That's the thing, IBM uses both fiscal and real Q-dates. It's rare that they distinguish, so for all we know it may be real or fiscal. Optimism says it's fiscal, but reality says they are talking about a real Q2.
Not really, ATI leaked full product specs and a description of Apple's Cube about 36 hours before it's unveiling, IBM has said plenty about it's chip--not an Apple product (I'm fuzzy on whether IBM has even said "Apple is the customer"---I don't think so). Just about every non-IBM reference I have seen about the 970 has been made by an analyst saying what they expect, not what IBM has released.
IBM is playing the marketing angle very well by conservatively creating the buzz while not making an overt Apple connection, even though everyone "knows" that is the major customer.
Apple seems to show it knows this and is responding by placing as much attention as possible on the non-PowerMac lines as possible. Few think there will be a 970 in a iMac or Powerbook in the immediate future so those sales will be relatively un-hindered by the Q3 arrival of a new PowerMac. Apple is steeling for a continuing decline in PM sales by trying to boost up everything else.
What I've seen is that the buzz that IBM is creating about an Apple connection which is about as far as one can go and not just say it. "Apple should use this chip", and after much press speculation "The chip includes a SIMD unit Altivec" So from my point of view these statements are not being countered by Apple saying "We have no intention of using the 970, and we do not discuss future products." A statement would go a long way towards boosting sales to those that thought that they could just wait a few more months and get a much better machine. I too see IBM playing the marketing side but this is a desktop processor, so who would use it other than IBM?? I mean in quanity of course. If IBM will use it and they said they would, why go out of the way to attempt a connection to Apple if Apple is not going to use it. Like I said before this can only hurt Apple sales, and Apple dosen't seem to mind if the press at large is drawing this conclusion and reporting it. What ATI did did not appear to hurt Apple that much and was not widely published. The Apple/IBM connection has been in the mainstream press and is continuely promoted by statements from IBM that go unchecked. Let's look at MOTO Apple keeps them quiet. What I'm saying is that these unchecked statements are costing Apple. I wonder what the sales forcast is like for desktops for the next six months. If they were bad before they are about to become much worse.
Actually it does. Saying Q3 03 pretty much kills PMac sales from now on. Apple knows we wait and it hates it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that would be logical if Apple had said "we're going to launch new processors Q3 03", but they didn't.
IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot by deciding that new machines would boot X only from 2003 - a double whammy, not only is there resistance to "could be another processor around the corner" but also "I don't wanna change".
47% decrease in PowerMac sales over two years is a serious issue.
[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>
Which is worse, poor profit for 2 quarters or asking IBM to promote the worst case scenario then release early?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Apple would have preferred them to say nothing at all. No?
[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>
Remember Q3 '03 is full production. Apple might not need full production.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry? Just who else is buying these chips do you think? Apple needs "full production" because Apple is the only customer.
<strong>IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot by deciding that new machines would boot X only from 2003 - a double whammy, not only is there resistance to "could be another processor around the corner" but also "I don't wanna change".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only a few of Apple's customers "don't wanna change".
80% of new buyers use Mac OS X.
[quote]<strong>Sorry? Just who else is buying these chips do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Oh I have no logic. Because IBM stated that they will start sampling 970 in Q2, that means nothing is going to be available earlier...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you on!? First you're saying 970s for MWSF, now you're talking Q2 03, which in a worst case is going to be close to six months later.
You have no logic because you have no understanding of what "sampling" means - test units, in small quantities, not for production.
I see all the different points of view and I think like everyone else I too would love to see the 970 or something comparable in a Mac at my desk like yesterday. Unfortunately, I don't have anything constructive to add, but I would like to ask this:
Being that Apple plans to remove OS 9 "proper", either entirely as Steve previously stated/promised/swore or even partially, am I wrong in assuming that it would not be a smart policy to implement, without upgrading all affected product lines in some compelling way?
Regardless the merit of the MHz myth, the general public (sans geeks) believes in the relative metric of system performance as assessed by MHz. Equally would not the same public potentially think, (slow Mac)+(MAC OS 9)+(OS X)=3 buying points vs. (barely less slow Mac)-(Mac OS 9)+(OS X)=less value(two buying points)?
Funny, I installed 8 new machines last week, not one was running X. That 80% is just bollocks. The statement from Apple was "80% of our professional users are now 'ordering' (huh!?) X as their default OS".
What's "professional" PowerMac buyers? Well, news for you, only 25% of sales last year were PowerMacs.
"Ordering", no clue what that means - you buy a Mac, it comes with two systems, you install the one you want.
If that wasn't enough, PowerMac sales down 47% over two years - yes, twice as many PowerMacs sold two years ago as in the year just past.
Apple is aiming for 20% of the userbase using X by the end of the year - they've already admitted that a native Photoshop did little to boost PowerMac sales (and thus X adoption), so can we stop the hype?
<strong>Look at it this way: It's designed to scale up to something like 64-way MP, which strongly implies that Apple is not the only customer. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, we can be optimistic. But IBM is going to shelve its plans so Apple can have the pick of the chips? We've seen it all before, you need proper full scale production before these chips start going into Apple machines.
Or shall we have (yet) another announce now, ship in three monts fiasco?
Funny, I installed 8 new machines last week, not one was running X. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, I installed 10 iBooks in the last couple of months - all running Mac OS X.
Do you represent every Mac user? Do I? No!
[quote]<strong>The statement from Apple was "80% of our professional users are now 'ordering' (huh!?) X as their default OS".</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS."
Choosing - not ordering!
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>If that wasn't enough, PowerMac sales down 47% over two years - yes, twice as many PowerMacs sold two years ago as in the year just past.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that should keep Apple from implementing a Mac OS X only strategy? Mac OS 9 users aren't buying anyway.
[quote]<strong>Apple is aiming for 20% of the userbase using X by the end of the year</strong><hr></blockquote>
And? That's 20% of the 25 million Mac users - 25 million Macs where much less than half can run Mac OS X.
It's safe to completely, totally, 100% assume that the "G5" (at least, as we would know it) is dead, right? I've followed AI as well as the stories from Architosh as well as other sites and it's my general understanding that for all intents and purposes, you can pretty much stick a fork in the G5...
I'd like to know from the more technically-minded people here just how possible it is for these reputed new versions of the G4 (7457, 7457-RM) to actually be produced. From what I understand, trying to graft on a faster bus or DDR-support onto the G4 would be almost impossible...
"What's "professional" PowerMac buyers? Well, news for you, only 25% of sales last year were PowerMacs.
"Ordering", no clue what that means - you buy a Mac, it comes with two systems, you install the one you want.
If that wasn't enough, PowerMac sales down 47% over two years - yes, twice as many PowerMacs sold two years ago as in the year just past."
Cold hard light of day stuff. Coming from Apple 'no hype' themselves.
They've got to seriously address the 'power'Mac situation.
It's not good.
Okay. So I wouldn't expect an Apple tower under £500 inc Vat.
But jeez, you should be able to get one under £1, 000. A dual 1 gigger for £999 inc VAT and they would sell alot more. They have 3 overpriced models. You shouldn't have to spend almost £1400 to get a monitorless tower with half the speed of PCs half as much. Ahem.
Twice as much, twice as slow.
Quark maybe affecting sales. Maybe the economy. But Dell, HP and Co still seem to sell plenty of towers. I wonder what they're doing that Apple isn't? Apple don't have to be Wallmart. But the Price of their Pro desktops and even the Imac desktops is ridiculous. I haven't bought an Apple desktop in years. Why? I'm waiting for my arm and legs to grow back.
Should just about be there when the 970 turns up.
Apple 'Gee, our 'power'Macs aren't selling and we wonder why? Well, I don't know T.C...' (Said in Brains from Top Cat voice...)
[[[But Dell, HP and Co still seem to sell plenty of towers. I wonder what they're doing that Apple isn't?]]]
That's just it, they really aren't selling. People already have enough computer for most of their needs. The only one really selling is Dell. The others will *wash* soon enough. Let's face it, suppose a BUNCH of people decide to buy the new 4 GHz. machines.... oooooooo... exciting isn't it? ;-) These computer companies are going to find it ever more difficult to sell a box to someone every year. The faster they make the machine the more people start to realize that they have enough computer for quite some time. I think Apple has sensed this. Contrary to what you believe, only Dell seems to be getting by these days. Gateway is about finished already. Oh, and in case you forgot, Dell would have posted a MASSIVE loss this last past quarter if they hadn't decided to change the way they report their numbers at the last minute.
On the subject of Apple's claims of Mac OS 9 vs. Mac OS X new users:
"Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS.",
has anyone asked themselves where Apple gets these numbers? Is it from user/statistical surveys? Do managers sit around a table and make them up?
Since I helped a neighbor set up a new FP iMac last year, this is what I suspect. When you plug-in the machine and switch on, it automatically booted into X. The first thing it asks you to do register -- in OSX. Later, if you switch to OS9 there is also registration -- in OS9. I'm guessing this is Apple's vote/survey mechanism. If so, this is a rigged vote!
Personally, I skipped 10.0 (alpha) and 10.1 (beta). Now that I've tried 10.2 (Jaguar) I kinda like it! Still, I miss the file organization and easy maintenance of OS9.
And? That's 20% of the 25 million Mac users - 25 million Macs where much less than half can run Mac OS X.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon, get real - G3s on the desktop since 1997 - are you really saying that over half the Mac installed base is over five years old!?
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>
And that should keep Apple from implementing a Mac OS X only strategy? Mac OS 9 users aren't buying anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't be stupid - I just wrote that I installed 8 Macs last week that weren't running X - what do you think they were running 6.0.4?
What it should tell Apple, as with the MS experience on addoption - don't push your users, they'll go when ready.
Whatever way you look at it (c'mon, argue *this* point) X is an immature OS, from every angle, professional user don't want or need that - and neither do developers.
<strong>But jeez, you should be able to get one under £1, 000. A dual 1 gigger for £999 inc VAT and they would sell alot more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's a snippet of historical information to go with your observation. When the B&W G3 was current you could buy one for GBP:995.00, the bottom of the line beige G3 266 could be had while still current for a little less GBP:970.00. This means that Apple's UK prices have risen around 15% over the past three years - when we're told that technology is supposed to get cheaper.
It's not Quark, it's several things, and probably the major one isn't machine speeds or prices.
Apple has a mature market - the prepress and design industries have been buying Macs for the better part of 20 years, the market is saturated, there's no growth area within the "developed" world. Apple is effectively constantly cannibalising its own markets by having to sell better and better kit to the same buyers.
But, they're saying "what I have is good enough".
So, the bait is now, "get a better OS". I don't know about the rest of you, but pre-emptive multi-tasking and protected memory never seemed like great sales points to me, compared to ease of use and ease of management. I can pretty much only do one thing at a time, so do I care if one processor or another is hogging the CPU? No, actually I'd probably welcome it if it meant getting my task at hand done more quickly.
Now, I don't pretend to represent all Mac users (what I wrote above was a joke!), but my feelings are that Apple have got themselves into a pickle because they've given us an OS that requires better processors - but they haven't delivered them - and is somewhat (gross understatement) more difficult to manage than our old, reliable (and perhaps clapped out) "classic" (see that sig?).
What am I going to do - buy new Macs that really don't offer me much better performance on a task by task basis (pretty much any Mac less than 5 years old and do anything I want quicker than I can think about it), in the promise that I can run the latest and greatest OS (and by all accounts be disappointed with its "snappiness"? Or just stick with what I have until Apple sorts itself out?
I think anecdotal evidence is all we have. All I'm seeing is X Server installations, and X "as server" installations. A few people I know are running X fulltime, but they like living on the bleeding edge.
Where does Apple get these stats - as posted above the dice are loaded anyway, X gets installed from scratch, unless you know how to beat it and have a 9.x CD that will boot a Windtunnel (find one of those if you can!?).
Well, while I agree with Clive that there will probably not be a 970 nat MWSF, there are a few things that are not very defensible in the ancillary arguments...
1. anecdotal evidence (especially with such a small "n") is fairly poor.
2. using a macnn quote ("ordering" instead of the actual Apple press release ("choosing"). And, education customers (not individuals, but institutions) DO get to "choose" their OS, iirc.
3. using someone's speculation on how Apple gets their numbers, and then deciding that their numbers are meaningless because of the way the data are gathered....if you don't KNOW how they get the number, you cannot evaluate the accuracy.
But, those points aside - you make some good points, and bottom line - I would bet against a 970 in SFO.
Fish
ps if we are using anecdotal evidence, I offer my own - at my work, probably 75-80 percent of the macs are running OS X. Of course, this is in a University setting, so that is unlikely to be anything like a "random sample".
<strong>1. anecdotal evidence (especially with such a small "n") is fairly poor.
2. using a macnn quote ("ordering" instead of the actual Apple press release ("choosing"). And, education customers (not individuals, but institutions) DO get to "choose" their OS, iirc.
3. using someone's speculation on how Apple gets their numbers, and then deciding that their numbers are meaningless because of the way the data are gathered....if you don't KNOW how they get the number, you cannot evaluate the accuracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I'll admit it, my response was partially in jest but:
1. My quoted sample is small, but that was just last week's work. I can say with a degree of certainty that out of approximately 120 Macs across four sites precisely two are running X on a fulltime basis. If I were to expand on this I could probably cite something like... 300-400 machines, of which no more than 10% (at best) would be running X - all of these are G3+ so capable of running it.
2. I looked on the Apple site and could not find the press release within <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr</a>; so, the only source I had seen was the only source I could cite.
3. I don't know, you don't know, I doubt Apple is telling... but my instinct is that these figures quoted are not accurate - essentially because I don't believe there's any way to measure this (and because the figures are deliberately hyped by highlighting specific sectors without really saying what percentages of the user-base those represent or how they are delimited).
But if SJ says at MWSF that he got his 20%, then I'm not going to argue about it - just not sure if I'll believe it.
Comments
<strong>
Not really, ATI leaked full product specs and a description of Apple's Cube about 36 hours before it's unveiling, IBM has said plenty about it's chip--not an Apple product (I'm fuzzy on whether IBM has even said "Apple is the customer"---I don't think so). Just about every non-IBM reference I have seen about the 970 has been made by an analyst saying what they expect, not what IBM has released.
IBM is playing the marketing angle very well by conservatively creating the buzz while not making an overt Apple connection, even though everyone "knows" that is the major customer.
Apple seems to show it knows this and is responding by placing as much attention as possible on the non-PowerMac lines as possible. Few think there will be a 970 in a iMac or Powerbook in the immediate future so those sales will be relatively un-hindered by the Q3 arrival of a new PowerMac. Apple is steeling for a continuing decline in PM sales by trying to boost up everything else.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: AirSluf ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
What I've seen is that the buzz that IBM is creating about an Apple connection which is about as far as one can go and not just say it. "Apple should use this chip", and after much press speculation "The chip includes a SIMD unit Altivec" So from my point of view these statements are not being countered by Apple saying "We have no intention of using the 970, and we do not discuss future products." A statement would go a long way towards boosting sales to those that thought that they could just wait a few more months and get a much better machine. I too see IBM playing the marketing side but this is a desktop processor, so who would use it other than IBM?? I mean in quanity of course. If IBM will use it and they said they would, why go out of the way to attempt a connection to Apple if Apple is not going to use it. Like I said before this can only hurt Apple sales, and Apple dosen't seem to mind if the press at large is drawing this conclusion and reporting it. What ATI did did not appear to hurt Apple that much and was not widely published. The Apple/IBM connection has been in the mainstream press and is continuely promoted by statements from IBM that go unchecked. Let's look at MOTO Apple keeps them quiet. What I'm saying is that these unchecked statements are costing Apple. I wonder what the sales forcast is like for desktops for the next six months. If they were bad before they are about to become much worse.
<strong>
Actually it does. Saying Q3 03 pretty much kills PMac sales from now on. Apple knows we wait and it hates it.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, that would be logical if Apple had said "we're going to launch new processors Q3 03", but they didn't.
IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot by deciding that new machines would boot X only from 2003 - a double whammy, not only is there resistance to "could be another processor around the corner" but also "I don't wanna change".
47% decrease in PowerMac sales over two years is a serious issue.
[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>
Which is worse, poor profit for 2 quarters or asking IBM to promote the worst case scenario then release early?.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Apple would have preferred them to say nothing at all. No?
[quote]Originally posted by Blackcat:
<strong>
Remember Q3 '03 is full production. Apple might not need full production.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry? Just who else is buying these chips do you think? Apple needs "full production" because Apple is the only customer.
<strong>IMO Apple shot themselves in the foot by deciding that new machines would boot X only from 2003 - a double whammy, not only is there resistance to "could be another processor around the corner" but also "I don't wanna change".
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only a few of Apple's customers "don't wanna change".
80% of new buyers use Mac OS X.
[quote]<strong>Sorry? Just who else is buying these chips do you think?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM!
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
<strong>Oh I have no logic. Because IBM stated that they will start sampling 970 in Q2, that means nothing is going to be available earlier...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What are you on!? First you're saying 970s for MWSF, now you're talking Q2 03, which in a worst case is going to be close to six months later.
You have no logic because you have no understanding of what "sampling" means - test units, in small quantities, not for production.
<strong>
Sorry? Just who else is buying these chips do you think? Apple needs "full production" because Apple is the only customer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM Semiconductor's biggest customer - by far - is IBM. They sell excess capacity to other customers.
It's no secret that IBM is planning to use the 970 in entry-level (for IBM) Linux solutions, and in its RS/6000 line of workstations and servers.
Look at it this way: It's designed to scale up to something like 64-way MP, which strongly implies that Apple is not the only customer.
Being that Apple plans to remove OS 9 "proper", either entirely as Steve previously stated/promised/swore or even partially, am I wrong in assuming that it would not be a smart policy to implement, without upgrading all affected product lines in some compelling way?
Regardless the merit of the MHz myth, the general public (sans geeks) believes in the relative metric of system performance as assessed by MHz. Equally would not the same public potentially think, (slow Mac)+(MAC OS 9)+(OS X)=3 buying points vs. (barely less slow Mac)-(Mac OS 9)+(OS X)=less value(two buying points)?
Just thought I'd ask.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: ArkAngel ]</p>
<strong>
80% of new buyers use Mac OS X.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, I installed 8 new machines last week, not one was running X. That 80% is just bollocks. The statement from Apple was "80% of our professional users are now 'ordering' (huh!?) X as their default OS".
What's "professional" PowerMac buyers? Well, news for you, only 25% of sales last year were PowerMacs.
"Ordering", no clue what that means - you buy a Mac, it comes with two systems, you install the one you want.
If that wasn't enough, PowerMac sales down 47% over two years - yes, twice as many PowerMacs sold two years ago as in the year just past.
Apple is aiming for 20% of the userbase using X by the end of the year - they've already admitted that a native Photoshop did little to boost PowerMac sales (and thus X adoption), so can we stop the hype?
<strong>Look at it this way: It's designed to scale up to something like 64-way MP, which strongly implies that Apple is not the only customer.
Ok, we can be optimistic. But IBM is going to shelve its plans so Apple can have the pick of the chips? We've seen it all before, you need proper full scale production before these chips start going into Apple machines.
Or shall we have (yet) another announce now, ship in three monts fiasco?
<strong>
Funny, I installed 8 new machines last week, not one was running X. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Funny, I installed 10 iBooks in the last couple of months - all running Mac OS X.
Do you represent every Mac user? Do I? No!
[quote]<strong>The statement from Apple was "80% of our professional users are now 'ordering' (huh!?) X as their default OS".</strong><hr></blockquote>
"Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS."
Choosing - not ordering!
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>If that wasn't enough, PowerMac sales down 47% over two years - yes, twice as many PowerMacs sold two years ago as in the year just past.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And that should keep Apple from implementing a Mac OS X only strategy? Mac OS 9 users aren't buying anyway.
[quote]<strong>Apple is aiming for 20% of the userbase using X by the end of the year</strong><hr></blockquote>
And? That's 20% of the 25 million Mac users - 25 million Macs where much less than half can run Mac OS X.
Only 16% of Windows user use WinXP btw.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
It's safe to completely, totally, 100% assume that the "G5" (at least, as we would know it) is dead, right? I've followed AI as well as the stories from Architosh as well as other sites and it's my general understanding that for all intents and purposes, you can pretty much stick a fork in the G5...
I'd like to know from the more technically-minded people here just how possible it is for these reputed new versions of the G4 (7457, 7457-RM) to actually be produced. From what I understand, trying to graft on a faster bus or DDR-support onto the G4 would be almost impossible...
"Ordering", no clue what that means - you buy a Mac, it comes with two systems, you install the one you want.
If that wasn't enough, PowerMac sales down 47% over two years - yes, twice as many PowerMacs sold two years ago as in the year just past."
Cold hard light of day stuff. Coming from Apple 'no hype' themselves.
They've got to seriously address the 'power'Mac situation.
It's not good.
Okay. So I wouldn't expect an Apple tower under £500 inc Vat.
But jeez, you should be able to get one under £1, 000. A dual 1 gigger for £999 inc VAT and they would sell alot more. They have 3 overpriced models. You shouldn't have to spend almost £1400 to get a monitorless tower with half the speed of PCs half as much. Ahem.
Twice as much, twice as slow.
Quark maybe affecting sales. Maybe the economy. But Dell, HP and Co still seem to sell plenty of towers. I wonder what they're doing that Apple isn't? Apple don't have to be Wallmart. But the Price of their Pro desktops and even the Imac desktops is ridiculous. I haven't bought an Apple desktop in years. Why? I'm waiting for my arm and legs to grow back.
Should just about be there when the 970 turns up.
Apple 'Gee, our 'power'Macs aren't selling and we wonder why? Well, I don't know T.C...' (Said in Brains from Top Cat voice...)
Lemon Bon Bon
That's just it, they really aren't selling. People already have enough computer for most of their needs. The only one really selling is Dell. The others will *wash* soon enough. Let's face it, suppose a BUNCH of people decide to buy the new 4 GHz. machines.... oooooooo... exciting isn't it? ;-) These computer companies are going to find it ever more difficult to sell a box to someone every year. The faster they make the machine the more people start to realize that they have enough computer for quite some time. I think Apple has sensed this. Contrary to what you believe, only Dell seems to be getting by these days. Gateway is about finished already. Oh, and in case you forgot, Dell would have posted a MASSIVE loss this last past quarter if they hadn't decided to change the way they report their numbers at the last minute.
kennethhunt.com/archives/000244.html
New York Times article:
If the Storm Worsens, Dell May Need That 'Float'
--
Ed M.
"Apple's professional customers are rapidly adopting Mac OS X, with more than 80 percent now choosing Mac OS X as their default OS.",
has anyone asked themselves where Apple gets these numbers? Is it from user/statistical surveys? Do managers sit around a table and make them up?
Since I helped a neighbor set up a new FP iMac last year, this is what I suspect. When you plug-in the machine and switch on, it automatically booted into X. The first thing it asks you to do register -- in OSX. Later, if you switch to OS9 there is also registration -- in OS9. I'm guessing this is Apple's vote/survey mechanism. If so, this is a rigged vote!
Personally, I skipped 10.0 (alpha) and 10.1 (beta). Now that I've tried 10.2 (Jaguar) I kinda like it! Still, I miss the file organization and easy maintenance of OS9.
Back on topic, G3+ forever!
<strong>Do you represent every Mac user?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you know who I am, of course I do, I was voted representative for both Eastern and Western hemispheres just last week!?
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>Choosing - not ordering! </strong><hr></blockquote>
That'll make all the difference - PR blather, that's all that is. Either way:
"The company said that educational customers are ordering 50% of the its Macs with Mac OS X as the default OS"
<a href="http://www.macnn.com/news.php?id=17729"; target="_blank">http://www.macnn.com/news.php?id=17729</a>;
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>
And? That's 20% of the 25 million Mac users - 25 million Macs where much less than half can run Mac OS X.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
C'mon, get real - G3s on the desktop since 1997 - are you really saying that over half the Mac installed base is over five years old!?
[quote]Originally posted by JLL:
<strong>
And that should keep Apple from implementing a Mac OS X only strategy? Mac OS 9 users aren't buying anyway.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't be stupid - I just wrote that I installed 8 Macs last week that weren't running X - what do you think they were running 6.0.4?
What it should tell Apple, as with the MS experience on addoption - don't push your users, they'll go when ready.
Whatever way you look at it (c'mon, argue *this* point) X is an immature OS, from every angle, professional user don't want or need that - and neither do developers.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
<strong>
Funny, I installed 8 new machines last week, not one was running X. That 80% is just bollocks. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, anecdotal evidence does not equal facts.
Let's remember our statistics 101 class.
<strong>But jeez, you should be able to get one under £1, 000. A dual 1 gigger for £999 inc VAT and they would sell alot more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Here's a snippet of historical information to go with your observation. When the B&W G3 was current you could buy one for GBP:995.00, the bottom of the line beige G3 266 could be had while still current for a little less GBP:970.00. This means that Apple's UK prices have risen around 15% over the past three years - when we're told that technology is supposed to get cheaper.
[quote]Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon:
<strong>Quark maybe affecting sales.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not Quark, it's several things, and probably the major one isn't machine speeds or prices.
Apple has a mature market - the prepress and design industries have been buying Macs for the better part of 20 years, the market is saturated, there's no growth area within the "developed" world. Apple is effectively constantly cannibalising its own markets by having to sell better and better kit to the same buyers.
But, they're saying "what I have is good enough".
So, the bait is now, "get a better OS". I don't know about the rest of you, but pre-emptive multi-tasking and protected memory never seemed like great sales points to me, compared to ease of use and ease of management. I can pretty much only do one thing at a time, so do I care if one processor or another is hogging the CPU? No, actually I'd probably welcome it if it meant getting my task at hand done more quickly.
Now, I don't pretend to represent all Mac users (what I wrote above was a joke!), but my feelings are that Apple have got themselves into a pickle because they've given us an OS that requires better processors - but they haven't delivered them - and is somewhat (gross understatement) more difficult to manage than our old, reliable (and perhaps clapped out) "classic" (see that sig?).
What am I going to do - buy new Macs that really don't offer me much better performance on a task by task basis (pretty much any Mac less than 5 years old and do anything I want quicker than I can think about it), in the promise that I can run the latest and greatest OS (and by all accounts be disappointed with its "snappiness"? Or just stick with what I have until Apple sorts itself out?
Uh, difficult decision?
<strong>
Ok, anecdotal evidence does not equal facts.
Let's remember our statistics 101 class.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think anecdotal evidence is all we have. All I'm seeing is X Server installations, and X "as server" installations. A few people I know are running X fulltime, but they like living on the bleeding edge.
Where does Apple get these stats - as posted above the dice are loaded anyway, X gets installed from scratch, unless you know how to beat it and have a 9.x CD that will boot a Windtunnel (find one of those if you can!?).
Anyway, back on topic - no 970 at MWSF!!!
1. anecdotal evidence (especially with such a small "n") is fairly poor.
2. using a macnn quote ("ordering" instead of the actual Apple press release ("choosing"). And, education customers (not individuals, but institutions) DO get to "choose" their OS, iirc.
3. using someone's speculation on how Apple gets their numbers, and then deciding that their numbers are meaningless because of the way the data are gathered....if you don't KNOW how they get the number, you cannot evaluate the accuracy.
But, those points aside - you make some good points, and bottom line - I would bet against a 970 in SFO.
Fish
ps if we are using anecdotal evidence, I offer my own - at my work, probably 75-80 percent of the macs are running OS X. Of course, this is in a University setting, so that is unlikely to be anything like a "random sample".
<strong>1. anecdotal evidence (especially with such a small "n") is fairly poor.
2. using a macnn quote ("ordering" instead of the actual Apple press release ("choosing"). And, education customers (not individuals, but institutions) DO get to "choose" their OS, iirc.
3. using someone's speculation on how Apple gets their numbers, and then deciding that their numbers are meaningless because of the way the data are gathered....if you don't KNOW how they get the number, you cannot evaluate the accuracy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I'll admit it, my response was partially in jest but:
1. My quoted sample is small, but that was just last week's work. I can say with a degree of certainty that out of approximately 120 Macs across four sites precisely two are running X on a fulltime basis. If I were to expand on this I could probably cite something like... 300-400 machines, of which no more than 10% (at best) would be running X - all of these are G3+ so capable of running it.
2. I looked on the Apple site and could not find the press release within <a href="http://www.apple.com/pr"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/pr</a>; so, the only source I had seen was the only source I could cite.
3. I don't know, you don't know, I doubt Apple is telling... but my instinct is that these figures quoted are not accurate - essentially because I don't believe there's any way to measure this (and because the figures are deliberately hyped by highlighting specific sectors without really saying what percentages of the user-base those represent or how they are delimited).
But if SJ says at MWSF that he got his 20%, then I'm not going to argue about it - just not sure if I'll believe it.
[ 12-23-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>