weel said bunge. and i have the feeling that most that complain about the mhz are kids that want to get their quake frame rates up so they can look good in bake offs.
[quote] OK, the G4 has a better IPC than IA32 CPUs, but not vastly better or enough to make up the clock cycle/bandwidth deficit. A short pipeline may give it an advantage, but these are outweighted by higher clock rates, more units, better bandwidth, etc... (I should have been clearer the first time )
<hr></blockquote>
The truth is somehere in the middle. The current G4 single processor model [see note 1] comes in with a P4 equivalent of about 1.7 GHz P4 (my numbers are distilled down from many benchmarks at places like arstechnica.com; these are ballpark consensus numbers and some might say 1.6 or 1.8) or a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon. The G4 has been able to make up ground on a clock-for-clock basis through subtle redeisgns, effective cache usage, and a short pipeline (while the P4 clockspeed increases in step with its pipeline depth, resulting in ever more dissappointing returns in performance with each jump). The fact is that top end G4 performance is pretty impressive. It will cream a 2.53 GHz at some tasks, and will similarly get creamed at others. Overall, though it is probably... what... 20% slower than the P4 [see note 2]? One question is... does that matter? That's one 6-8 month refresh cycle! It's nothing in computer terms. If you believe otherwise, you have fallen victum to the hype and fallacy of the sheep.
Note 1: But of course, the whimpiest machine you can buy is the Dual 867 (for about $1600 at the Apple store for education). All Apple machines are duals; don't forget that. The question then is what is the P4 equivalent? The answer, of course, is "it depends". It depends on what you test with, what your benchmark is.
Note 2: It is widely believed that the processor has legs that are not revealled by the current machine design. That is, the G4 chip may be faster than the performance of the G4 system belies. The current machines appear to be bandwidth limited on many tasks.
Linux may very well surpass the Mac on the desktop, but this increasing user base does not directly compete w/Apple. The vast majority of these users are running *nix on an x86 platform and therefore taking users away from Windoze (although most also have it installed as well). So, even if there are more linux boxes than Macs, this can still be a good thing for Apple.
-Voting with your pocketbook-
When 10.2 & .Mac came out, many people where upset bt the pricing scheme. The general response was 'don't like it, don't buy it.' But this is not very realistic.
It is important to stay current in any industry which uses technology. I don't like the pricing scheme for 10.2, but what can I really do? I can hold out, but, sooner or later, I will be forced to upgrade because of software compatibilities. I can go buy a PC, but I don't want to use Windows (speaking form experience here) and all my software is Mac. I can rant and rave on AI and have the apologist tell me I'm an idiot (basically this is pissing in the wind).
Apple knows they have a 'captive' audience and a monopoly on their corner of the market. So, they adhere to their own strategy and move forward. Since I'm not buying any HW right now, I can only hope that Macs become more competitive in the near future. But, having used a new dual gig, the machines are very nice now. I can only imagine how it would be if Apple's technology were to match the PC world (bus, memory, cpu).
<strong>If the G4 can do vastly more per CPu cycle than the P4 how come the P4 beat the crap out of the G4 in video compression and such stuff? From 1994 to 2000 the PPC was at the sam clock speed as the X86 +/-20-25% as was the CPU performance with the FPU lsigtly above and the integer performance sligtly below the x86. The G4 is not more effecient than the 450 MHz G3 of 1999. Say that the P4 is less efficent thant the P3 as it appears to be so that the currently fastest aviable G4 is perhaps not equal to a 1GHz P4 ( Do they make them that slow?) but as fast as a 1.5 GHz P4 we are still behind.
What really good CPUs have come out of the doors of Motorola since the 68030? That was really good when the IIfx came out 1990...
The 68040 was eaten alive by the 486 and forced the jump to PPC
The High end 604E and the G3 were designed by the AIM group and build by IBM.
Hindsight is always 20/20 but should not Apple have realised what they did reducing AIM to AM?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Memory Bandwith. DDR Busses DO help for moving large chunks of Data. But then that's not a processor function now is it? Dr Boar a 1Ghz P4 would be measureably slower than a 1Ghz P3 so it would definitely lose to a 1Ghz G4. The G4 IS a good processor. It just doesn't have the best supporting cast right now on the MPX bus. Too many people fail to realize Computing is a SUM Parts affair. The Proc has to mate with the Mainboard and periphery. The G4 is a very elegant chip what gives PC's an advantage moreso is the Mainboards are faster coupled with slightly faster procs.
[quote] OK, the G4 has a better IPC than IA32 CPUs, but not vastly better or enough to make up the clock cycle/bandwidth deficit. A short pipeline may give it an advantage, but these are outweighted by higher clock rates, more units, better bandwidth, etc... (I should have been clearer the first time <hr></blockquote>
Heheheh I totally agree. Design tradeoffs are the name of the game. I was skeptical that Intel would succeed with the P4 but once again Chipzilla roars it's head. Watching Processor companies compete is like watching slow motion sports. Intel right now is breaking into the lead but AMD and IBM are on an intercept path. Stay tuned
[quote] and is the way my university is going. (With Dells, by the way).
<hr></blockquote>
Oooh driven like a stake through my heart <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I tend to think Apple has something decent coming. Soon mainboards will be moving to Hypertransport and RIo. And we'll all wonder why we spent SO much time bitching about DDR busses. That's the nature of Geekdom folks. You know we wouldn't have it any other way
[quote] I tend to think Apple has something decent coming. <hr></blockquote>
That is a good point. The power lines are clearly near the end of their current incarnations. I would be surprised if they last 4 more months in light of this mornings announcements. Comparing these machines to a P4 (which is only 1 year into it's latest incarnation) does place the G4 at a disadvantage.
Anyone else find it strange that Gateway is directly competing with Apple while their marketing team is virtually ignoring their real competition: Dell? Maybe they don't want to incur their wrath. But while they fight Apple (to no avail i may add) they'll simply go out of business when Dell eats the rest of their market share. Boo hoo.
Come Jan/Feb we will probably see a bump to 1.6Ghz which will keep the Mac in line with the top P4 to be released. After this the PowerMac G4 will probably cease to be and the next gen Powermac X1 (or whatever new name they think of) will be released (probably Aug/Sept) with a totally different processor/io/fsb etc. The case colour will change to reflect the new processor etc.
I reckon any benchmarking against PC's will now need to be done will Dual 3Ghz P4's as well.
The chip probably won't be as high in Mhz as the super long piped Intel jobbies but it won't need to be as it will be so much more efficient.
Alf.
[swapped faster for more efficient as faster might indicate Mhz and not what counts]
The way I see it, Apple suffers from two distinct business flaws:
IGNORANCE OF CUSTOMER NEEDS
Back in the time of the iMac Rev B, Macintosh users were crying out for a larger screen. While the 15? was adequate, it could not nearly compete with the PC world, in which 17? had become the standard. It took Apple Computer 4+ years to introduce the eMac.
Apple chose to focus their efforts on case design and color, instead of hardware advancement. Which, in the short term, made them a great deal of money.
But it makes one wonder how many more sales Apple would?ve made if the 17? CRT product were introduced earlier.
LIMITED PRODUCT SELECTION
Apple seems to be in a constant state of perpetual product-line modification. They cannot seem to decide whether they should have a six-product matrix, a ?good?, ?better?, ?best? lineup, or how many options to make configurable on each machine.
For instance, Apple currently offers 4 models of video cards in its lineup: GeForce 2MX, GeForce 4MX, GeForce 4Ti, ATI 9000.
But only one of these cards is available for less than $1700.00 (GF2). If you want a GF4, you must purchase either an iMac for $2000.00, or a PowerMac for $1700.00. If you want an ATI card, that price goes up to $2500.00(preconfigured). Want the GF4Ti? It?ll cost you $5000.00 (preconfigured).
The issue becomes even more outlandish when one considers that the GeForce 2MX 32MB that Apple uses in its $1700.00 and under computers retails for about $60.00. Their GeForce 4MX 32MB retails for about $110.00, but if you want to upgrade the graphics capability of your entry-level iMac (700), it?ll cost you $700.00 for that $110.00 card.
DENOUMENT
Apple computer chooses to follow a business model that yields plenty of liquid assets. It has been very successful.
However, $4 billion does not equate to an increase in market share. Nor does it guarantee representation in classrooms around the world.
"That's an isolated scenario from a HUGE Chip vendor and even then I'd venture to say Intel as a whole has more Software Engineers in volume."
ok mr. hmurchison smart guy - I speak with authority when I say Intel has more electrical engineers than Software Engineers in head count. Don't venture - your wrong. As for merced being an isolated instance: so is OSX. You speak over that which you do not know. Again, in simple english: it cannot be said that designing hardware vs. designing software is easier or harder, faster or slower, or that it requires more people or less people - it depends on the project. simple as that. There is no global rule.
"Nvidia, ATI and almost any company that has HW that requires drivers will have more software Engineers on staff than hardware. My point still stands...and strong."
the only thing that stands strong is your ignorance. Your blanket statements show the little you actually know about the industry. Just slow down tiger. Why don't you take a trip down San Thomas and stop at Intel and Nvidia (which is practically across the street, in case you didn't know), and politely ask them how many EE's and programmers they have in each company, and then ask "excuse me, which is harder - software or hardware?" - or - why don't you just shut the fck up?
I'm not an expert at this subject but, what if one of the things holding up the hardware is the ability to boot into 9? If they didn't have to support OS 9 could they move on to something else. More efficient. Only has to deal with OS X? I don't know if this is valid but maybe one of you does?
<strong>Want the GF4Ti? It?ll cost you $5000.00 (preconfigured).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's take a look at that, shall we? I just bought a new dual 1 GHz tower with a GeForce 4 Ti. I sure as hell didn't pay $5000 for it, I didn't even pay HALF that for it. Why bother making that point when you know the Ti card can be BTO on any model Power Mac?
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've always considered it a GOOD thing when companies give you options like that. I don't really see how it can be twisted into being a "bad" thing.
Many of you may know that apple has proclaimed that OS 9 will no longer be supported after January 2003.
\t Is apple just going to stop you from booting into it? OR Is there going to be new hardware that can't boot into it. The later makes much more sense. A new year a new CPU.
\tIBM seems to be the best bet for the origin of the new CPU.
\tWhat facts do we know about this chip they are supposedly working on. The desktop version of the Power4? Maybe this is the light?
I'll respond to the subject: Does Apple have any Hope?
OF course they do. Everyone has or needs "hope", a pity however that all the hoping in the world will not produce results.
Of late there has been a negative vibe about Apple's prospects for growth and prosperity. Apple needs this or that in order to beat Intel, Redmond etc.
The fact remains that Apple for better or worse competes in a little domain that as a corporate entity appears to be content to control.
Yes, SJ has stated that Apple wants 10% of the market and the "Switch" advertising campaign is designed to get new users to consider Apple products over the competition. With all that said Apple cannot exist as a large monolithic corporation like Dell, Microsoft, IBM, and others.
Apple's entire corporate culture is centered around being small and it is not accustumed to being a "mainstream" player in the marketplace. Too much of what makes Apple what it is as a business is the atomosphere of being the small-fry in the large pond.
It applauds itself on innovative thinking and executing risky strategy. It is by these things that Apple Computer measures its success. One need not look past its products to see what influences the design and function of their machines. Performance, is to Apple a part of the equasion to making products elegant, and true to their form and function.
So what is Apple's next killer product? What does it need to do to stay ahead?
I know it is in the cards that Apple will build machines for the corporate space and extend their reach into the creative fields where they still wield considerable influence.
The education market for Apple was lost when the economy downturned. Too many constrained budgets and the continued opinion of purchasers that Apple computers are too expensive will knock the Macintosh out of race for education dollars.
Expect to hear more "bad" news from this front for a few more months.
However, the corporate space is still wide-open. Seems doubtful to many I'm sure, but I have alot of supporting evidence from peers who work at Redmond that their employer was dealt a crippling blow last week and their hold on the corporate market is waning by each fiscal quarter.
Apple being the clever little entity that it is smelled blood in the corporate waters a year ago, they radically shifted alot of strategies to create products that fit that market. The XServe is the first. Expect more.
Expect Apple to execute more services based products and enhancements that will support education, hardware will not immediately be the driving force but that will be part of the larger plan further down the road.
I fear my vauge clues are the result of my sources being somewhat close-mouthed. However my pals as Microsoft are ranting considerably. Go Figure...
I just ordered a new PC for work, and I am selling my Mac. I won't gloat over speeds etc, but there are 2 main reasons why I decided to dump my Mac after 7 years.
1) The obvious one, this PC costs the same as an iMac LCD 700mhz model, it has 1.5 to 2x the performance in the apps I use (Cinema 4d and Cubase SX), not as the imac, but Apples Top of the range DUAL 1.25
2) Apples lack of visibility. I wanted to get the Dual 867 to start with, but I guestimate that no worthwhile processor upgrades will be available for 1-2 years. And when it is, it will cost 3/4 the amount of a new machine! I have no clue as to when a decent highend 3d card might ship, I have no Idea what the PPC roadmap from Apple/IBM/Moto will be for the next week, let alone the next 2 years. There is no word from Apple that things might improve in any area whatsoever. Nada. Nothing. There is no word on next gen tech, ie RIO, Power4 etc. You could guess that everything will come good at MWSF2003, but I bummed that guess 2 years ago.
My reasons for PC.
=================
Id bet damn well I can rip out the MP2000XP's in my new PC after 6-9 months and replace them with MP3000's. I know that the Athlon range is moving to '0.13 512k L2 Barton' processors soon. I know that 64bit Hammer is coming out in 1h03. I can plan my purchases accordingly.
I know damn well I can go to any computer shop in the UK and find stuff I need.
I know I can replace my ATI9700 card with something better when available, without paying a huge premium for the same hardware with mac drivers. I'll also get it 6 months before the mac version eventually ships.
I know I can replace any part of my machine that became obsolete without having to buy a new computer.
I know damn well that winXP Pro is good enough for what I wish to do.
Reasons for Mac.
----------------
Well, Id like to keep using MacOS. Thats about it really.
So now, you might want to say STFU and go buy a PC, but well I already did. I am not trying to troll, flame me if you want, but I have too many concerns with staying with Apple after all that was promised over the last 5 years. It might not be all their fault, but I personally am not going to pay through the nose anymore for someone elses business incompetence, be it Apple/Moto or IBM's. Ill take the safe and cheap option thankyou very much.
BTW, this new things got a really great looking case.
"alot of supporting evidence from peers who work at Redmond that their employer was dealt a crippling blow last week and their hold on the corporate market is waning by each fiscal quarter."<hr></blockquote>
You have to at least give a hint. Anything to do with Linux and IBM??
I AGREE WE SHOULD KNOW APPLE"S ROADMAP. WE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST HINTS OF WHAT IS TO COME.
This complete silence is making me uneasy! All Apple has to say is we plan to switch over to IBM next year or something. I don't feel like apple knows what it's doing when they wont tell us anything.
Comments
<hr></blockquote>
The truth is somehere in the middle. The current G4 single processor model [see note 1] comes in with a P4 equivalent of about 1.7 GHz P4 (my numbers are distilled down from many benchmarks at places like arstechnica.com; these are ballpark consensus numbers and some might say 1.6 or 1.8) or a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon. The G4 has been able to make up ground on a clock-for-clock basis through subtle redeisgns, effective cache usage, and a short pipeline (while the P4 clockspeed increases in step with its pipeline depth, resulting in ever more dissappointing returns in performance with each jump). The fact is that top end G4 performance is pretty impressive. It will cream a 2.53 GHz at some tasks, and will similarly get creamed at others. Overall, though it is probably... what... 20% slower than the P4 [see note 2]? One question is... does that matter? That's one 6-8 month refresh cycle! It's nothing in computer terms. If you believe otherwise, you have fallen victum to the hype and fallacy of the sheep.
Note 1: But of course, the whimpiest machine you can buy is the Dual 867 (for about $1600 at the Apple store for education). All Apple machines are duals; don't forget that. The question then is what is the P4 equivalent? The answer, of course, is "it depends". It depends on what you test with, what your benchmark is.
Note 2: It is widely believed that the processor has legs that are not revealled by the current machine design. That is, the G4 chip may be faster than the performance of the G4 system belies. The current machines appear to be bandwidth limited on many tasks.
Linux may very well surpass the Mac on the desktop, but this increasing user base does not directly compete w/Apple. The vast majority of these users are running *nix on an x86 platform and therefore taking users away from Windoze (although most also have it installed as well). So, even if there are more linux boxes than Macs, this can still be a good thing for Apple.
-Voting with your pocketbook-
When 10.2 & .Mac came out, many people where upset bt the pricing scheme. The general response was 'don't like it, don't buy it.' But this is not very realistic.
It is important to stay current in any industry which uses technology. I don't like the pricing scheme for 10.2, but what can I really do? I can hold out, but, sooner or later, I will be forced to upgrade because of software compatibilities. I can go buy a PC, but I don't want to use Windows (speaking form experience here) and all my software is Mac. I can rant and rave on AI and have the apologist tell me I'm an idiot (basically this is pissing in the wind).
Apple knows they have a 'captive' audience and a monopoly on their corner of the market. So, they adhere to their own strategy and move forward. Since I'm not buying any HW right now, I can only hope that Macs become more competitive in the near future. But, having used a new dual gig, the machines are very nice now. I can only imagine how it would be if Apple's technology were to match the PC world (bus, memory, cpu).
<strong>If the G4 can do vastly more per CPu cycle than the P4 how come the P4 beat the crap out of the G4 in video compression and such stuff? From 1994 to 2000 the PPC was at the sam clock speed as the X86 +/-20-25% as was the CPU performance with the FPU lsigtly above and the integer performance sligtly below the x86. The G4 is not more effecient than the 450 MHz G3 of 1999. Say that the P4 is less efficent thant the P3 as it appears to be so that the currently fastest aviable G4 is perhaps not equal to a 1GHz P4 ( Do they make them that slow?) but as fast as a 1.5 GHz P4 we are still behind.
What really good CPUs have come out of the doors of Motorola since the 68030? That was really good when the IIfx came out 1990...
The 68040 was eaten alive by the 486 and forced the jump to PPC
The High end 604E and the G3 were designed by the AIM group and build by IBM.
Hindsight is always 20/20 but should not Apple have realised what they did reducing AIM to AM?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Memory Bandwith. DDR Busses DO help for moving large chunks of Data. But then that's not a processor function now is it? Dr Boar a 1Ghz P4 would be measureably slower than a 1Ghz P3 so it would definitely lose to a 1Ghz G4. The G4 IS a good processor. It just doesn't have the best supporting cast right now on the MPX bus. Too many people fail to realize Computing is a SUM Parts affair. The Proc has to mate with the Mainboard and periphery. The G4 is a very elegant chip what gives PC's an advantage moreso is the Mainboards are faster coupled with slightly faster procs.
[quote] OK, the G4 has a better IPC than IA32 CPUs, but not vastly better or enough to make up the clock cycle/bandwidth deficit. A short pipeline may give it an advantage, but these are outweighted by higher clock rates, more units, better bandwidth, etc... (I should have been clearer the first time <hr></blockquote>
Heheheh I totally agree. Design tradeoffs are the name of the game. I was skeptical that Intel would succeed with the P4 but once again Chipzilla roars it's head. Watching Processor companies compete is like watching slow motion sports. Intel right now is breaking into the lead but AMD and IBM are on an intercept path. Stay tuned
[quote] and is the way my university is going. (With Dells, by the way).
<hr></blockquote>
Oooh driven like a stake through my heart <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I tend to think Apple has something decent coming. Soon mainboards will be moving to Hypertransport and RIo. And we'll all wonder why we spent SO much time bitching about DDR busses. That's the nature of Geekdom folks. You know we wouldn't have it any other way
That is a good point. The power lines are clearly near the end of their current incarnations. I would be surprised if they last 4 more months in light of this mornings announcements. Comparing these machines to a P4 (which is only 1 year into it's latest incarnation) does place the G4 at a disadvantage.
I reckon any benchmarking against PC's will now need to be done will Dual 3Ghz P4's as well.
The chip probably won't be as high in Mhz as the super long piped Intel jobbies but it won't need to be as it will be so much more efficient.
Alf.
[swapped faster for more efficient as faster might indicate Mhz and not what counts]
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: alfredh ]</p>
IGNORANCE OF CUSTOMER NEEDS
Back in the time of the iMac Rev B, Macintosh users were crying out for a larger screen. While the 15? was adequate, it could not nearly compete with the PC world, in which 17? had become the standard. It took Apple Computer 4+ years to introduce the eMac.
Apple chose to focus their efforts on case design and color, instead of hardware advancement. Which, in the short term, made them a great deal of money.
But it makes one wonder how many more sales Apple would?ve made if the 17? CRT product were introduced earlier.
LIMITED PRODUCT SELECTION
Apple seems to be in a constant state of perpetual product-line modification. They cannot seem to decide whether they should have a six-product matrix, a ?good?, ?better?, ?best? lineup, or how many options to make configurable on each machine.
For instance, Apple currently offers 4 models of video cards in its lineup: GeForce 2MX, GeForce 4MX, GeForce 4Ti, ATI 9000.
But only one of these cards is available for less than $1700.00 (GF2). If you want a GF4, you must purchase either an iMac for $2000.00, or a PowerMac for $1700.00. If you want an ATI card, that price goes up to $2500.00(preconfigured). Want the GF4Ti? It?ll cost you $5000.00 (preconfigured).
The issue becomes even more outlandish when one considers that the GeForce 2MX 32MB that Apple uses in its $1700.00 and under computers retails for about $60.00. Their GeForce 4MX 32MB retails for about $110.00, but if you want to upgrade the graphics capability of your entry-level iMac (700), it?ll cost you $700.00 for that $110.00 card.
DENOUMENT
Apple computer chooses to follow a business model that yields plenty of liquid assets. It has been very successful.
However, $4 billion does not equate to an increase in market share. Nor does it guarantee representation in classrooms around the world.
My $0.02,
-theMagius
ok mr. hmurchison smart guy - I speak with authority when I say Intel has more electrical engineers than Software Engineers in head count. Don't venture - your wrong. As for merced being an isolated instance: so is OSX. You speak over that which you do not know. Again, in simple english: it cannot be said that designing hardware vs. designing software is easier or harder, faster or slower, or that it requires more people or less people - it depends on the project. simple as that. There is no global rule.
"Nvidia, ATI and almost any company that has HW that requires drivers will have more software Engineers on staff than hardware. My point still stands...and strong."
the only thing that stands strong is your ignorance. Your blanket statements show the little you actually know about the industry. Just slow down tiger. Why don't you take a trip down San Thomas and stop at Intel and Nvidia (which is practically across the street, in case you didn't know), and politely ask them how many EE's and programmers they have in each company, and then ask "excuse me, which is harder - software or hardware?" - or - why don't you just shut the fck up?
<strong>Want the GF4Ti? It?ll cost you $5000.00 (preconfigured).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, let's take a look at that, shall we? I just bought a new dual 1 GHz tower with a GeForce 4 Ti. I sure as hell didn't pay $5000 for it, I didn't even pay HALF that for it. Why bother making that point when you know the Ti card can be BTO on any model Power Mac?
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've always considered it a GOOD thing when companies give you options like that. I don't really see how it can be twisted into being a "bad" thing.
\t Is apple just going to stop you from booting into it? OR Is there going to be new hardware that can't boot into it. The later makes much more sense. A new year a new CPU.
\tIBM seems to be the best bet for the origin of the new CPU.
\tWhat facts do we know about this chip they are supposedly working on. The desktop version of the Power4? Maybe this is the light?
OF course they do. Everyone has or needs "hope", a pity however that all the hoping in the world will not produce results.
Of late there has been a negative vibe about Apple's prospects for growth and prosperity. Apple needs this or that in order to beat Intel, Redmond etc.
The fact remains that Apple for better or worse competes in a little domain that as a corporate entity appears to be content to control.
Yes, SJ has stated that Apple wants 10% of the market and the "Switch" advertising campaign is designed to get new users to consider Apple products over the competition. With all that said Apple cannot exist as a large monolithic corporation like Dell, Microsoft, IBM, and others.
Apple's entire corporate culture is centered around being small and it is not accustumed to being a "mainstream" player in the marketplace. Too much of what makes Apple what it is as a business is the atomosphere of being the small-fry in the large pond.
It applauds itself on innovative thinking and executing risky strategy. It is by these things that Apple Computer measures its success. One need not look past its products to see what influences the design and function of their machines. Performance, is to Apple a part of the equasion to making products elegant, and true to their form and function.
So what is Apple's next killer product? What does it need to do to stay ahead?
I know it is in the cards that Apple will build machines for the corporate space and extend their reach into the creative fields where they still wield considerable influence.
The education market for Apple was lost when the economy downturned. Too many constrained budgets and the continued opinion of purchasers that Apple computers are too expensive will knock the Macintosh out of race for education dollars.
Expect to hear more "bad" news from this front for a few more months.
However, the corporate space is still wide-open. Seems doubtful to many I'm sure, but I have alot of supporting evidence from peers who work at Redmond that their employer was dealt a crippling blow last week and their hold on the corporate market is waning by each fiscal quarter.
Apple being the clever little entity that it is smelled blood in the corporate waters a year ago, they radically shifted alot of strategies to create products that fit that market. The XServe is the first. Expect more.
Expect Apple to execute more services based products and enhancements that will support education, hardware will not immediately be the driving force but that will be part of the larger plan further down the road.
I fear my vauge clues are the result of my sources being somewhat close-mouthed. However my pals as Microsoft are ranting considerably. Go Figure...
1) The obvious one, this PC costs the same as an iMac LCD 700mhz model, it has 1.5 to 2x the performance in the apps I use (Cinema 4d and Cubase SX), not as the imac, but Apples Top of the range DUAL 1.25
2) Apples lack of visibility. I wanted to get the Dual 867 to start with, but I guestimate that no worthwhile processor upgrades will be available for 1-2 years. And when it is, it will cost 3/4 the amount of a new machine! I have no clue as to when a decent highend 3d card might ship, I have no Idea what the PPC roadmap from Apple/IBM/Moto will be for the next week, let alone the next 2 years. There is no word from Apple that things might improve in any area whatsoever. Nada. Nothing. There is no word on next gen tech, ie RIO, Power4 etc. You could guess that everything will come good at MWSF2003, but I bummed that guess 2 years ago.
My reasons for PC.
=================
Id bet damn well I can rip out the MP2000XP's in my new PC after 6-9 months and replace them with MP3000's. I know that the Athlon range is moving to '0.13 512k L2 Barton' processors soon. I know that 64bit Hammer is coming out in 1h03. I can plan my purchases accordingly.
I know damn well I can go to any computer shop in the UK and find stuff I need.
I know I can replace my ATI9700 card with something better when available, without paying a huge premium for the same hardware with mac drivers. I'll also get it 6 months before the mac version eventually ships.
I know I can replace any part of my machine that became obsolete without having to buy a new computer.
I know damn well that winXP Pro is good enough for what I wish to do.
Reasons for Mac.
----------------
Well, Id like to keep using MacOS. Thats about it really.
So now, you might want to say STFU and go buy a PC, but well I already did. I am not trying to troll, flame me if you want, but I have too many concerns with staying with Apple after all that was promised over the last 5 years. It might not be all their fault, but I personally am not going to pay through the nose anymore for someone elses business incompetence, be it Apple/Moto or IBM's. Ill take the safe and cheap option thankyou very much.
BTW, this new things got a really great looking case.
[ 09-10-2002: Message edited by: MarcUK ]</p>
"alot of supporting evidence from peers who work at Redmond that their employer was dealt a crippling blow last week and their hold on the corporate market is waning by each fiscal quarter."<hr></blockquote>
You have to at least give a hint. Anything to do with Linux and IBM??
Can't argue with you. Sure wish you would email this post to Apple and let them know.
Wish any other switchers from Mac to Windows would also email Apple such well reasoned explanations. Might have an effect.
Not knowing the roadmap is frustratiing.
This complete silence is making me uneasy! All Apple has to say is we plan to switch over to IBM next year or something. I don't feel like apple knows what it's doing when they wont tell us anything.
<strong>Matsu is the only one here who seems to get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sometimes I think Matsu needs to take a chill pill....