That makes sense. The X86 model has been to supply faster and faster chips into the high-end and let the older models filter down. It worked beautifully for Intel, allowing them to exert all kinds of price-performance pressure on their competitors for the longest time. So long as the fabs are cranking, it just works, and it makes pricing trends nice and predictable too. When AMD released the Athlon it unsettled Intel a bit, but Intel just kept at it and they soon over-ran AMD again. Fab fab fab... leads to speed and price. After all the AMD hullabaloo, Intel still has the fastest outright CPU's Though price/performance tilts in AMD's favor a bit, Intel is still a giant compared to AMD which has trouble wrestling more than a small piece of the X86 pie. Why, because if you can continually supply the fastest chips, you inevitably cover the value bases as well.
When PPC stalled at the top end, it didn't just limit the pro machines, it stalled everything underneath it too.
To me this is still partly Apple's fault. They're really stressing the FSB bottleneck now, but there's no good reason why they couldn't have put duals and L3 cache in ALL the PM's consistently ever since the first dual machines. They could then have put those very same speeds and caches into the consumer machines for an SP config.
A faster top end, however, should make it easier to 'correct' the rest of the line-up. Price will remain a bit too high, but at least performance should come closer to justifying the MSRP. This should stop the slow bleed in market share, so long as they don't begin another long slide deep into the trailing edge. However, any significant growth will require a much cheaper machine with a large display (17" CRT) and decent performance, or something headless with moderate expandability and a cheap price. No more than 800 for the former, no more than 750 for the neo-cube. Education is all but lost without complete solutions in the 500-800 range. Education needs to be a core of Apple's market -- exposure, mind-share and all that...
<strong>That makes sense. The X86 model has been to supply faster and faster chips into the high-end and let the older models filter down. It worked beautifully for Intel, allowing them to exert all kinds of price-performance pressure on their competitors for the longest time. So long as the fabs are cranking, it just works, and it makes pricing trends nice and predictable too. When AMD released the Athlon it unsettled Intel a bit, but Intel just kept at it and they soon over-ran AMD again. Fab fab fab... leads to speed and price. After all the AMD hullabaloo, Intel still has the fastest outright CPU's Though price/performance tilts in AMD's favor a bit, Intel is still a giant compared to AMD which has trouble wrestling more than a small piece of the X86 pie. Why, because if you can continually supply the fastest chips, you inevitably cover the value bases as well.
When PPC stalled at the top end, it didn't just limit the pro machines, it stalled everything underneath it too.
To me this is still partly Apple's fault. They're really stressing the FSB bottleneck now, but there's no good reason why they couldn't have put duals and L3 cache in ALL the PM's consistently ever since the first dual machines. They could then have put those very same speeds and caches into the consumer machines for an SP config.
A faster top end, however, should make it easier to 'correct' the rest of the line-up. Price will remain a bit too high, but at least performance should come closer to justifying the MSRP. This should stop the slow bleed in market share, so long as they don't begin another long slide deep into the trailing edge. However, any significant growth will require a much cheaper machine with a large display (17" CRT) and decent performance, or something headless with moderate expandability and a cheap price. No more than 800 for the former, no more than 750 for the neo-cube. Education is all but lost without complete solutions in the 500-800 range. Education needs to be a core of Apple's market -- exposure, mind-share and all that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
------------------------------
Now your agreeing with me! LOL As I said all apple needs is better Price Vs Performance. They don't have to be in the sub 1000 market they just have to be competitive in the hardware pricing. They are already way ahead on everything else.
You see Steve Jobs has gotten everything ready. They have the apples stores, they have a great OS, they are advertising, they have the iApps, they are now known again and have been in the news ect. People love OS X. It is stable as hell. My friends PC's are always crashing (seriously) and I have crashed 3 times in the last 2 years. And 2 of them were with the first version of 10. After upgrading to 10.1 and on I have had none. PC's crash at least once a day. A well kept one maybe just twice a week but OS 10 maybe 1 time a year if your unlucky. Steve has it all set up. All we need now is that G5 and apple will be all set. That 10% will flow in like refugees.
\tThis is the best proof that the IBM G5 is really going to happen within the next 6 months. It is the missing part of the equation and the only missing part!
<strong>That makes sense. The X86 model has been to supply faster and faster chips into the high-end and let the older models filter down. It worked beautifully for Intel, allowing them to exert all kinds of price-performance pressure on their competitors for the longest time. So long as the fabs are cranking, it just works, and it makes pricing trends nice and predictable too. When AMD released the Athlon it unsettled Intel a bit, but Intel just kept at it and they soon over-ran AMD again. Fab fab fab... leads to speed and price. After all the AMD hullabaloo, Intel still has the fastest outright CPU's Though price/performance tilts in AMD's favor a bit, Intel is still a giant compared to AMD which has trouble wrestling more than a small piece of the X86 pie. Why, because if you can continually supply the fastest chips, you inevitably cover the value bases as well.
When PPC stalled at the top end, it didn't just limit the pro machines, it stalled everything underneath it too.
To me this is still partly Apple's fault. They're really stressing the FSB bottleneck now, but there's no good reason why they couldn't have put duals and L3 cache in ALL the PM's consistently ever since the first dual machines. They could then have put those very same speeds and caches into the consumer machines for an SP config.
A faster top end, however, should make it easier to 'correct' the rest of the line-up. Price will remain a bit too high, but at least performance should come closer to justifying the MSRP. This should stop the slow bleed in market share, so long as they don't begin another long slide deep into the trailing edge. However, any significant growth will require a much cheaper machine with a large display (17" CRT) and decent performance, or something headless with moderate expandability and a cheap price. No more than 800 for the former, no more than 750 for the neo-cube. Education is all but lost without complete solutions in the 500-800 range. Education needs to be a core of Apple's market -- exposure, mind-share and all that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
------------------------------
Now your agreeing with me! LOL As I said all apple needs is better Price Vs Performance. They don't have to be in the sub 1000 market they just have to be competitive in the hardware pricing. They are already way ahead on everything else.
You see Steve Jobs has gotten everything ready. They have the apples stores, they have a great OS, they are advertising, they have the iApps, they are now known again and have been in the news ect. People love OS X. It is stable as hell. My friends PC's are always crashing (seriously) and I have crashed 3 times in the last 2 years. And 2 of them were with the first version of 10. After upgrading to 10.1 and on I have had none. PC's crash at least once a day. A well kept one maybe just twice a week but OS 10 maybe 1 time a year if your unlucky. Steve has it all set up. All we need now is that G5 and apple will be all set. That 10% will flow in like refugees.
\tThis is the best proof that the IBM G5 is really going to happen within the next 6 months. It is the missing part of the equation and the only missing part!
Alot of good posts (and some poor ones, glad to see people getting "civil" again). Allow me to go off-topic to provide some background to my on-topic point...
I see both sides to the Dual boot/MacX86 conversations, but one point that I see being missed (or not stated) is that in order for Mac to gain marketshare (even in schools), Apple has to regain corporate marketshare. The schools base alot of their aguements on what is used in the corporations. And face it, most corporations are 'married' to Wintel.
I see it everyday at one of the largest aircraft manufacturers in the US (they are 'married' to Dell and M$). And please note, the ease of use and lower cost of supporting Macs (1 to 7 support person ratio, Mac/Wintel, for equal number of users, per 1000 users each side) were brought up and drilled into the "Powers to Be", but they still opted for Wintel. There are many reasons that the Finance and IS types used to choose Wintel: initial cost (or the ability to buy the desktop/workstation piece meal); microsoft networking; support agreements; supposed S/W requirements; and most importantly Upper Management Bias. I'm sure I left out a few, but you get the point, I hope.
The thing is, Apple can or will have the ability to offer most of these things to corporations. They didn't before though (before OSX). It all boils down to adjusting their sales guidelines and completing the OS X transition.
For Unit Cost: Apple can sell upgrade parts that are user installable and offer extreme minimal options to corporate buyers (CDs, DVDs, RAM, etc). They used to offer such things, when the had a higher marketshare.
For MS Networking: Most all corporation are going to, or are at, solitary TCP/IP networking ... and Unix and TCP/IP are 'married'. Unix also handles DOS style scripting better than OS 9 did (AppleScript was apparently not flexible enough for alot of Sys Admins). Unix also is closer to what more Network Admins are used to seeing, AppleTalk was very foreign to the Network Admins I coordinated with (even though the Mac used TCP/IP as well).
For Support Agreements: Apple is going to have to work on this one. Even back in the late 80's early 90's, they still relied heavily on 3rd party support organizations. Apple can do much better here.
Supposed S/W requirements: A management sham. Most Businesses use a Text Editor (Word, etc), Presentation (PowerPoint), Spreadsheet (Excel), Drawing (Canvas), Internet Browser, E-Mail. All of which are available on the Mac.
Management Bias, I don't have an answer to. Maybe <facetiously suggesting> have SJ use his RDF on some major corporation CEOs.
Now, Back on topic, "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?" ... If Moto has already stated that they're concentrating on the embedded chips, and IBM is providing an answer. Apple's choice is obvious, and once that IBM answer is implemented along with OS X, true network support service (look at M$' SMS, only better), and System Support agreements, then we'll start to see some corporate marketshare. We have the makings for the basics and 'then some', like Algol said earlier on page 19 (I agree with you and Barto). The pieces just have to fall into place, and that takes time.
Algol, I too think SJ has things set up, and the PowerMac G5 H/W update is the piece to get the ball rolling.
Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.
Why do you care about that, anyways? If Apple began using x86 CPUs in Macs, then there would no longer be any performance advantage to using a Mac. Sure, you laugh now, but what about this GP-UL from IBM? Does anyone doubt that a well-designed IBM CPU with Altivec would outperform any x86 CPU in EVERY performance parameter measured? Do you think Apple wants to give up a chance to be better than x86, for a chance to be the SAME?
When has Steve Jobs ever sought conformity to other's standards?
Sure Apple has an x86 build of OS X--just in case. But we aren't going to see it until Apple is about to go belly up.
And what the hell, who came up with this dumb-ass idea of a dual-boot mac with both x86 and G4 CPUs? That is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time here at FH. Do you have ANY idea how much such a computer would cost? If you think Macs are expensive now, just wait until Apple offers an x86/G4 system...no way would such an overpriced lunk of a computer sway any Windows users. Why the hell would someone pay extra money just so they could boot between Windows and OS X? Oh, that really sounds user friendly...as if a choice to boot between OS 9 and OS X isn't confusing enough, yeah, I'm sure Apple is going to push a choice like Windows or OS X on people.
And did it just SLIP YOUR MIND that Micro$oft will not license Windows to any box-maker unless said box-maker agrees not to install ANY other OS on their boxes? M$ would NEVER allow boxes to be sold that have OS X installed next to Windows...it simply will never happen. Ever. M$ didn't become the monopoly that they are by playing nice. VPC is no analogy either, since it is such a poor implementation that it doesn't allow direct comparisons between Windows and Mac OS. But an x86 box that could boot into either OS X or Windows? LOL!
This used to be a good thread back when it was about IBM's Altivec PPC, but now it's been hijacked by the x86 penis envy crowd who go limp whenever someone mentions 2.5 GHz. Look, nobody cares about your MHz, and IF they do, then it's because they're a tool. I've talked to countless IT dorks who turn their nose up at Macs.....but it's like water off a duck's back. They are mindless drones, ignorant of the world around them. They don't use their computers for anything beyond tinkering and games. For those of us who use our computers to create, Macs are better. And yeah, we've got big dicks so we don't need more GHz or bigger SUVs.
Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.
Confirmed!
Why do you care about that, anyways? If Apple began using x86 CPUs in Macs, then there would no longer be any performance advantage to using a Mac.
You mean there would be no differentation in raw performance. Right now, there is a negative differentation.
Does anyone doubt that a well-designed IBM CPU with Altivec would outperform any x86 CPU in EVERY performance parameter measured? Do you think Apple wants to give up a chance to be better than x86, for a chance to be the SAME?
Which is why there won't be a x86 Mac anytime soon. But if PowerPC performace heads south again...
And what the hell, who came up with this dumb-ass idea of a dual-boot mac with both x86 and G4 CPUs? That is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time here at FH
And that's saying something!
This used to be a good thread back when it was about IBM's Altivec PPC, but now it's been hijacked by the x86 penis envy crowd who go limp whenever someone mentions 2.5 GHz.
I await the inevitable lock...
I've talked to countless IT dorks who turn their nose up at Macs.
I used to have to deal with that. Now Macs have RESPECT! Bwahaha! I'm valued as an Apple Freak!
<strong>Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.
Why do you care about that, anyways? If Apple began using x86 CPUs in Macs, then there would no longer be any performance advantage to using a Mac. Sure, you laugh now, but what about this GP-UL from IBM? Does anyone doubt that a well-designed IBM CPU with Altivec would outperform any x86 CPU in EVERY performance parameter measured? Do you think Apple wants to give up a chance to be better than x86, for a chance to be the SAME?
When has Steve Jobs ever sought conformity to other's standards?
Sure Apple has an x86 build of OS X--just in case. But we aren't going to see it until Apple is about to go belly up.
And what the hell, who came up with this dumb-ass idea of a dual-boot mac with both x86 and G4 CPUs? That is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time here at FH. Do you have ANY idea how much such a computer would cost? If you think Macs are expensive now, just wait until Apple offers an x86/G4 system...no way would such an overpriced lunk of a computer sway any Windows users. Why the hell would someone pay extra money just so they could boot between Windows and OS X? Oh, that really sounds user friendly...as if a choice to boot between OS 9 and OS X isn't confusing enough, yeah, I'm sure Apple is going to push a choice like Windows or OS X on people.
And did it just SLIP YOUR MIND that Micro$oft will not license Windows to any box-maker unless said box-maker agrees not to install ANY other OS on their boxes? M$ would NEVER allow boxes to be sold that have OS X installed next to Windows...it simply will never happen. Ever. M$ didn't become the monopoly that they are by playing nice. VPC is no analogy either, since it is such a poor implementation that it doesn't allow direct comparisons between Windows and Mac OS. But an x86 box that could boot into either OS X or Windows? LOL!
This used to be a good thread back when it was about IBM's Altivec PPC, but now it's been hijacked by the x86 penis envy crowd who go limp whenever someone mentions 2.5 GHz. Look, nobody cares about your MHz, and IF they do, then it's because they're a tool. I've talked to countless IT dorks who turn their nose up at Macs.....but it's like water off a duck's back. They are mindless drones, ignorant of the world around them. They don't use their computers for anything beyond tinkering and games. For those of us who use our computers to create, Macs are better. And yeah, we've got big dicks so we don't need more GHz or bigger SUVs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose that all depends on how you define "near future".
::segue::
I will say this: Apple knows there is a performance gap between their machines and the Wintel world. Some of it is perception, some of it is real. They also know that they will be dead in the water if by this time next year, they aren't equalling or surpassing the Wintel boxes of the time in performance.
Make of it what you will; Apple knows there is a performance issue, and they've known it for some time. You can argue that they just have their head in the sand and will be using G4s slowly bumped by MOT until they dwindle into oblivion.
Or, you could realize that Apple is not stupid. Not only are they aware of all of the issues people here are raising, but they also are (and have been) actively doing something about it. They have had artificial constraints placed on them by their chip supplier, both in terms of raw CPU performance, and in terms of memory bus architecture.
It doesn't take a genius to notice these things, and to believe that Apple isn't going to do something about it as soon as they possibly can is to believe that Apple wants to fade into the background, and fend off a litany of share holder lawsuits.
As much as people decry the sometimes heavy-handed leadership of Jobs, this is a case where having a very motivated person at the helm is useful. His ego and drive are tied to how well Apple does, which provides for ample motivation to make sure Apple does well.
It isn't a question of IF Apple is going to deliver killer new systems based around a new processor architecture, but rather when. Like any self-respecting technology company, Apple has a number of research projects in the works, some of which will make it to market, some of which won't.
The microprocessor forum in October will provide for ample rumour and speculation, not to worry.
I see both sides to the Dual boot/MacX86 conversations, but one point that I see being missed (or not stated) is that in order for Mac to gain marketshare (even in schools), Apple has to regain corporate marketshare. The schools base alot of their aguements on what is used in the corporations. And face it, most corporations are 'married' to Wintel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are so right. The original theory was that when kids started working they would prefer the platform they had used in school. This has been proven to be wrong. When you come fresh from school you do not have the choice of platform. For Apple to succeed in schools they first have to succeed in business, not the other way round.
In USA you make a big point of Apple loosing out in education. In reality Apple has never been big in education (world wide). I come from a country where Apple has always been denied the possibility to sell to schools. They are not even invited to bid for contracts in schools. The policy is - you can buy anything as long as it runs Windows - nobody else need to apply. It has always been that way. Now we see an interest from the schools themselves to use something else. So far many are focusing on Linux and Open Office, but I think this will open up their eyes for other alternatives.
Apple gets zero exposure in the schools. Still, at this time, Apples marketshare is rising (as far as I can see). More and more of my colleagues show interest in Apple hardware. The iMac and iBook are not much more expensive than a similar PC.
[quote]<strong>
Now, Back on topic, "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?" ... If Moto has already stated that they're concentrating on the embedded chips, and IBM is providing an answer. Apple's choice is obvious, and once that IBM answer is implemented along with OS X, true network support service (look at M$' SMS, only better), and System Support agreements, then we'll start to see some corporate marketshare. We have the makings for the basics and 'then some', like Algol said earlier on page 19 (I agree with you and Barto). The pieces just have to fall into place, and that takes time.
Algol, I too think SJ has things set up, and the PowerMac G5 H/W update is the piece to get the ball rolling.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I do not believe the X86-rumors. I don't see why a X86-based Mac should be cheaper than a PPC-one. They are not much faster, and the X86-architecture is very old and will be gone in 3-5 years. A P4 processor is not cheaper than a G4, and Apple would have to develop a new motherboard, maintain 2 separate hardware developer teams, spend a lot of time on software development, and persuade software houses to keep their PPC-software. Too much trouble for too little gain.
To win in schools they have to win in business. The only way to do this is to make kick-ass hardware and maintain compatibility with Windows.
With OSX they are almost there in software, with their next round of hardware they will also have the hardware superiority (I think).
I think the reason for the currently lagging hardware is that Apple didn't want to develop both OS X.2 and new hardware at the same time - too many variables. Now the software is done and it is time to focus on hardware.
I suppose that all depends on how you define "near future".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You tease
[quote]<strong>
::segue::
I will say this: Apple knows there is a performance gap between their machines and the Wintel world. Some of it is perception, some of it is real. They also know that they will be dead in the water if by this time next year, they aren't equalling or surpassing the Wintel boxes of the time in performance.
Make of it what you will; Apple knows there is a performance issue, and they've known it for some time. You can argue that they just have their head in the sand and will be using G4s slowly bumped by MOT until they dwindle into oblivion.
Or, you could realize that Apple is not stupid. Not only are they aware of all of the issues people here are raising, but they also are (and have been) actively doing something about it. They have had artificial constraints placed on them by their chip supplier, both in terms of raw CPU performance, and in terms of memory bus architecture.
It doesn't take a genius to notice these things, and to believe that Apple isn't going to do something about it as soon as they possibly can is to believe that Apple wants to fade into the background, and fend off a litany of share holder lawsuits.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, this sounds more than logical... you would think Apple has smart people. Its just pisses the hell out of all of us when everything is in such secrecy and you see that the suppliers dont seem to care or dont have the capability to make Apple as great as it can be. Its collective frustration as it seems its out of Apple's hands and we are growing impatient as the RDF dwindles ever more every passing hour of every day.
[quote]<strong>
As much as people decry the sometimes heavy-handed leadership of Jobs, this is a case where having a very motivated person at the helm is useful. His ego and drive are tied to how well Apple does, which provides for ample motivation to make sure Apple does well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
very true. I think that without Jobs Apple would be trying to desperatly sell itself or merge with some other company or whatnot. This period of Apple's history will really prove Jobs. He either shines his way though and makes Apple succsseful during times of trouble... or it all comes down. Im betting he will be able to get everything together. The sooner the better.
[quote]<strong>
It isn't a question of IF Apple is going to deliver killer new systems based around a new processor architecture, but rather when. Like any self-respecting technology company, Apple has a number of research projects in the works, some of which will make it to market, some of which won't.
The microprocessor forum in October will provide for ample rumour and speculation, not to worry. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Speculation is something we DONT worry about on these boards. Having something to actually sink our teeth into and stop climbing up mirrors is another.
Anyone notice how we have more new members than ever? Seems like the worse Apple does, the more people want to believe and see if there IS some hope at the end of the tunnel. They want a little nugget of hope.
Actually I got lost in the crossfire a bit when I mentioned how higher speeds make it possible to rationalize more of the line-up all the way down. I gave Intel as an example because they provide a very good one in the x86 space. However, I forgot to point out that a steady stream of fast PPC CPU's from IBM would provide the same benefit to Apple. You no longer have to hold back the consumer lines.
We'll get a PPC (probably from IBM, and Moto too)
X86 is not likely at all, but X86 is actually more likely than a dual boot machine: translation, neither is happening any time soon.*
*edit: yes it does depend on how your define 'near term'...
I think Apple creates its own FUD by its secrecy. Intel announces years in advance its roadmap with specific dates and speeds. Apple is so fearful that people will put off their purchases that they keep everthing quiet. You can still make an iMac in secret but when your customers have no idea what the future of the PowerPC platform is, it does inspire confidence.
Before this IBM announcement, no one had any idea what future Power Macs will be (and I guess we still don't beyond rumor). Based on Motorola's website, the desktop PowerPC has very little future.
[quote] I think Apple creates its own FUD by its secrecy. Intel announces years in advance its roadmap with specific dates and speeds. <hr></blockquote>
Intel ca announce what's coming because they push the envelope. There is a constant refresh of their line. A consumer can buy now and feel they're getting a kick ass machine and two years later can by another box that smokes that last one.
Right now PPC refresh is sooo slow, and barley steady (for the past three years as a whole). Many of us are just going to wait because to justify a large $$ investment we want something heads and tails above our last purchase two years in the past.
I'm still using a Blue and White w/ g4 upgrade. Yes the current line is much better then what I am using but I've already waited so long I will wait longer until the Machines that we all (most) are waiting for, comes out.
If we had refresh and performance pushes like Wintel I would be getting ready for my third refresh instead of holding on to my Blue and White.
Comments
When PPC stalled at the top end, it didn't just limit the pro machines, it stalled everything underneath it too.
To me this is still partly Apple's fault. They're really stressing the FSB bottleneck now, but there's no good reason why they couldn't have put duals and L3 cache in ALL the PM's consistently ever since the first dual machines. They could then have put those very same speeds and caches into the consumer machines for an SP config.
A faster top end, however, should make it easier to 'correct' the rest of the line-up. Price will remain a bit too high, but at least performance should come closer to justifying the MSRP. This should stop the slow bleed in market share, so long as they don't begin another long slide deep into the trailing edge. However, any significant growth will require a much cheaper machine with a large display (17" CRT) and decent performance, or something headless with moderate expandability and a cheap price. No more than 800 for the former, no more than 750 for the neo-cube. Education is all but lost without complete solutions in the 500-800 range. Education needs to be a core of Apple's market -- exposure, mind-share and all that...
<strong>That makes sense. The X86 model has been to supply faster and faster chips into the high-end and let the older models filter down. It worked beautifully for Intel, allowing them to exert all kinds of price-performance pressure on their competitors for the longest time. So long as the fabs are cranking, it just works, and it makes pricing trends nice and predictable too. When AMD released the Athlon it unsettled Intel a bit, but Intel just kept at it and they soon over-ran AMD again. Fab fab fab... leads to speed and price. After all the AMD hullabaloo, Intel still has the fastest outright CPU's Though price/performance tilts in AMD's favor a bit, Intel is still a giant compared to AMD which has trouble wrestling more than a small piece of the X86 pie. Why, because if you can continually supply the fastest chips, you inevitably cover the value bases as well.
When PPC stalled at the top end, it didn't just limit the pro machines, it stalled everything underneath it too.
To me this is still partly Apple's fault. They're really stressing the FSB bottleneck now, but there's no good reason why they couldn't have put duals and L3 cache in ALL the PM's consistently ever since the first dual machines. They could then have put those very same speeds and caches into the consumer machines for an SP config.
A faster top end, however, should make it easier to 'correct' the rest of the line-up. Price will remain a bit too high, but at least performance should come closer to justifying the MSRP. This should stop the slow bleed in market share, so long as they don't begin another long slide deep into the trailing edge. However, any significant growth will require a much cheaper machine with a large display (17" CRT) and decent performance, or something headless with moderate expandability and a cheap price. No more than 800 for the former, no more than 750 for the neo-cube. Education is all but lost without complete solutions in the 500-800 range. Education needs to be a core of Apple's market -- exposure, mind-share and all that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
------------------------------
Now your agreeing with me! LOL As I said all apple needs is better Price Vs Performance. They don't have to be in the sub 1000 market they just have to be competitive in the hardware pricing. They are already way ahead on everything else.
You see Steve Jobs has gotten everything ready. They have the apples stores, they have a great OS, they are advertising, they have the iApps, they are now known again and have been in the news ect. People love OS X. It is stable as hell. My friends PC's are always crashing (seriously) and I have crashed 3 times in the last 2 years. And 2 of them were with the first version of 10. After upgrading to 10.1 and on I have had none. PC's crash at least once a day. A well kept one maybe just twice a week but OS 10 maybe 1 time a year if your unlucky. Steve has it all set up. All we need now is that G5 and apple will be all set. That 10% will flow in like refugees.
\tThis is the best proof that the IBM G5 is really going to happen within the next 6 months. It is the missing part of the equation and the only missing part!
<strong>That makes sense. The X86 model has been to supply faster and faster chips into the high-end and let the older models filter down. It worked beautifully for Intel, allowing them to exert all kinds of price-performance pressure on their competitors for the longest time. So long as the fabs are cranking, it just works, and it makes pricing trends nice and predictable too. When AMD released the Athlon it unsettled Intel a bit, but Intel just kept at it and they soon over-ran AMD again. Fab fab fab... leads to speed and price. After all the AMD hullabaloo, Intel still has the fastest outright CPU's Though price/performance tilts in AMD's favor a bit, Intel is still a giant compared to AMD which has trouble wrestling more than a small piece of the X86 pie. Why, because if you can continually supply the fastest chips, you inevitably cover the value bases as well.
When PPC stalled at the top end, it didn't just limit the pro machines, it stalled everything underneath it too.
To me this is still partly Apple's fault. They're really stressing the FSB bottleneck now, but there's no good reason why they couldn't have put duals and L3 cache in ALL the PM's consistently ever since the first dual machines. They could then have put those very same speeds and caches into the consumer machines for an SP config.
A faster top end, however, should make it easier to 'correct' the rest of the line-up. Price will remain a bit too high, but at least performance should come closer to justifying the MSRP. This should stop the slow bleed in market share, so long as they don't begin another long slide deep into the trailing edge. However, any significant growth will require a much cheaper machine with a large display (17" CRT) and decent performance, or something headless with moderate expandability and a cheap price. No more than 800 for the former, no more than 750 for the neo-cube. Education is all but lost without complete solutions in the 500-800 range. Education needs to be a core of Apple's market -- exposure, mind-share and all that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
------------------------------
Now your agreeing with me! LOL As I said all apple needs is better Price Vs Performance. They don't have to be in the sub 1000 market they just have to be competitive in the hardware pricing. They are already way ahead on everything else.
You see Steve Jobs has gotten everything ready. They have the apples stores, they have a great OS, they are advertising, they have the iApps, they are now known again and have been in the news ect. People love OS X. It is stable as hell. My friends PC's are always crashing (seriously) and I have crashed 3 times in the last 2 years. And 2 of them were with the first version of 10. After upgrading to 10.1 and on I have had none. PC's crash at least once a day. A well kept one maybe just twice a week but OS 10 maybe 1 time a year if your unlucky. Steve has it all set up. All we need now is that G5 and apple will be all set. That 10% will flow in like refugees.
\tThis is the best proof that the IBM G5 is really going to happen within the next 6 months. It is the missing part of the equation and the only missing part!
Alot of good posts (and some poor ones, glad to see people getting "civil" again). Allow me to go off-topic to provide some background to my on-topic point...
I see both sides to the Dual boot/MacX86 conversations, but one point that I see being missed (or not stated) is that in order for Mac to gain marketshare (even in schools), Apple has to regain corporate marketshare. The schools base alot of their aguements on what is used in the corporations. And face it, most corporations are 'married' to Wintel.
I see it everyday at one of the largest aircraft manufacturers in the US (they are 'married' to Dell and M$). And please note, the ease of use and lower cost of supporting Macs (1 to 7 support person ratio, Mac/Wintel, for equal number of users, per 1000 users each side) were brought up and drilled into the "Powers to Be", but they still opted for Wintel. There are many reasons that the Finance and IS types used to choose Wintel: initial cost (or the ability to buy the desktop/workstation piece meal); microsoft networking; support agreements; supposed S/W requirements; and most importantly Upper Management Bias. I'm sure I left out a few, but you get the point, I hope.
The thing is, Apple can or will have the ability to offer most of these things to corporations. They didn't before though (before OSX). It all boils down to adjusting their sales guidelines and completing the OS X transition.
For Unit Cost: Apple can sell upgrade parts that are user installable and offer extreme minimal options to corporate buyers (CDs, DVDs, RAM, etc). They used to offer such things, when the had a higher marketshare.
For MS Networking: Most all corporation are going to, or are at, solitary TCP/IP networking ... and Unix and TCP/IP are 'married'. Unix also handles DOS style scripting better than OS 9 did (AppleScript was apparently not flexible enough for alot of Sys Admins). Unix also is closer to what more Network Admins are used to seeing, AppleTalk was very foreign to the Network Admins I coordinated with (even though the Mac used TCP/IP as well).
For Support Agreements: Apple is going to have to work on this one. Even back in the late 80's early 90's, they still relied heavily on 3rd party support organizations. Apple can do much better here.
Supposed S/W requirements: A management sham. Most Businesses use a Text Editor (Word, etc), Presentation (PowerPoint), Spreadsheet (Excel), Drawing (Canvas), Internet Browser, E-Mail. All of which are available on the Mac.
Management Bias, I don't have an answer to. Maybe <facetiously suggesting> have SJ use his RDF on some major corporation CEOs.
Now, Back on topic, "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?" ... If Moto has already stated that they're concentrating on the embedded chips, and IBM is providing an answer. Apple's choice is obvious, and once that IBM answer is implemented along with OS X, true network support service (look at M$' SMS, only better), and System Support agreements, then we'll start to see some corporate marketshare. We have the makings for the basics and 'then some', like Algol said earlier on page 19 (I agree with you and Barto). The pieces just have to fall into place, and that takes time.
Algol, I too think SJ has things set up, and the PowerMac G5 H/W update is the piece to get the ball rolling.
Why do you care about that, anyways? If Apple began using x86 CPUs in Macs, then there would no longer be any performance advantage to using a Mac. Sure, you laugh now, but what about this GP-UL from IBM? Does anyone doubt that a well-designed IBM CPU with Altivec would outperform any x86 CPU in EVERY performance parameter measured? Do you think Apple wants to give up a chance to be better than x86, for a chance to be the SAME?
When has Steve Jobs ever sought conformity to other's standards?
Sure Apple has an x86 build of OS X--just in case. But we aren't going to see it until Apple is about to go belly up.
And what the hell, who came up with this dumb-ass idea of a dual-boot mac with both x86 and G4 CPUs? That is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time here at FH. Do you have ANY idea how much such a computer would cost? If you think Macs are expensive now, just wait until Apple offers an x86/G4 system...no way would such an overpriced lunk of a computer sway any Windows users. Why the hell would someone pay extra money just so they could boot between Windows and OS X? Oh, that really sounds user friendly...as if a choice to boot between OS 9 and OS X isn't confusing enough, yeah, I'm sure Apple is going to push a choice like Windows or OS X on people.
And did it just SLIP YOUR MIND that Micro$oft will not license Windows to any box-maker unless said box-maker agrees not to install ANY other OS on their boxes? M$ would NEVER allow boxes to be sold that have OS X installed next to Windows...it simply will never happen. Ever. M$ didn't become the monopoly that they are by playing nice. VPC is no analogy either, since it is such a poor implementation that it doesn't allow direct comparisons between Windows and Mac OS. But an x86 box that could boot into either OS X or Windows? LOL!
This used to be a good thread back when it was about IBM's Altivec PPC, but now it's been hijacked by the x86 penis envy crowd who go limp whenever someone mentions 2.5 GHz. Look, nobody cares about your MHz, and IF they do, then it's because they're a tool. I've talked to countless IT dorks who turn their nose up at Macs.....but it's like water off a duck's back. They are mindless drones, ignorant of the world around them. They don't use their computers for anything beyond tinkering and games. For those of us who use our computers to create, Macs are better. And yeah, we've got big dicks so we don't need more GHz or bigger SUVs.
Confirmed!
Why do you care about that, anyways? If Apple began using x86 CPUs in Macs, then there would no longer be any performance advantage to using a Mac.
You mean there would be no differentation in raw performance. Right now, there is a negative differentation.
Does anyone doubt that a well-designed IBM CPU with Altivec would outperform any x86 CPU in EVERY performance parameter measured? Do you think Apple wants to give up a chance to be better than x86, for a chance to be the SAME?
Which is why there won't be a x86 Mac anytime soon. But if PowerPC performace heads south again...
And what the hell, who came up with this dumb-ass idea of a dual-boot mac with both x86 and G4 CPUs? That is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time here at FH
And that's saying something!
This used to be a good thread back when it was about IBM's Altivec PPC, but now it's been hijacked by the x86 penis envy crowd who go limp whenever someone mentions 2.5 GHz.
I await the inevitable lock...
I've talked to countless IT dorks who turn their nose up at Macs.
I used to have to deal with that. Now Macs have RESPECT! Bwahaha! I'm valued as an Apple Freak!
Barto
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.
Why do you care about that, anyways? If Apple began using x86 CPUs in Macs, then there would no longer be any performance advantage to using a Mac. Sure, you laugh now, but what about this GP-UL from IBM? Does anyone doubt that a well-designed IBM CPU with Altivec would outperform any x86 CPU in EVERY performance parameter measured? Do you think Apple wants to give up a chance to be better than x86, for a chance to be the SAME?
When has Steve Jobs ever sought conformity to other's standards?
Sure Apple has an x86 build of OS X--just in case. But we aren't going to see it until Apple is about to go belly up.
And what the hell, who came up with this dumb-ass idea of a dual-boot mac with both x86 and G4 CPUs? That is the dumbest idea I've seen in a long time here at FH. Do you have ANY idea how much such a computer would cost? If you think Macs are expensive now, just wait until Apple offers an x86/G4 system...no way would such an overpriced lunk of a computer sway any Windows users. Why the hell would someone pay extra money just so they could boot between Windows and OS X? Oh, that really sounds user friendly...as if a choice to boot between OS 9 and OS X isn't confusing enough, yeah, I'm sure Apple is going to push a choice like Windows or OS X on people.
And did it just SLIP YOUR MIND that Micro$oft will not license Windows to any box-maker unless said box-maker agrees not to install ANY other OS on their boxes? M$ would NEVER allow boxes to be sold that have OS X installed next to Windows...it simply will never happen. Ever. M$ didn't become the monopoly that they are by playing nice. VPC is no analogy either, since it is such a poor implementation that it doesn't allow direct comparisons between Windows and Mac OS. But an x86 box that could boot into either OS X or Windows? LOL!
This used to be a good thread back when it was about IBM's Altivec PPC, but now it's been hijacked by the x86 penis envy crowd who go limp whenever someone mentions 2.5 GHz. Look, nobody cares about your MHz, and IF they do, then it's because they're a tool. I've talked to countless IT dorks who turn their nose up at Macs.....but it's like water off a duck's back. They are mindless drones, ignorant of the world around them. They don't use their computers for anything beyond tinkering and games. For those of us who use our computers to create, Macs are better. And yeah, we've got big dicks so we don't need more GHz or bigger SUVs.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks JYD, I enjoyed that.
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
<strong>I feel honoured! To think even the respected, gentleman JYD has called me a tool!
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only pointing out the obvious.
Oh, and I'm more International Man of Mystery than Gentleman. Thanks for acknowledging that!
<strong>Listen, there is not going to be an x86-based Mac in the near future. Live with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose that all depends on how you define "near future".
::segue::
I will say this: Apple knows there is a performance gap between their machines and the Wintel world. Some of it is perception, some of it is real. They also know that they will be dead in the water if by this time next year, they aren't equalling or surpassing the Wintel boxes of the time in performance.
Make of it what you will; Apple knows there is a performance issue, and they've known it for some time. You can argue that they just have their head in the sand and will be using G4s slowly bumped by MOT until they dwindle into oblivion.
Or, you could realize that Apple is not stupid. Not only are they aware of all of the issues people here are raising, but they also are (and have been) actively doing something about it. They have had artificial constraints placed on them by their chip supplier, both in terms of raw CPU performance, and in terms of memory bus architecture.
It doesn't take a genius to notice these things, and to believe that Apple isn't going to do something about it as soon as they possibly can is to believe that Apple wants to fade into the background, and fend off a litany of share holder lawsuits.
As much as people decry the sometimes heavy-handed leadership of Jobs, this is a case where having a very motivated person at the helm is useful. His ego and drive are tied to how well Apple does, which provides for ample motivation to make sure Apple does well.
It isn't a question of IF Apple is going to deliver killer new systems based around a new processor architecture, but rather when. Like any self-respecting technology company, Apple has a number of research projects in the works, some of which will make it to market, some of which won't.
The microprocessor forum in October will provide for ample rumour and speculation, not to worry.
<strong>First off, sorry for 'the book'.
I see both sides to the Dual boot/MacX86 conversations, but one point that I see being missed (or not stated) is that in order for Mac to gain marketshare (even in schools), Apple has to regain corporate marketshare. The schools base alot of their aguements on what is used in the corporations. And face it, most corporations are 'married' to Wintel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are so right. The original theory was that when kids started working they would prefer the platform they had used in school. This has been proven to be wrong. When you come fresh from school you do not have the choice of platform. For Apple to succeed in schools they first have to succeed in business, not the other way round.
In USA you make a big point of Apple loosing out in education. In reality Apple has never been big in education (world wide). I come from a country where Apple has always been denied the possibility to sell to schools. They are not even invited to bid for contracts in schools. The policy is - you can buy anything as long as it runs Windows - nobody else need to apply. It has always been that way. Now we see an interest from the schools themselves to use something else. So far many are focusing on Linux and Open Office, but I think this will open up their eyes for other alternatives.
Apple gets zero exposure in the schools. Still, at this time, Apples marketshare is rising (as far as I can see). More and more of my colleagues show interest in Apple hardware. The iMac and iBook are not much more expensive than a similar PC.
[quote]<strong>
Now, Back on topic, "Will Apple's G5 come from IBM?" ... If Moto has already stated that they're concentrating on the embedded chips, and IBM is providing an answer. Apple's choice is obvious, and once that IBM answer is implemented along with OS X, true network support service (look at M$' SMS, only better), and System Support agreements, then we'll start to see some corporate marketshare. We have the makings for the basics and 'then some', like Algol said earlier on page 19 (I agree with you and Barto). The pieces just have to fall into place, and that takes time.
Algol, I too think SJ has things set up, and the PowerMac G5 H/W update is the piece to get the ball rolling.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I do not believe the X86-rumors. I don't see why a X86-based Mac should be cheaper than a PPC-one. They are not much faster, and the X86-architecture is very old and will be gone in 3-5 years. A P4 processor is not cheaper than a G4, and Apple would have to develop a new motherboard, maintain 2 separate hardware developer teams, spend a lot of time on software development, and persuade software houses to keep their PPC-software. Too much trouble for too little gain.
To win in schools they have to win in business. The only way to do this is to make kick-ass hardware and maintain compatibility with Windows.
With OSX they are almost there in software, with their next round of hardware they will also have the hardware superiority (I think).
I think the reason for the currently lagging hardware is that Apple didn't want to develop both OS X.2 and new hardware at the same time - too many variables. Now the software is done and it is time to focus on hardware.
<strong>
I suppose that all depends on how you define "near future".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You tease
[quote]<strong>
::segue::
I will say this: Apple knows there is a performance gap between their machines and the Wintel world. Some of it is perception, some of it is real. They also know that they will be dead in the water if by this time next year, they aren't equalling or surpassing the Wintel boxes of the time in performance.
Make of it what you will; Apple knows there is a performance issue, and they've known it for some time. You can argue that they just have their head in the sand and will be using G4s slowly bumped by MOT until they dwindle into oblivion.
Or, you could realize that Apple is not stupid. Not only are they aware of all of the issues people here are raising, but they also are (and have been) actively doing something about it. They have had artificial constraints placed on them by their chip supplier, both in terms of raw CPU performance, and in terms of memory bus architecture.
It doesn't take a genius to notice these things, and to believe that Apple isn't going to do something about it as soon as they possibly can is to believe that Apple wants to fade into the background, and fend off a litany of share holder lawsuits.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
OK, this sounds more than logical... you would think Apple has smart people. Its just pisses the hell out of all of us when everything is in such secrecy and you see that the suppliers dont seem to care or dont have the capability to make Apple as great as it can be. Its collective frustration as it seems its out of Apple's hands and we are growing impatient as the RDF dwindles ever more every passing hour of every day.
[quote]<strong>
As much as people decry the sometimes heavy-handed leadership of Jobs, this is a case where having a very motivated person at the helm is useful. His ego and drive are tied to how well Apple does, which provides for ample motivation to make sure Apple does well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
very true. I think that without Jobs Apple would be trying to desperatly sell itself or merge with some other company or whatnot. This period of Apple's history will really prove Jobs. He either shines his way though and makes Apple succsseful during times of trouble... or it all comes down. Im betting he will be able to get everything together. The sooner the better.
[quote]<strong>
It isn't a question of IF Apple is going to deliver killer new systems based around a new processor architecture, but rather when. Like any self-respecting technology company, Apple has a number of research projects in the works, some of which will make it to market, some of which won't.
The microprocessor forum in October will provide for ample rumour and speculation, not to worry.
Speculation is something we DONT worry about on these boards. Having something to actually sink our teeth into and stop climbing up mirrors is another.
Anyone notice how we have more new members than ever? Seems like the worse Apple does, the more people want to believe and see if there IS some hope at the end of the tunnel. They want a little nugget of hope.
Come on Apple... do your sh!t and do it NOW
We'll get a PPC (probably from IBM, and Moto too)
X86 is not likely at all, but X86 is actually more likely than a dual boot machine: translation, neither is happening any time soon.*
*edit: yes it does depend on how your define 'near term'...
[ 09-19-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
Before this IBM announcement, no one had any idea what future Power Macs will be (and I guess we still don't beyond rumor). Based on Motorola's website, the desktop PowerPC has very little future.
Intel ca announce what's coming because they push the envelope. There is a constant refresh of their line. A consumer can buy now and feel they're getting a kick ass machine and two years later can by another box that smokes that last one.
Right now PPC refresh is sooo slow, and barley steady (for the past three years as a whole). Many of us are just going to wait because to justify a large $$ investment we want something heads and tails above our last purchase two years in the past.
I'm still using a Blue and White w/ g4 upgrade. Yes the current line is much better then what I am using but I've already waited so long I will wait longer until the Machines that we all (most) are waiting for, comes out.
If we had refresh and performance pushes like Wintel I would be getting ready for my third refresh instead of holding on to my Blue and White.
-tink
(: