 has been stuck sense it came out. we have advanced (starting at 500 to 1.25) 750Mhz while the PC side had advanced 3 times as much. People who only care about mhz aren't what we would call very well learned in computers, but the truth is that mhz does matter to a degree. And when intel is 1.75Gghz( by christmas) faster than we are that's going to make a difference. Apple can't market that to PC people. APPLE NEEDS THE MARKET!
  • Reply 9 of 78
    [quote] And when intel is 1.75Gghz( by christmas) faster than we are that's going to make a difference. <hr></blockquote>



    They are at 2.8 now, and will be at 3.0 by christmas.



    On another down note... I saw this on Slashdot Even they doubt it's 100% acutate, but don't rule out the possiblity.



    <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/70026.html"; target="_blank">Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops</a>



    [ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: smithjoel ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 78
    [quote]Originally posted by smithjoel:

    <strong>



    They are at 2.8 now, and will be at 3.0 by christmas.



    On another down note... I saw this on Slashdot Even they doubt it's 100% acutate, but don't rule out the possiblity.



    <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/70026.html"; target="_blank">Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops</a>



    [ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: smithjoel ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Naturally ...Linux is Free. Charge $129 for it and see how many Desktops it's on.



    Linux is ZERO threat to OSX as far as a Desktop OS.
  • Reply 10 of 78
    YUP



    The hardware ain't there people. No OS will stop it.



    [quote]Originally posted by smithjoel:

    <strong>



    They are at 2.8 now, and will be at 3.0 by christmas.



    On another down note... I saw this on Slashdot Even they doubt it's 100% acutate, but don't rule out the possiblity.



    <a href="http://www.iht.com/articles/70026.html"; target="_blank">Linux Outpacing Macintosh On Desktops</a>



    [ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: smithjoel ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 12 of 78
    " Hardware on the other hand can be efficiently designed with a fraction of the Engineering talent required for the OS"



    this simply is not true. Ask any of the Merced engineers how easy it is to design a new 64 bit processor from scratch. Sure, a simple process shrink is straightforward, but so is a minor OS bug fix revision. When you need to redesign everything - OS or hardware - it's a big undertaking. I've worked on both, and I wouldn't say software engineering or microprocessor design is easier, less demanding on people hours, or faster than the other: it depends on the size of the undertaking - as well as external forces.
  • Reply 13 of 78
    Designing computer hardware is generally faster than writing software, even if it involves making a special ASIC. Designing a new CPU or GPU, however, is far more demanding than making a new OS.



    OSX has fallen in the Windows trap, becoming dependent on the advancement of hardware to become user friendly speedwise. It is only acceptable for a fulltime user when running on the fastest hardware presently available - and XP is faster at present in the user interaction department (measuring response, not control layout).



    Discussing GHz must involve a measure of relativity. Adding 250 MHz on top of 1 GHz is a bigger deal than adding it on top of 2 GHz. But even taking that into consideration, Intel/AMD is moving farther ahead in the CPU speed race, and PC architecture improvements are supporting the increase. Not so with Apple.



    Unfortunately. Now, where is the white rabbit?



    engpjp
  • Reply 14 of 78
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    The G4 isn't imbued with magical Instruction Per Clock Cycle powers that allow it to do vastly more work per clock cycle than an Athlon or PIV.



    [quote]It's a shame that crap like Dell is overtaking the education system.<hr></blockquote>



    Why are Dell "crap"? They should buy Macs?



    [quote]well no G5 can be see even in the furthest reaches of our minds.<hr></blockquote>



    There's the Power 4 PC from IBM, which looks likely (despite recent rumours). Motorola may put an extra FPU and RapidIO on the G4.
  • Reply 15 of 78
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    [quote]Originally posted by Altivec_2.0:

    <strong> I love Apple computers and will buy them for life, but come on, whats taking so long Apple!!! </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's the problem right there. Apple (and Jobs) know they have a cult of diehards willing to put up with almost any level of BS just cause they love macs. If you really want to help Apple, you'll buy a PC and make sure they know why.
  • Reply 16 of 78
    jcgjcg Posts: 777member
    Apple is not a "RoadMap" company, especially with Steve at the helm. If they were their stock would be doing better than it is now, or maybe not depending what hardware plans Apple has. Instead we are left to reading Tea Leaves or interpreting Poetry to discern what the future will hold.



    IBM's chip sounds good, will it work? Will Steve buy it? Will IBM sell it to Apple? Does Moto have a new desktop chip? Will they update some of the dated tech support of the G4 to give it new life? No one outside of Apple knows, logic tells us that they have a plan and have been working on it for the past year or two, but what we have to go on is mostly Speculation.
  • Reply 17 of 78
    [quote]Originally posted by grad student:

    <strong>" Hardware on the other hand can be efficiently designed with a fraction of the Engineering talent required for the OS"



    this simply is not true. Ask any of the Merced engineers how easy it is to design a new 64 bit processor from scratch. Sure, a simple process shrink is straightforward, but so is a minor OS bug fix revision. When you need to redesign everything - OS or hardware - it's a big undertaking. I've worked on both, and I wouldn't say software engineering or microprocessor design is easier, less demanding on people hours, or faster than the other: it depends on the size of the undertaking - as well as external forces.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's an isolated scenario from a HUGE Chip vendor and even then I'd venture to say Intel as a whole has more Software Engineers in volume.



    Nvidia, ATI and almost any company that has HW that requires drivers will have more software Engineers on staff than hardware. My point still stands...and strong.





    [quote] The G4 isn't imbued with magical Instruction Per Clock Cycle powers that allow it to do vastly more work per clock cycle than an Athlon or PIV.

    <hr></blockquote>



    That's false stoo. The shorter pipelines of the G4 procs minimize the latency hit when data is mispredicted and must be discarded. Sounds like a tangible advantage to me.





    [quote] Why are Dell "crap"? They should buy Macs? <hr></blockquote>



    I clearly stated I don't like "homogeneous" networkds in education. It robs our students of actually learning about different methodologies in computing. The Dell Warchanters are as bad as any fanboy club.
  • Reply 18 of 78
    If the G4 can do vastly more per CPu cycle than the P4 how come the P4 beat the crap out of the G4 in video compression and such stuff? From 1994 to 2000 the PPC was at the sam clock speed as the X86 +/-20-25% as was the CPU performance with the FPU lsigtly above and the integer performance sligtly below the x86. The G4 is not more effecient than the 450 MHz G3 of 1999. Say that the P4 is less efficent thant the P3 as it appears to be so that the currently fastest aviable G4 is perhaps not equal to a 1GHz P4 ( Do they make them that slow?) but as fast as a 1.5 GHz P4 we are still behind.



    What really good CPUs have come out of the doors of Motorola since the 68030? That was really good when the IIfx came out 1990...

    The 68040 was eaten alive by the 486 and forced the jump to PPC

    The High end 604E and the G3 were designed by the AIM group and build by IBM.

    Hindsight is always 20/20 but should not Apple have realised what they did reducing AIM to AM?
  • Reply 19 of 78
    stoostoo Posts: 1,490member
    OK, the G4 has a better IPC than IA32 CPUs, but not vastly better or enough to make up the clock cycle/bandwidth deficit. A short pipeline may give it an advantage, but these are outweighted by higher clock rates, more units, better bandwidth, etc... (I should have been clearer the first time )



    It's not your opposition to homogenous computing environments (fair enough) but the labelling of Dell as "crap" I was objecting to. Unfortunately, homogenous environments are easier to support, and is the way my university is going. (With Dells, by the way).
  • Reply 20 of 78
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Macs are fine. They're not completely overpriced. They're not completely slow and crappy. They're not going away.



    Sorry.



    I have this feeling that some of you who complain about Macs never use a Windows PC.
Sign In or Register to comment.