Actually, Apple has only officially quoted its original timeline of switching "by the end of 2007."
Of course, many of us knew they were well ahead of schedule.
But AFAIK, this is the first time an Apple official has acknowledged that everything will be switched over before the end of 2006.
During Macworld, Jobs stated that they would be finished with the transition this year.
EDIT:
I forgot about this, but was reminded when I read it after my post. During the conference call, Oppenheimer was asked about this, and he said it would be finished by the end of this year.
Without looking through all of the pages, I don't know for sure whether the question about watt/performance came up here or in the iBook thread, but I'm posting it here. This looks PRETTY good.
They had problems with the board, as it isn't a finished product yet, apparently, but the tests speak for themselves.
Remembering that this a portable chip, putting it into a desktop machine is surely interesting. It definately looks good for the coming Core chips, which the Yonah isn't. I hope you'll like it!
Without looking through all of the pages, I don't know for sure whether the question about watt/performance came up here or in the iBook thread, but I'm posting it here. This looks PRETTY good.
They had problems with the board, as it isn't a finished product yet, apparently, but the tests speak for themselves.
Remembering that this a portable chip, putting it into a desktop machine is surely interesting. It definately looks good for the coming Core chips, which the Yonah isn't. I hope you'll like it!
" core duo's performance per wattis unmatched in the world of pc processors"
" core duo's outright performance easisily superior to Intel's supposed flagship desktop processor the pentium extreme edition 965"
"Core duo, Intel's most attractive processor for PC enthusiasts"
"Were it not for the fact that Core Duo can't handle 64-bit addressing, I'd say Intel should transition its desktop and server product lines to this microarchitecture right now rather than waiting for Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest."
How am I to interpret that? Does that "wow" include a thought of "I'm impressed", and is that an admission that maybe Apple made the correct decision in using this processor to start their transition?
How am I to interpret that? Does that "wow" include a thought of "I'm impressed", and is that an admission that maybe Apple made the correct decision in using this processor to start their transition?
I'm impressed. I think Apple is definately correct for using these chips in the computers. I've argued and still believe they could even go down the ladder and use other Intel chips in lower cost machines. Another arguement for another day I guess.
This year would be a sad year for Mac users if Apple had stuck with IBM and the G5. Let's all think about it for a moment.
...
...
Yeah, that's right.
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?
If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.
I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?
If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.
I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
It does sound good, no doubt about that.
If Apple had stuck with the PPC, they would be having better sales this year, no question. But, in sacrificing sales for this year, they are insuring much better sale going forward. I thought it was interesting that in the conference call, they said that they told store personnel to tell people NOT to buy the Intel machines if the software they needed wasn't yet out for them. That seemed to impress the analysts.
My impression is that the "end of 2007" was a ruse. It prevented people from not buying during 2005, because the introduction seemed to be far away. It worked for the December quarter. Apple's sales would have been a bit higher, but not by much.
Once they announced the new timetable, sales slowed down. But because they actually had Intel machines to sell, sales still went up by 4% year over year. If the Core Duo chip hadn't had a normal slow ramp-up, Apple might have sold 100 thousand more machines this quarter.
They did a fairly good job of managing expectations.
If Apple had stuck with the PPC, they would be having better sales this year, no question. But, in sacrificing sales for this year, they are insuring much better sale going forward. I thought it was interesting that in the conference call, they said that they told store personnel to tell people NOT to buy the Intel machines if the software they needed wasn't yet out for them. That seemed to impress the analysts.
My impression is that the "end of 2007" was a ruse. It prevented people from not buying during 2005, because the introduction seemed to be far away. It worked for the December quarter. Apple's sales would have been a bit higher, but not by much.
Once they announced the new timetable, sales slowed down. But because they actually had Intel machines to sell, sales still went up by 4% year over year. If the Core Duo chip hadn't had a normal slow ramp-up, Apple might have sold 100 thousand more machines this quarter.
They did a fairly good job of managing expectations.
What am I missing? Isn't Conroe and Woodcrest release to market in September? I have heard that Merom may get pushed into 2007 but I thought everything was on track for Conroe and Woodcrest to come out in the second half of this year.
What am I missing? Isn't Conroe and Woodcrest release to market in September? I have heard that Merom may get pushed into 2007 but I thought everything was on track for Conroe and Woodcrest to come out in the second half of this year.
What you're missing is that Apple was expected to have as much as 7.5 million in Mac sales this fiscal year, before they announced the switch to Intel.
Now, their sales are estimated as being no more than about 6 million.
If Apple hadn't announced a switch, December quarter sales could have been at least 100 thousand more than they were, and Marches numbers could have been 250 thousand more. June's Quarter, which are usually pretty high, could have been more than 300 thousand more than they are expected to be.
Some estimates were much higher than those, about double the numbers I just gave.
Remember that Apple has been increasing their numbers about 35 to 45% a quarter over the year before. Apple just sold 1,112,000 computers this quarter. If those sales were in line with many expectations before the switch, it could have been 30% higher, at 1,445,600.
What you're missing is that Apple was expected to have as much as 7.5 million in Mac sales this fiscal year, before they announced the switch to Intel.
Now, their sales are estimated as being no more than about 6 million.
If Apple hadn't announced a switch, December quarter sales could have been at least 100 thousand more than they were, and Marches numbers could have been 250 thousand more. June's Quarter, which are usually pretty high, could have been more than 300 thousand more than they are expected to be.
Some estimates were much higher than those, about double the numbers I just gave.
Remember that Apple has been increasing their numbers about 35 to 45% a quarter over the year before. Apple just sold 1,112,000 computers this quarter. If those sales were in line with many expectations before the switch, it could have been 30% higher, at 1,445,600.
This is what I mean.
Programmer was sying he thinks that the Intel transition may not be done until beginning of next year. I guess this may be true if they release new products and not Intel versions of existing products. Otherwise won't the powermac replacement be out this fall and iBook replacement out this spring/summer?
Programmer was sying he thinks that the Intel transition may not be done until beginning of next year. I guess this may be true if they release new products and not Intel versions of existing products. Otherwise won't the powermac replacement be out this fall and iBook replacement out this spring/summer?
I don't think that he was giving a date that he thought was the turnover date. He was giving his opinion as to what he thought Apple might have meant.
And, it seemed as though you were thinking that Apple's sales this year would be as good or better than they would have been if Apple hadn't moved over.
Whatever. I was trying to clarify the thinking out there (and mine as well), that Apple's sales were on a higher trajectory this year before people learned of the switch, than they are now, but that the switch will give Apple much better sales in the future.
I don't think that he was giving a date that he thought was the turnover date. He was giving his opinion as to what he thought Apple might have meant.
And, it seemed as though you were thinking that Apple's sales this year would be as good or better than they would have been if Apple hadn't moved over.
Whatever. I was trying to clarify the thinking out there (and mine as well), that Apple's sales were on a higher trajectory this year before people learned of the switch, than they are now, but that the switch will give Apple much better sales in the future.
No I wasn't implying your second point at all. As to the third point, I fully agree. I really like the next year or so for Apple with these new Intel chips. They look like they will be very fast indeed.
No I wasn't implying your second point at all. As to the third point, I fully agree. I really like the next year or so for Apple with these new Intel chips. They look like they will be very fast indeed.
Ok, it just seemed that way to me. That's why we can talk back and forth, and clarify matters. But, I will have to leave soon.
Two new Yonah OVERVLOCKING reviews. Why wait for a 3GHZ Conroe, when you can have a 3GHz Yonah? Most of the text is in Chinese, but the charts and such aren'y. You can get Yahoo to translate.
Two new Yonah OVERVLOCKING reviews. Why wait for a 3GHZ Conroe, when you can have a 3GHz Yonah? Most of the text is in Chinese, but the charts and such aren'y. You can get Yahoo to translate.
I've yet to see a negative review of ICD. Every time somebody does a comparison test they end up gushing about how great ICD is. Really excited about new core lineup. Especially Merom. Can't wait for for MBP with one of those in it. Please SJ give us one this year.
Comments
Originally posted by Frank777
Actually, Apple has only officially quoted its original timeline of switching "by the end of 2007."
Of course, many of us knew they were well ahead of schedule.
But AFAIK, this is the first time an Apple official has acknowledged that everything will be switched over before the end of 2006.
During Macworld, Jobs stated that they would be finished with the transition this year.
EDIT:
I forgot about this, but was reminded when I read it after my post. During the conference call, Oppenheimer was asked about this, and he said it would be finished by the end of this year.
Without looking through all of the pages, I don't know for sure whether the question about watt/performance came up here or in the iBook thread, but I'm posting it here. This looks PRETTY good.
They had problems with the board, as it isn't a finished product yet, apparently, but the tests speak for themselves.
Remembering that this a portable chip, putting it into a desktop machine is surely interesting. It definately looks good for the coming Core chips, which the Yonah isn't. I hope you'll like it!
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...o/index.x?pg=1
Originally posted by melgross
Here's another link about the Yonah.
Without looking through all of the pages, I don't know for sure whether the question about watt/performance came up here or in the iBook thread, but I'm posting it here. This looks PRETTY good.
They had problems with the board, as it isn't a finished product yet, apparently, but the tests speak for themselves.
Remembering that this a portable chip, putting it into a desktop machine is surely interesting. It definately looks good for the coming Core chips, which the Yonah isn't. I hope you'll like it!
http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q2...o/index.x?pg=1
A few quotes from the article
" core duo's performance per wattis unmatched in the world of pc processors"
" core duo's outright performance easisily superior to Intel's supposed flagship desktop processor the pentium extreme edition 965"
"Core duo, Intel's most attractive processor for PC enthusiasts"
"Were it not for the fact that Core Duo can't handle 64-bit addressing, I'd say Intel should transition its desktop and server product lines to this microarchitecture right now rather than waiting for Conroe, Merom, and Woodcrest."
All I can say is wow.
Originally posted by backtomac
All I can say is wow.
How am I to interpret that? Does that "wow" include a thought of "I'm impressed", and is that an admission that maybe Apple made the correct decision in using this processor to start their transition?
Originally posted by onlooker
How am I to interpret that? Does that "wow" include a thought of "I'm impressed", and is that an admission that maybe Apple made the correct decision in using this processor to start their transition?
I'm impressed. I think Apple is definately correct for using these chips in the computers. I've argued and still believe they could even go down the ladder and use other Intel chips in lower cost machines. Another arguement for another day I guess.
Intel will be fixing much of its memory bandwidth problems: See here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/...atform_tested/
Originally posted by melgross
Ok, here we go again.
Intel will be fixing much of its memory bandwidth problems: See here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/04/...atform_tested/
Some addendum's:
price cuts, new Yonah
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31127
Conroe prices
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31126
some Woodcrest specs
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31131
...
...
Yeah, that's right.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
This year would be a sad year for Mac users if Apple had stuck with IBM and the G5. Let's all think about it for a moment.
...
...
Yeah, that's right.
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?
If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.
I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
Originally posted by Programmer
What, a 2 GHz 90nm single core G4 with 512K L2 cache doesn't float your boat?
If they had kept pushing the dual core G5s it would have been a reasonable year for the desktops, but the laptops would have really sucked. I think IBM would have made the 65nm transition with the G5, but Freescale is... well... "free of scaling", it seems.
I do have to wonder though if Apple's original statement "we'll be done by the end of 2007" wasn't refering to the fiscal year which ends less than 12 months from now.
It does sound good, no doubt about that.
If Apple had stuck with the PPC, they would be having better sales this year, no question. But, in sacrificing sales for this year, they are insuring much better sale going forward. I thought it was interesting that in the conference call, they said that they told store personnel to tell people NOT to buy the Intel machines if the software they needed wasn't yet out for them. That seemed to impress the analysts.
My impression is that the "end of 2007" was a ruse. It prevented people from not buying during 2005, because the introduction seemed to be far away. It worked for the December quarter. Apple's sales would have been a bit higher, but not by much.
Once they announced the new timetable, sales slowed down. But because they actually had Intel machines to sell, sales still went up by 4% year over year. If the Core Duo chip hadn't had a normal slow ramp-up, Apple might have sold 100 thousand more machines this quarter.
They did a fairly good job of managing expectations.
Originally posted by melgross
It does sound good, no doubt about that.
If Apple had stuck with the PPC, they would be having better sales this year, no question. But, in sacrificing sales for this year, they are insuring much better sale going forward. I thought it was interesting that in the conference call, they said that they told store personnel to tell people NOT to buy the Intel machines if the software they needed wasn't yet out for them. That seemed to impress the analysts.
My impression is that the "end of 2007" was a ruse. It prevented people from not buying during 2005, because the introduction seemed to be far away. It worked for the December quarter. Apple's sales would have been a bit higher, but not by much.
Once they announced the new timetable, sales slowed down. But because they actually had Intel machines to sell, sales still went up by 4% year over year. If the Core Duo chip hadn't had a normal slow ramp-up, Apple might have sold 100 thousand more machines this quarter.
They did a fairly good job of managing expectations.
What am I missing? Isn't Conroe and Woodcrest release to market in September? I have heard that Merom may get pushed into 2007 but I thought everything was on track for Conroe and Woodcrest to come out in the second half of this year.
Originally posted by backtomac
What am I missing? Isn't Conroe and Woodcrest release to market in September? I have heard that Merom may get pushed into 2007 but I thought everything was on track for Conroe and Woodcrest to come out in the second half of this year.
What you're missing is that Apple was expected to have as much as 7.5 million in Mac sales this fiscal year, before they announced the switch to Intel.
Now, their sales are estimated as being no more than about 6 million.
If Apple hadn't announced a switch, December quarter sales could have been at least 100 thousand more than they were, and Marches numbers could have been 250 thousand more. June's Quarter, which are usually pretty high, could have been more than 300 thousand more than they are expected to be.
Some estimates were much higher than those, about double the numbers I just gave.
Remember that Apple has been increasing their numbers about 35 to 45% a quarter over the year before. Apple just sold 1,112,000 computers this quarter. If those sales were in line with many expectations before the switch, it could have been 30% higher, at 1,445,600.
This is what I mean.
Originally posted by melgross
What you're missing is that Apple was expected to have as much as 7.5 million in Mac sales this fiscal year, before they announced the switch to Intel.
Now, their sales are estimated as being no more than about 6 million.
If Apple hadn't announced a switch, December quarter sales could have been at least 100 thousand more than they were, and Marches numbers could have been 250 thousand more. June's Quarter, which are usually pretty high, could have been more than 300 thousand more than they are expected to be.
Some estimates were much higher than those, about double the numbers I just gave.
Remember that Apple has been increasing their numbers about 35 to 45% a quarter over the year before. Apple just sold 1,112,000 computers this quarter. If those sales were in line with many expectations before the switch, it could have been 30% higher, at 1,445,600.
This is what I mean.
Programmer was sying he thinks that the Intel transition may not be done until beginning of next year. I guess this may be true if they release new products and not Intel versions of existing products. Otherwise won't the powermac replacement be out this fall and iBook replacement out this spring/summer?
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I bet you were one of those that said the same thing about Intel. Boot Camp. Integrated Graphics.
Yeah. Good track record.
"I bet you were wrong at one point. Ha ha, that was funny, the time you were wrong, that I made up."
Originally posted by backtomac
Programmer was sying he thinks that the Intel transition may not be done until beginning of next year. I guess this may be true if they release new products and not Intel versions of existing products. Otherwise won't the powermac replacement be out this fall and iBook replacement out this spring/summer?
I don't think that he was giving a date that he thought was the turnover date. He was giving his opinion as to what he thought Apple might have meant.
And, it seemed as though you were thinking that Apple's sales this year would be as good or better than they would have been if Apple hadn't moved over.
Whatever. I was trying to clarify the thinking out there (and mine as well), that Apple's sales were on a higher trajectory this year before people learned of the switch, than they are now, but that the switch will give Apple much better sales in the future.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't think that he was giving a date that he thought was the turnover date. He was giving his opinion as to what he thought Apple might have meant.
And, it seemed as though you were thinking that Apple's sales this year would be as good or better than they would have been if Apple hadn't moved over.
Whatever. I was trying to clarify the thinking out there (and mine as well), that Apple's sales were on a higher trajectory this year before people learned of the switch, than they are now, but that the switch will give Apple much better sales in the future.
No I wasn't implying your second point at all. As to the third point, I fully agree. I really like the next year or so for Apple with these new Intel chips. They look like they will be very fast indeed.
Originally posted by backtomac
No I wasn't implying your second point at all. As to the third point, I fully agree. I really like the next year or so for Apple with these new Intel chips. They look like they will be very fast indeed.
Ok, it just seemed that way to me. That's why we can talk back and forth, and clarify matters. But, I will have to leave soon.
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm
This was only done at 2.6GHz.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo
Originally posted by melgross
Two new Yonah OVERVLOCKING reviews. Why wait for a 3GHZ Conroe, when you can have a 3GHz Yonah? Most of the text is in Chinese, but the charts and such aren'y. You can get Yahoo to translate.
http://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/yonah-crossfire-3.htm
This was only done at 2.6GHz.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=coreduo
I've yet to see a negative review of ICD. Every time somebody does a comparison test they end up gushing about how great ICD is. Really excited about new core lineup. Especially Merom. Can't wait for for MBP with one of those in it. Please SJ give us one this year.
Originally posted by gregmightdothat
"I bet you were wrong at one point. Ha ha, that was funny, the time you were wrong, that I made up."
Profound, dude.