News Brief: Apple ramps MacBook production

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 148
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Jeff, they generally don't do those kinds of tests. They check different cpus. If the cache is different, there is usually some other difference as well. Just look around the web for articles about cache and you will see for yourself.





    Extreme Edition P4 vs. standard P4 is an example of a chip that is virtually identical except for the cache. I haven't seen those tests showing any merit for the extra cost.
  • Reply 122 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    Extreme Edition P4 vs. standard P4 is an example of a chip that is virtually identical except for the cache. I haven't seen those tests showing any merit for the extra cost.



    It's not exactly the same chip, even after accounting for any cache differences.



    But, Jeff, let's just wait and see, ok? We're not getting anywhere this way.
  • Reply 123 of 148
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    That's the thing, it was with actual software that is in use in typical consumer systems, not some custom tweaked code with massive data sets, which is what the "big iron" stuff gets tangled with.



    What, like Photoshop, Final Cut, iPhoto, iMovie, Apeture, etc.? These programs have working sets that are commonly in the multi-megabyte range and can benefit from bigger caches. If you're pushing them really hard by doing just a little bit of work on lots of different data then it isn't going to help as much. Or if your data set is really small, the extra cache doesn't help.
  • Reply 124 of 148
    dmwogandmwogan Posts: 36member
    my thinking is its going to be like the ibooks...the mac mini with a keyboard and lcd screen. so whatever the mac mini is packing, expect that to be in the macbook, with all the other features (isight, magnetic latch, magsafe) that have been circulating. it wouldn't surprise me if the price increased by around $100, but who knows, it might even go down. we'll find out soon enough.
  • Reply 125 of 148
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Programmer

    What, like Photoshop, Final Cut, iPhoto, iMovie, Apeture, etc.? These programs have working sets that are commonly in the multi-megabyte range and can benefit from bigger caches. If you're pushing them really hard by doing just a little bit of work on lots of different data then it isn't going to help as much. Or if your data set is really small, the extra cache doesn't help.



    I admit it is pretty complex, what I said was a simplification. If your data set is much larger than the cache, then increasing it but not enough to encompass the entire data set isn't necessarily a sure help either, as the first data would still need to be flushed out when later data comes in.



    All of those programs generally handle files that are much larger than the processor caches being discussed. Cache helps most when the processor accesses the same bits of data several times before it needs to get flushed out. A Photoshop filter only needs a small subset of the image to operate before moving to the next subset. That subset of data would need to have nearly 1M (or larger than 1M minus the cached code) to make a difference on a per-core basis.
  • Reply 126 of 148
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    Call me an optimist, but I'm counting on Apple to do something surprising with these machines. They can't afford to get it wrong, and I think they know it.
  • Reply 127 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    I admit it is pretty complex, what I said was a simplification. If your data set is much larger than the cache, then increasing it but not enough to encompass the entire data set isn't necessarily a sure help either, as the first data would still need to be flushed out when later data comes in.



    All of those programs generally handle files that are much larger than the processor caches being discussed. Cache helps most when the processor accesses the same bits of data several times before it needs to get flushed out. A Photoshop filter only needs a small subset of the image to operate before moving to the next subset. That subset of data would need to have nearly 1M (or larger than 1M minus the cached code) to make a difference on a per-core basis.




    When it came to HD caches, Adobe used to tell us to turn that cache off (in System 9 and earlier), because PS was a "cache buster".



    But, cpu caches are different. Complex instructions are loaded into the cpu cache. Data is as well, of course.



    But you have to understand that not just one piece of data, or just one instruction is loaded at once. The bigger the cache, the more instructions or date will fit. What that means is that there is a greater chance of a successful cache "hit".



    The ideal cache approaches the total size of RAM. That could be done with an L3, or even an L4 cache. It isn't done, because cache memory, even if off-die, is simply too expensive to substitute for standard RAM.
  • Reply 128 of 148
    netdognetdog Posts: 244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gloss

    Call me an optimist, but I'm counting on Apple to do something surprising with these machines. They can't afford to get it wrong, and I think they know it.



    I agree. In doing that, the prices will also be justiable, and they might even make some noise at E3. I don't know what it is they have ready to release, but it isn't just antoher Core Duo Asus in a shiny polycarbonate case with maglatch and magsafe. I will be quite surprised if these are only the rather dull machines that most are predicting. This is why Steve is having trouble delivering one for under $1000. There will be one or more major surprises.
  • Reply 129 of 148
    catman4d2catman4d2 Posts: 174member
    we have waited so long for these darn things i think they should be delivered to us like this!!!!!!!!!



  • Reply 130 of 148
    boukmanboukman Posts: 93member
    Call me optimistic, but I really hoped that we would get the new g965 integrated graphics chipset instead of the GM950. They were supposed to be due in Q3 along with Conroe, but with the Intel annoncement that they are early, one might think that they also have the new chipsets ready. The g965 has such better specs that I wouldn't mind being unable to order a dedicated graphics chip as an option.
  • Reply 131 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Boukman

    Call me optimistic, but I really hoped that we would get the new g965 integrated graphics chipset instead of the GM950. They were supposed to be due in Q3 along with Conroe, but with the Intel annoncement that they are early, one might think that they also have the new chipsets ready. The g965 has such better specs that I wouldn't mind being unable to order a dedicated graphics chip as an option.



    I've been looking forward to it as well. I have been hoping that a newer Mini would show up with it in August.
  • Reply 132 of 148
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    .
  • Reply 133 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by crees!

    .



    ???
  • Reply 134 of 148
    crees!crees! Posts: 501member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    ???



    Inadvertant post without the ability to delete.
  • Reply 135 of 148
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Reports from companies that follow sales of various items, have reported that. Apple uses this data themselves in their reports. Jobs used it during MacWorld when reporting sales.



    Wrong... Did you read this yet?



    http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1727
  • Reply 136 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by solsun

    Wrong... Did you read this yet?



    http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1727




    Not wrong. This is newer data. Did you notice the time I used? MacWorld.
  • Reply 137 of 148
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Not wrong. This is newer data. Did you notice the time I used? MacWorld.



    MacWorld? What are you talking about? The Intel mini wasn't even released at the time of MacWorld. Below is your quote to which I had originally asked the question: "What data do you have to support your statement that the $100 price increase has hurt mini sales?"



    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross





    All I'm saying now, is that I hope Apple doesn't have to raise the price above $999, because raising the price of the Mini has hurt sales. I don't think anyone here wants that to happen to the MacMook as well.







    And now you're using MacWorld as an answer... Like I said, Wrong.
  • Reply 138 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by solsun

    [B]MacWorld? What are you talking about? The Intel mini wasn't even released at the time of MacWorld. Below is your quote to which I had originally asked the question: "What data do you have to support your statement that the $100 price increase has hurt mini sales?"



    You are misinterpeting what I said. I used Macworld as an example of Apple using these companies for the numbers. He did that at MacWorld.





    Quote:

    And now you're using MacWorld as an answer... Like I said, Wrong.



    The numbers about the Mini came out shortly after it went on sale. Reports said that sales were about the same as before, evan as the sales of the new iMac have surged. That was a while ago. Apparently, those numbers are up somewhat now. Even the UBS report said that sales for them were "relatively strong". Not a greatly enthusiastic statement.



    These reports were even quoted here. But, you know how difficult it can be to find these things when you want them.
  • Reply 139 of 148
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Even the UBS report said that sales for them were "relatively strong". Not a greatly enthusiastic statement.



    ROFL. Nice spin. I guess the comments like "stronger than expected" dont fit your opinion and so aren't (mis) quoteworthy. The "relatively solid demand" comment comes from checks for sales at CompUSA. I did not find any instance of "relatively strong" in the AppleInsider article. That seems pretty good for CompUSA since that's not typically where I'd go to find a mac.



    Mini sales evidently were not hurt badly and even if they were hurt there was no direct evidence that price was the key factor (and not say the integrated graphics).



    But for both sets of naysayers (price and integrated graphics) it seems the mini has turned out well for Apple thus far.



    Vinea
  • Reply 140 of 148
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by vinea

    ROFL. Nice spin. I guess the comments like "stronger than expected" dont fit your opinion and so aren't (mis) quoteworthy. The "relatively solid demand" comment comes from checks for sales at CompUSA. I did not find any instance of "relatively strong" in the AppleInsider article. That seems pretty good for CompUSA since that's not typically where I'd go to find a mac.



    Mini sales evidently were not hurt badly and even if they were hurt there was no direct evidence that price was the key factor (and not say the integrated graphics).



    But for both sets of naysayers (price and integrated graphics) it seems the mini has turned out well for Apple thus far.



    Vinea




    It's not spin. But if you can't bear the idea than any Apple product isn't doing just "great", then you will spin it yourself. After all, no one had any idea that the sales of the cube, which was hailed, and advertised heavily by Apple, were so poor that Apple would feel compelled to discontinue it. Only after that happened did we find out that they had sold only 50,000 units a quarter.



    I'm certainly not saying that here. But, the Mini has been described as a modest sucess. It is outsold by the iMac, confounding the predictions.



    What you don't seem to be getting, is that sales numbers from CompUsa will reflect sales numbers anywhere else. If Apple did what most every other company did, then they would break down sales numbers, and let it be known just how each model is doing. As they refuse to allow even the most basic information out, the only way to get a handle on it is to check third party retailers. If you bothered to listen to the investor conferance call that Apple had, you would see just how difficult it is to pin them down on almost anything. Most questions involving numbers are answered with "we can't tell you that because of competitive reasons".



    While I'm not saying that Apple must give all of this out, as they have in the past, investors have to find out the numbers in a different way.



    If CompUsa's numbers rise or fall, that will reflect what is happening in Apple's own stores, or on their site.



    A "stronger than expected" doesn't tell us anything about absolute numbers. If Apple had been selling about 225,000 units a quarter, the estimated number before the switch, and the expected numbers were 175,000, a significant drop, but ended up being 190,000, then they would be "stronger than expected", but still disappointing.
Sign In or Register to comment.