That Acer only proves that Apple is afraid to use the highest end components in their laptops. 1.8 GHz Core Duo, when the high end is over 2 GHz? WTF? Why would Apple do that? Now Apple's flagship laptop is neutered and will never approach the performance of a high end Wintel laptop.
Hmmm, gee I wonder why. Lower power, lower heat, lower cost, minimal performance difference, room for an update when Intel improves their 65nm production.
Quote:
Pathetic.
Only because you live in a dream world.
Quote:
Just once, I want to see Apple use an Intel chip that is FASTER than anything in the Wintel world, even if it's only for a month or two. Please Apple, surprise me!
Those days are gone. 680x0 and PowerPC each did that for a short while, but fell behind because of the 10:1 market size differential (and therefore development budgets). Now they have leveled the playing field, ensuring that they won't fall behind again. Unfortunately it means they can't get ahead again either. So parity in technology is what you should expect now, and hardware polish & software is where they will have to shine.
Now they have leveled the playing field, ensuring that they won't fall behind again. Unfortunately it means they can't get ahead again either. So parity in technology is what you should expect now, and hardware polish & software is where they will have to shine.
That clears things up nicely - however, another rumour site seems to be stating that the rules to the game have - henceforth - changed (dwah?!?): this is a little hard to believe, considering Apple's size, but here's the quote from MOSR
Apple is working with Intel on a unique new quad-core processor with several enhancements based on technology Apple co-developed with IBM for the G5 and now-defunct "G6" processors. This chip will be the first Intel product to ship exclusively in Apple computers at first, and when it does reach the PC market, Apple is expected to get a small percentage of each sale....a few years ago, who would have expected that Apple's semiconductor design team would be co-developing Intel processors and receiving revenues from the PC industry at large?!
Programmer: in your estemed opinion - what are the odds?
room for an update when Intel improves their 65nm production.
So parity in technology is what you should expect now, and hardware polish & software is where they will have to shine.
room for an update? that sounds like a justification to me. if intel indeed improves on the yonah design and a revised chip enters a powerbook before a meromian chip, then that's all they would need for an update, no? insert magical marketing whiz-bangery, maybe re-introduce a feature that they yanked from the pbg4... and you have a new product. how is it that every other intel-based laptop manufacturer somehow manages to make room for future updates while using the latest and greatest for their high-end models?
saving the 2ghz part for later is apple's old-school thinking, which, IMO, is not going to impress anybody, really (at least not me, anyway ), and was a useful tactic because of motorola's ways. much more impressive would be apple actually giving us performance- (i.e. chip-) parity with, in this case, pc notebooks. they have the ability, and the knowledge... besides, since they are using the same chips as everyone else, you would think you could get them at the same clock as everyone else's.
i mean, what is it? a heat issue? if so, why is the laptop thinner? all things being equal, i don't see why it had to be made thinner. i have a ti800 and it's plenty thin-- any thinner and it wuoldn't feel very sturdy at all. it seems to me that a larger casing would allow a hotter chip.
is it a battery issue? well.... aren't these new chips designed for laptop use, and with various ways of power management? shutting down one core, scaling back clockspeed...
additionally, not everyone with a laptop is concerned with battery times. i am a musician and use a laptop in performance. i simply want portable power (without the 17" model and extra $$ that goes along with it-- i don't personally need that). and i am certainly not the only one in this situation.
so yes, hardware parity is what i expect now.... where is it?
I knew eventually we'd see the fruits of the Raycer acquisition.
Actually, it may not be completely unfounded, Apple does have several patents concerning PPC. Whether or not they can effectively use them is a completely different question beyond the scope of my knowledge.
Hmmm, gee I wonder why. Lower power, lower heat, lower cost, minimal performance difference, room for an update when Intel improves their 65nm production.
Hmmm...I would have worried more about the yields on the 2Ghz part. Acer has multiple offerings. Apple has 1. If you can't get the 8200 with the 2Ghz CPU you get the 1.8Ghz variant. If you can't get the MacBook Pro 2Ghz you get...a Powerbook?
It would have really sucked to be caught without enough CPUs. The 1.8Ghz part seems wiser from that perspective if you were only going to release one notebook for the moment.
Actually JD, most manufacturers have gone with 1.83 so Apple aren't alone. What I am irked about (but not surprised) is that most of the competitors are about $400 cheaper. True, few come with 1GB RAM or built-in webcams, but most have modems, S-Video and higher res screens.
I think once the switch is over they might have to lower prices and reduce margins.
True, MOST manufacturers are using the 1.83 GHz parts. But MOST manufacturers are not performance leaders, only a FEW are, and those are using the 2.0+ GHz Yonah chips.
You all can rationalize all you like, but it is YOU who are in a dreamworld Programmer, if you think 1.83 vs. 2.0 GHz doesn't matter in the marketplace. And this nonsense about Apple needing to leave room for updates - that is the old dreamworld of Motorola chips, not the reality of Intel, which update their chips several times per year.
Apple needs to get with the program and stop treating Mac users as if they are captive consumers of Apple hardware. We are, of course, but Apple might get more switchers if they acted like hardware mattered beyond the plastic casing.
True, MOST manufacturers are using the 1.83 GHz parts. But MOST manufacturers are not performance leaders, only a FEW are, and those are using the 2.0+ GHz Yonah chips.
Depends on how many 2.0 Ghz parts you can really get.
Quote:
Apple needs to get with the program and stop treating Mac users as if they are captive consumers of Apple hardware. We are, of course, but Apple might get more switchers if they acted like hardware mattered beyond the plastic casing.
Switchers are not going to decide based on .17 Ghz. Lets see...EFI, new power coupling, expresscard, illuminated keyboard, integrated remote. Seems like the hardware is forward thinking and matters.
If we had switchers that bought mac mini's and ibooks it wasn't because the hardware sold them. Its the software.
Just once, I want to see Apple use an Intel chip that is FASTER than anything in the Wintel world, even if it's only for a month or two. Please Apple, surprise me!
It's never going to happen. Why would Intel injure its realtionship with all its other customers just so Apple looks good for a few weeks? That would never make sense.
Also, I question your motivation. You realize that if you bought that "fastest" machine it would only be fastest for a couple of months until the new processor came out. The only thing you have is a few days of bragging rights. If it's your computer you are bragging about your crowing is short lived. If it's the company you bought your computer from that you're bragging about, well... maybe you should get out more.
It all reminds me of those people that cut in and out of traffic on the highway, risking everything to get there 10 seconds faster, proud of nothing.
You know, I've always been mystified by how, when it comes to computers, minor differences in spec are so frequently used to support hyperbolic rhetoric like "crippled" and "neutered", (or on the other hand) "blows away", "destroys" and "crushes".
I mean really, JD, how is a difference of .17 GHz "neutering" anything? I get your point about markets, but real world performance differences are going to be negligible.
For the savvy buyer the upside of battery life and heat dissipation (plus, as has been mentioned, the upside for Apple in yields) are certainly going to more than offset whatever extra second a PS filter takes to run.
Unless you simply need the psychological satisfaction of having "the fastest" computer (which of course some people do), seems to me the 1.83 GHz part is the better choice, all things considered.
Depends on how many 2.0 Ghz parts you can really get.
Switchers are not going to decide based on .17 Ghz. Lets see...EFI, new power coupling, expresscard, illuminated keyboard, integrated remote. Seems like the hardware is forward thinking and matters.
If we had switchers that bought mac mini's and ibooks it wasn't because the hardware sold them. Its the software.
Vinea
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men. If the CPU of one laptop has a bigger number, then the consumer figures it's a faster computer. They don't do research on this stuff before buying.
There is no doubt that you are right, of course. The problem, as always, is convincing the ignorant masses that Apple is a better choice, when it's numbers are smaller. Apple doesn't go to eleven.
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men. If the CPU of one laptop has a bigger number, then the consumer figures it's a faster computer. They don't do research on this stuff before buying.
There is no doubt that you are right, of course. The problem, as always, is convincing the ignorant masses that Apple is a better choice, when it's numbers are smaller. Apple doesn't go to eleven.
I suspect that availability of even the 1.83 part will be constrained. Perhaps not this early in the Apple/Intel relationship but I suspect that that's the number that Apple considered most carefully.
With sales of the PPC Macs...what was the term used? "Paused"? Not being able to ship their Core Duo machines in sufficient quantity would have lead to headlines like "Apple unable to deliver on new machines" or "Apple suffers from poor execution on mass production".
Apple has traditionally not had too many variants on the market. Presumably the 2.0 Ghz 17" MacBook Pro will be released when its ready.
Otherwise, I think that the Ghz myth has been busted and while, yes, more is better within the same line its the performance of the total package that matters. RDF not withstanding Macs have never been particularly great performers for the stuff that switchers tend to do.
Except from a usability/ease of use perspective.
If you don't think OSX goes to 11 I recommend getting the Acer. Personally, its iLife that sells me on the Mac for home use. Professionally, its a unix that doesn't have a suck UI and I have the usual gcc tool chain if I don't want to use Java. The only sticking point professionally is Entourage vs Outlook and .net development. I guess for that I need to wait until Virtual PC or vmWare is available.
The EFI, ExpressCard stuff was to refute your assertion that Apple engineers only care about the plastic shell.
room for an update? that sounds like a justification to me. if intel indeed improves on the yonah design and a revised chip enters a powerbook before a meromian chip, then that's all they would need for an update, no?...
Sigh.
What sometimes happens is that by finding bugs in the chip design or the process it is manufactured on they can put out a minor rev that runs faster at a lower voltage and therefore puts out less heat. Given the thermal & power targets they have set, therefore, they could then use a faster processor.
The design issues you question are at the heart of industrial design for these machines. How small, how heavy, how hot, how much battery, how pretty, how powerful. In case you hadn't noticed, Apple shipped one machine. The reason they did that was so that they could manage the production pipeline, the distribution, the sales, and the marketing of it. A lot goes into each and every model put to market, and therefore companies have to be careful how many they put out there. Back in the mid-90s Apple just about hung itself with the large number of models they put out. Especially with a brand new product (Intel-based Mac) it is really important to do one right before expanding the range.
Given that only one laptop was to be delivered they had to make one set of decisions on all the design issues. Guess what? They simply cannot meet everyone's ideal needs with one model because each person's needs are different. Frankly I'd like the unit to be bigger but thinner with a bit of extra weight to strengthen it, a slightly larger screen, a slower processor so I get more battery life, but more RAM to hit the disk less.
As for parity -- well, you have it but you don't have exactly the same machine. Each company makes a subtley different set of choices though, and Apple's designers have some talents not typically found elsewhere.
More models will come from Apple, but even then there will only be 3-5 laptops and they need to address the needs of >500,000 people per quarter so quite clearly they aren't going to be exactly what each person wants. Aside from those who aren't picky and will just buy what they are sold and be happy.
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men. If the CPU of one laptop has a bigger number, then the consumer figures it's a faster computer. They don't do research on this stuff before buying.
Heh. Well I hate to break it to you, Dawg, but there is a big part of Apple's market that doesn't measure all of their purchases against their dick size. You're right, they don't do research on this stuff before buying so they might not even know what clockrate is or what this machine's number is. They'll look at it, pick it up, do something with it, say "nice", and plunk down their credit card.
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men.
Only the idiotic ones.
Numbers matter for two groups:
- those who need every ounce of power, do the research, and will realize that they're talking about 6.5% difference in clock speed, which can get swamped in other performance issues. For most, it really probably doesn't matter much on the hardware, and the software will be the deciding factor.
- those who, as Programmer said, are just worried about making up for their dick size, in which case if they want to go the Windows route, let 'em. They deserve what they get. That's like worrying about selling BMWs to Nascar fans. Nobody cares about that market, it's shrinking rapidly anyway, as people get more experience.
this is a little hard to believe, considering Apple's size, but here's the quote from MOSR
Apple is working with Intel on a unique new quad-core processor with several enhancements based on technology Apple co-developed with IBM for the G5 and now-defunct "G6" processors. This chip will be the first Intel product to ship exclusively in Apple computers at first, and when it does reach the PC market, Apple is expected to get a small percentage of each sale....a few years ago, who would have expected that Apple's semiconductor design team would be co-developing Intel processors and receiving revenues from the PC industry at large?!
(it is possible, however, that Apple might be contributing IP to an Intel chipset intended for Apple machines -- FW800 and possibly some other elements)
- those who need every ounce of power, do the research, and will realize that they're talking about 6.5% difference in clock speed, which can get swamped in other performance issues. For most, it really probably doesn't matter much on the hardware, and the software will be the deciding factor.
- those who, as Programmer said, are just worried about making up for their dick size, in which case if they want to go the Windows route, let 'em. They deserve what they get. That's like worrying about selling BMWs to Nascar fans. Nobody cares about that market, it's shrinking rapidly anyway, as people get more experience.
Good point. But I would bet that there are a number of potential Mac users lost because of Apple's low hardware specs. It's not just NASCAR fans who are worried about their tiny dicks.
I've noticed that part of the battery life is due to the gpu. Especially if your doing video, which is much faster but eats more battery.
Essentially the battery life with the Intel chips is much better, but add in more powerful GPUs and you might get similar battery life. However doing something like watching a DVD or checking your email should give you about 5 hours.
I was able to "borrow" a sample for a day and it get well over 5 hours with my usual routinue of slacking off, web browsing, itunes running in the background, and even watching a video clips. I'd say it's a large improvement over my brand new powerbook g4 considering you can always get mosts tasks done much quicker.
Comments
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
That Acer only proves that Apple is afraid to use the highest end components in their laptops. 1.8 GHz Core Duo, when the high end is over 2 GHz? WTF? Why would Apple do that? Now Apple's flagship laptop is neutered and will never approach the performance of a high end Wintel laptop.
Hmmm, gee I wonder why. Lower power, lower heat, lower cost, minimal performance difference, room for an update when Intel improves their 65nm production.
Pathetic.
Only because you live in a dream world.
Just once, I want to see Apple use an Intel chip that is FASTER than anything in the Wintel world, even if it's only for a month or two. Please Apple, surprise me!
Those days are gone. 680x0 and PowerPC each did that for a short while, but fell behind because of the 10:1 market size differential (and therefore development budgets). Now they have leveled the playing field, ensuring that they won't fall behind again. Unfortunately it means they can't get ahead again either. So parity in technology is what you should expect now, and hardware polish & software is where they will have to shine.
Originally posted by Programmer
Now they have leveled the playing field, ensuring that they won't fall behind again. Unfortunately it means they can't get ahead again either. So parity in technology is what you should expect now, and hardware polish & software is where they will have to shine.
That clears things up nicely - however, another rumour site seems to be stating that the rules to the game have - henceforth - changed (dwah?!?): this is a little hard to believe, considering Apple's size, but here's the quote from MOSR
Apple is working with Intel on a unique new quad-core processor with several enhancements based on technology Apple co-developed with IBM for the G5 and now-defunct "G6" processors. This chip will be the first Intel product to ship exclusively in Apple computers at first, and when it does reach the PC market, Apple is expected to get a small percentage of each sale....a few years ago, who would have expected that Apple's semiconductor design team would be co-developing Intel processors and receiving revenues from the PC industry at large?!
Programmer: in your estemed opinion - what are the odds?
Originally posted by Programmer
room for an update when Intel improves their 65nm production.
So parity in technology is what you should expect now, and hardware polish & software is where they will have to shine.
room for an update? that sounds like a justification to me. if intel indeed improves on the yonah design and a revised chip enters a powerbook before a meromian chip, then that's all they would need for an update, no? insert magical marketing whiz-bangery, maybe re-introduce a feature that they yanked from the pbg4... and you have a new product. how is it that every other intel-based laptop manufacturer somehow manages to make room for future updates while using the latest and greatest for their high-end models?
saving the 2ghz part for later is apple's old-school thinking, which, IMO, is not going to impress anybody, really (at least not me, anyway
i mean, what is it? a heat issue? if so, why is the laptop thinner? all things being equal, i don't see why it had to be made thinner. i have a ti800 and it's plenty thin-- any thinner and it wuoldn't feel very sturdy at all. it seems to me that a larger casing would allow a hotter chip.
is it a battery issue? well.... aren't these new chips designed for laptop use, and with various ways of power management? shutting down one core, scaling back clockspeed...
additionally, not everyone with a laptop is concerned with battery times. i am a musician and use a laptop in performance. i simply want portable power (without the 17" model and extra $$ that goes along with it-- i don't personally need that). and i am certainly not the only one in this situation.
so yes, hardware parity is what i expect now.... where is it?
just askin,
hive
I knew eventually we'd see the fruits of the Raycer acquisition.
Actually, it may not be completely unfounded, Apple does have several patents concerning PPC. Whether or not they can effectively use them is a completely different question beyond the scope of my knowledge.
Originally posted by Blackcat
I wonder how feasable it would be to add Altivec to a future Intel processor?
I believe that is not possible until IBM's/Motorola's patents expire. Even if Intel was so inclined, which I believe they aren't.
Originally posted by Programmer
Hmmm, gee I wonder why. Lower power, lower heat, lower cost, minimal performance difference, room for an update when Intel improves their 65nm production.
Hmmm...I would have worried more about the yields on the 2Ghz part. Acer has multiple offerings. Apple has 1. If you can't get the 8200 with the 2Ghz CPU you get the 1.8Ghz variant. If you can't get the MacBook Pro 2Ghz you get...a Powerbook?
It would have really sucked to be caught without enough CPUs. The 1.8Ghz part seems wiser from that perspective if you were only going to release one notebook for the moment.
Vinea
Originally posted by Blackcat
Actually JD, most manufacturers have gone with 1.83 so Apple aren't alone. What I am irked about (but not surprised) is that most of the competitors are about $400 cheaper. True, few come with 1GB RAM or built-in webcams, but most have modems, S-Video and higher res screens.
I think once the switch is over they might have to lower prices and reduce margins.
True, MOST manufacturers are using the 1.83 GHz parts. But MOST manufacturers are not performance leaders, only a FEW are, and those are using the 2.0+ GHz Yonah chips.
You all can rationalize all you like, but it is YOU who are in a dreamworld Programmer, if you think 1.83 vs. 2.0 GHz doesn't matter in the marketplace. And this nonsense about Apple needing to leave room for updates - that is the old dreamworld of Motorola chips, not the reality of Intel, which update their chips several times per year.
Apple needs to get with the program and stop treating Mac users as if they are captive consumers of Apple hardware. We are, of course, but Apple might get more switchers if they acted like hardware mattered beyond the plastic casing.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
True, MOST manufacturers are using the 1.83 GHz parts. But MOST manufacturers are not performance leaders, only a FEW are, and those are using the 2.0+ GHz Yonah chips.
Depends on how many 2.0 Ghz parts you can really get.
Quote:
Apple needs to get with the program and stop treating Mac users as if they are captive consumers of Apple hardware. We are, of course, but Apple might get more switchers if they acted like hardware mattered beyond the plastic casing.
Switchers are not going to decide based on .17 Ghz. Lets see...EFI, new power coupling, expresscard, illuminated keyboard, integrated remote. Seems like the hardware is forward thinking and matters.
If we had switchers that bought mac mini's and ibooks it wasn't because the hardware sold them. Its the software.
Vinea
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Just once, I want to see Apple use an Intel chip that is FASTER than anything in the Wintel world, even if it's only for a month or two. Please Apple, surprise me!
It's never going to happen. Why would Intel injure its realtionship with all its other customers just so Apple looks good for a few weeks? That would never make sense.
Also, I question your motivation. You realize that if you bought that "fastest" machine it would only be fastest for a couple of months until the new processor came out. The only thing you have is a few days of bragging rights. If it's your computer you are bragging about your crowing is short lived. If it's the company you bought your computer from that you're bragging about, well... maybe you should get out more.
It all reminds me of those people that cut in and out of traffic on the highway, risking everything to get there 10 seconds faster, proud of nothing.
I mean really, JD, how is a difference of .17 GHz "neutering" anything? I get your point about markets, but real world performance differences are going to be negligible.
For the savvy buyer the upside of battery life and heat dissipation (plus, as has been mentioned, the upside for Apple in yields) are certainly going to more than offset whatever extra second a PS filter takes to run.
Unless you simply need the psychological satisfaction of having "the fastest" computer (which of course some people do), seems to me the 1.83 GHz part is the better choice, all things considered.
Originally posted by vinea
Depends on how many 2.0 Ghz parts you can really get.
Switchers are not going to decide based on .17 Ghz. Lets see...EFI, new power coupling, expresscard, illuminated keyboard, integrated remote. Seems like the hardware is forward thinking and matters.
If we had switchers that bought mac mini's and ibooks it wasn't because the hardware sold them. Its the software.
Vinea
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men. If the CPU of one laptop has a bigger number, then the consumer figures it's a faster computer. They don't do research on this stuff before buying.
There is no doubt that you are right, of course. The problem, as always, is convincing the ignorant masses that Apple is a better choice, when it's numbers are smaller. Apple doesn't go to eleven.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men. If the CPU of one laptop has a bigger number, then the consumer figures it's a faster computer. They don't do research on this stuff before buying.
There is no doubt that you are right, of course. The problem, as always, is convincing the ignorant masses that Apple is a better choice, when it's numbers are smaller. Apple doesn't go to eleven.
I suspect that availability of even the 1.83 part will be constrained. Perhaps not this early in the Apple/Intel relationship but I suspect that that's the number that Apple considered most carefully.
With sales of the PPC Macs...what was the term used? "Paused"? Not being able to ship their Core Duo machines in sufficient quantity would have lead to headlines like "Apple unable to deliver on new machines" or "Apple suffers from poor execution on mass production".
Apple has traditionally not had too many variants on the market. Presumably the 2.0 Ghz 17" MacBook Pro will be released when its ready.
Otherwise, I think that the Ghz myth has been busted and while, yes, more is better within the same line its the performance of the total package that matters. RDF not withstanding Macs have never been particularly great performers for the stuff that switchers tend to do.
Except from a usability/ease of use perspective.
If you don't think OSX goes to 11 I recommend getting the Acer. Personally, its iLife that sells me on the Mac for home use. Professionally, its a unix that doesn't have a suck UI and I have the usual gcc tool chain if I don't want to use Java. The only sticking point professionally is Entourage vs Outlook and .net development. I guess for that I need to wait until Virtual PC or vmWare is available.
The EFI, ExpressCard stuff was to refute your assertion that Apple engineers only care about the plastic shell.
Vinea
Originally posted by hivemind
room for an update? that sounds like a justification to me. if intel indeed improves on the yonah design and a revised chip enters a powerbook before a meromian chip, then that's all they would need for an update, no?...
Sigh.
What sometimes happens is that by finding bugs in the chip design or the process it is manufactured on they can put out a minor rev that runs faster at a lower voltage and therefore puts out less heat. Given the thermal & power targets they have set, therefore, they could then use a faster processor.
The design issues you question are at the heart of industrial design for these machines. How small, how heavy, how hot, how much battery, how pretty, how powerful. In case you hadn't noticed, Apple shipped one machine. The reason they did that was so that they could manage the production pipeline, the distribution, the sales, and the marketing of it. A lot goes into each and every model put to market, and therefore companies have to be careful how many they put out there. Back in the mid-90s Apple just about hung itself with the large number of models they put out. Especially with a brand new product (Intel-based Mac) it is really important to do one right before expanding the range.
Given that only one laptop was to be delivered they had to make one set of decisions on all the design issues. Guess what? They simply cannot meet everyone's ideal needs with one model because each person's needs are different. Frankly I'd like the unit to be bigger but thinner with a bit of extra weight to strengthen it, a slightly larger screen, a slower processor so I get more battery life, but more RAM to hit the disk less.
As for parity -- well, you have it but you don't have exactly the same machine. Each company makes a subtley different set of choices though, and Apple's designers have some talents not typically found elsewhere.
More models will come from Apple, but even then there will only be 3-5 laptops and they need to address the needs of >500,000 people per quarter so quite clearly they aren't going to be exactly what each person wants. Aside from those who aren't picky and will just buy what they are sold and be happy.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men. If the CPU of one laptop has a bigger number, then the consumer figures it's a faster computer. They don't do research on this stuff before buying.
Heh. Well I hate to break it to you, Dawg, but there is a big part of Apple's market that doesn't measure all of their purchases against their dick size. You're right, they don't do research on this stuff before buying so they might not even know what clockrate is or what this machine's number is. They'll look at it, pick it up, do something with it, say "nice", and plunk down their credit card.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
The average computer user has no idea what the fuck EFI, power coupling, etc. are. Numbers matter, especially for men.
Only the idiotic ones.
Numbers matter for two groups:
- those who need every ounce of power, do the research, and will realize that they're talking about 6.5% difference in clock speed, which can get swamped in other performance issues. For most, it really probably doesn't matter much on the hardware, and the software will be the deciding factor.
- those who, as Programmer said, are just worried about making up for their dick size, in which case if they want to go the Windows route, let 'em. They deserve what they get. That's like worrying about selling BMWs to Nascar fans. Nobody cares about that market, it's shrinking rapidly anyway, as people get more experience.
Originally posted by OverToasty
this is a little hard to believe, considering Apple's size, but here's the quote from MOSR
Apple is working with Intel on a unique new quad-core processor with several enhancements based on technology Apple co-developed with IBM for the G5 and now-defunct "G6" processors. This chip will be the first Intel product to ship exclusively in Apple computers at first, and when it does reach the PC market, Apple is expected to get a small percentage of each sale....a few years ago, who would have expected that Apple's semiconductor design team would be co-developing Intel processors and receiving revenues from the PC industry at large?!
The odds of this being true is zero.
Originally posted by THT
The odds of this being true is zero.
Nah, I think you're overrating the chances of it.
(it is possible, however, that Apple might be contributing IP to an Intel chipset intended for Apple machines -- FW800 and possibly some other elements)
Originally posted by Kickaha
Only the idiotic ones.
Numbers matter for two groups:
- those who need every ounce of power, do the research, and will realize that they're talking about 6.5% difference in clock speed, which can get swamped in other performance issues. For most, it really probably doesn't matter much on the hardware, and the software will be the deciding factor.
- those who, as Programmer said, are just worried about making up for their dick size, in which case if they want to go the Windows route, let 'em. They deserve what they get. That's like worrying about selling BMWs to Nascar fans. Nobody cares about that market, it's shrinking rapidly anyway, as people get more experience.
Good point. But I would bet that there are a number of potential Mac users lost because of Apple's low hardware specs. It's not just NASCAR fans who are worried about their tiny dicks.
Essentially the battery life with the Intel chips is much better, but add in more powerful GPUs and you might get similar battery life. However doing something like watching a DVD or checking your email should give you about 5 hours.
I was able to "borrow" a sample for a day and it get well over 5 hours with my usual routinue of slacking off, web browsing, itunes running in the background, and even watching a video clips. I'd say it's a large improvement over my brand new powerbook g4 considering you can always get mosts tasks done much quicker.