I'd hardly call a seasoned 'insider' vet' like Matsu a 'whiner'.
A lot of apple watchers on many of these type of boards are fed up with the poor value of the 'power'Macs and the tardy cpu upgrading of the 'power'Mac line. I wanna see Apple do well. And in many ways they are.
However, their hardware specs are P*SS POOR!
"I wonder how Apple got $4,000,000,000 in cash in the bank. "
By selling 'p*ss' poor specs in plastic cases at a whopping premium perhaps?
Is there a way to move this diatribe about the relative inadequacies of Apple's current hardware and splice it into a thread on the current hardware boards?
I'd hardly call a seasoned 'insider' vet' like Matsu a 'whiner'.
A lot of apple watchers on many of these type of boards are fed up with the poor value of the 'power'Macs and the tardy cpu upgrading of the 'power'Mac line. I wanna see Apple do well. And in many ways they are.
However, their hardware specs are P*SS POOR!
"I wonder how Apple got $4,000,000,000 in cash in the bank. "
By selling 'p*ss' poor specs in plastic cases at a whopping premium perhaps?
Lemon Bon Bon
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been more than happy to help them amass their cash and will continue.
Yes, let's have more inside info and/or speculation on FireWire 2. This excites me as much as G5s or Jaguar. If (probably only if) the other stuff comes, FireWire 2 will take Apple places.
<strong>Don't like it don't buy it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact he does not.
I tend to agree with you Lemon, although you sound a little pessimistic... I personally think that Apple is building some really good machines (compared to the Wintel world on a price/performance ratio - Apple's design will always be a winner) right now. The problem is, none of those machines is a desktop system. Ti PowerBooks and iBooks (and iPods) are really something no competitor can offer. For the past three years I've never owned a desktop Mac (although I'd love to have a nice Flower Power iMac + h/k to use as a juke box - that's soooo hippy! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ) and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to - at least for the foreseeable future... Hell, Diablo II runs like sh*t on my Ti666 - but it runs perfectly on an old PIII 800!
I know, gamers are not probably the target Apple has in mind for the UnderPowerMac line - but we're not all video artists... Or are we? Anyway, just my .02...
I'd hardly call a seasoned 'insider' vet' like Matsu a 'whiner'.
A lot of apple watchers on many of these type of boards are fed up with the poor value of the 'power'Macs and the tardy cpu upgrading of the 'power'Mac line. I wanna see Apple do well. And in many ways they are.
However, their hardware specs are P*SS POOR!
"I wonder how Apple got $4,000,000,000 in cash in the bank. "
By selling 'p*ss' poor specs in plastic cases at a whopping premium perhaps?
Lemon Bon Bon
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
[rant]
Sounds like you should buy an Athlon... go ahead buy an athlon... then you can run WINDOWS or LINUX or another version of WINDOWS that is slightly different, or another version of linux..
but forget about all the cool free things that make a mac great like the iApps or an operating system TESTED on humans not programmers. And hardware matched to the software, and device conflicts, and all the other crap that goes along with buying a COMMODITY BOX from someone who has never worked on an operating system.
Sorry for the rant but you can not have it all. You can not have power parity with the PC unless you pay for it. Those PC companies work 24hrs a day to get more performance out of their huge grey/black boxes because they dont have to write any software. So accept a slower more usable machine or keep whining and dreaming.
Take the f*&$ing Pepsi challenge (or vote with your feet as they say)... I do every day, Im a windows programmer, but when I want to relax and do ANYTHING relating to multi-media (incl. simply mp3's or i'net radio) i go to my mac because I dont want to fight my computer when I dont have to. I'm sure their are Athlon message boards dying for someone to say 'Athlongs rock because their fast'.
gee wiz guys! WTH? <-- My new obscenity free abreviation, think Heck.
Anyway, when people start with the whole 'market-share doesn't matter, and even if it does, product offerings (and prices) don't affect that, they'll be just fine as they are, go buy a PC see if I care,' infinite apologists loop, what can you do but point out that clearly product decisions over the last decade and a half have consistently reduced market-share, and that as far as platform viability is concerned Market-share certainly does matter.
Is apple going to die? NO But they may not be the company/platform you currently enjoy if trends continue to their ultimate conclusion.
If we're going to talk about CPU tech, then lets do that. I don't care if the CPU is very deeply piped and runs at a gazillion GHz, or if it's very efficient and hugely parallel and does a gazillion things with comparatively few Mhz.
Look at the prospectus for X86 (Wintelon) vs PPC.
IBM uses the best fab tech on any currently shipping CPU -- Copper interconnect, SOI, Low K, .13u -- but they do it to an architecture that's a little long in the tooth -- no SIMD, so-so FPU/int, NO Book-E compliance. Their process tech is currently state of the art, but their choice of CPU core is a little old. GREAT embedded part, good laptop part, doesn't cut it for a desk-top.
Motorola makes a better PPC, on a slightly old fab tech. Yes, they use copper and SOI, but they're still fabbing at .18. Not good considering die size is the quickest way to get a cooler faster cheaper chip. They're mapping .13u. They have FSB problems whichg need to be fixed and also have so-so FP function. By numbers I don't think their FP performance is so bad, but they don't have the megahertz to make it run with x86. Athlons and P3/4's at the same speed return similar FP from what I've seen benchmarked around the net. But they have the best SIMD on the planet, and when the software uses it they can hang in there. Think FCP versus premier on the mac, think mac versus PC on premier, see trend. Think DVD encoding. Altivec, seems to work pretty well. A G4 on a .13u fab (with it's commensurate clock increase), a true 266Mhz FSB, and perhaps an extra FPU would make a pretty good chip.
But what has Moto been talking about, HiP7? .13u fab goodness. Is it coming to a G4? Maybe, but they haven't got it mapped out yet, that's just for 85xx ('g5'ish, Book-E parts) ATM. Is this Book-E part ever going to arrive? Will the G4 ever get a modern FSB or die-size?
It seems we need both much and little for a better PPC spec sheet. It's got to be something a little hard to work out, or we all be playing on it already.
Now look at wintelon. Intel. They're talking about .09u, not .13u (which they already use) or .11, they're talking .09! When? by the end of '03. Moto might have it's .13u part ready to go for '03, but I doubt they're going to be ready to go to .09 within 12 months of that. Now, we know that copper (especially on SOI) is cooler & more efficient than Aluminum at a given die size so we should be willing to spot PPC a nanometer or two worth of fab, but .09 is going to make for some VERY small transistors/chips. Intel's talking 1MB L2, on chip! And 6MB backside L2! And unlike Mot or IBM, Intel delivers product at a very fast pace, if they demo it, it might be a few weeks late, they might miss/fugde a release date a bit, but it gets out there. How long ago was it that IBM was talking about 2Ghz PPC's ?
If, by year's end, mac's are using PPC's a whopping 50% faster than current parts, Apple mat still find itself just as far behind, if not more (through 2003).
I am somewhat in the middle here. Apple has the greatest OS ever in OS X. The ease of use, looks, and overall stability are great. Over the past few weeks, I have had more windows OS problems that I have ever had with my Macs since I first bought an LC. However, I need processing power and the current AMDs are just more powerful and cheaper. I guess that when you buy an Apple, you pay more for the problem free OS and less hassles than a pc. The pcs only way to compete is to make it faster, cheaper, hold more drives, etc.
I would really like Apple to come close in performance at least. In the back of my mind, I keep hoping for a 'G5' with a speedy FSB, DDR2700, more pci slots, AGP 8x etc. But I don't believe this will happen, not anytime soon at least.
I really need to buy a new Mac as my B&W 400 with stock Rage card can't cut it anymore. I hope Apple will surprise me come MWNY. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
So, so reply. Typical retort. I put forth the many positives of Apple's fine software and design work. I know all that already. They're doing many things right and clearly that's stemming the tide for now. But they've got to get their house in order regarding using components that are plainly out of date. Not the only component for growth...but a significant factor in getting many of the other 95% to come over.
You can defend out of date ram. Out of date bus. Out of date processor. Ridiculously high price and no monitor. But it's apologetic.
So, in the 'future' I'd like to see them adopt ram improvements sooner. Faster chips...bumped sooner. Faster bus...bigger hard drives. Not every six months. Sooner than that.
"In fact he does not."
Yeah. Unfortunately, I'm voting with my wallet. (Though I did buy my wife an ibook because she wanted one. Antiquainted rage card/g3 an' all...) Nice laptop. Specs. Weak. (Were when I bought last December...)
ZoSo. A reasonable reply. Apple's getting away with it in laptops. The design here is quite superb. But once that novelty wears off, they've got to be competitive on specs. Apple have a habit of coming out with great design hits like the Powerbook and ibook but fail to build upon their initial sales impact by letting 'specs' languish for too long, sales decline and they're back to square one needing another 'home run'. Recent sales figures bare this out. The lap tops aren't selling as well as they did previously.
Matsu. Blistering ripost to the apologetic naysayers. You said it all.
When Id's chief programmer publicly deconstructs Apple's 'photoshop test' diatribe...you know Apple are putting a brave face on the cpu situation.
Okay. Let's talk 'future hardware' (and the problems of Apple's current desktop hardware is inextricably linked to future hardware...)
Apple has had several years since the '500' mhz debacle to put things right. In three years we've seen 'moderate' improvement.
I'd like to see Macworld New York given a miss if all they can do is dual 1.2 g4s on DDR at 266. Poor. Very poor.
Quietly make them dual across the line now. Drop the prices further as an interim measure...and bring forward the 'probable' (in my mind...) San Fran 2003 launch of the 'next gen' 7500 with Rapid Io to October 2002. At least look like they're trying.
Languishing. That's how I describe the 'power'Macs. The best think to have happend to them in the last year or so? Nvidia and the Superdrive.
Apple should be busting a gut to bring 'future' hardware to us. My perception is that their pace of change is leisurely. Six months between bumping a bit of ram, a hard drive spec or a cpu is poor. Many analysts site Apple's product ramps as ongoing problem. I think Apple's willful use of old tech' is hurting their sales.
(Look how long it took to get the Nividia 'Titanium' shipping... Apple seem to have a persistent problem of being unable to deliver the latest specs in their computers. Where is all that R & D spend going? Flower Power designs?)
Bring on something special. A real performance 'engine' and weak IT economy or not, people will buy in droves. I will.
<strong>gee wiz guys! WTH? <-- My new obscenity free abreviation, think Heck.
Anyway, when people start with the whole 'market-share doesn't matter, and even if it does, product offerings (and prices) don't affect that, they'll be just fine as they are, go buy a PC see if I care,' infinite apologists loop, what can you do but point out that clearly product decisions over the last decade and a half have consistently reduced market-share, and that as far as platform viability is concerned Market-share certainly does matter.
I feel that way too. I may come across as a 'mac' basher. Not so. I'm a reluctant x86 guy at the moment. I'm dying to buy POWERmac. But the current desktops are weak. I know. Apple knows it. Mark Rogers of Apple UK knows it. Macuser KNOWS it!!! (See their latest issue...)
Why else are 'power'Mac sales slooooooooooooow?
P*ss poor specs for too much money. You can get a decent x86 computer for £1000. You shouldn't have to spend twice that for half the spec, half the speed and the privilage of running 'X'.
"Apple has the greatest OS ever in OS X."
Yes. They have. And it's only going to get better. But they've got to start thinking bigger re: performance if they're serious about the 3D/workstation/performance market. Quartz Extreme cannot compensate for out of date specs at a premium price.
"The ease of use, looks, and overall stability are great."
You don't have to tell me
"Over the past few weeks, I have had more windows OS problems that I have ever had with my Macs since I first bought an LC."
I hear you. I KNOW what you mean. I've had more probs on the PC than I ever had using my recently departed POWERmac (it was when I bought it...)
"However, I need processing power and the current AMDs are just more powerful and cheaper."
Yeah. Get the job done quicker which is what it is ultimately about. You can have 'ease of use' all you like. But when it comes down to waiting for that 3D render to finish...
"I guess that when you buy an Apple, you pay more for the problem free OS and less hassles than a pc. The pcs only way to compete is to make it faster, cheaper, hold more drives, etc."
I don't accept this. It wasn't that long ago that AMD was bleeding cash, looked ready for a merger with Moto'...or anybody(!) and bet the farm on 'Athlon'. It paid off. Eventually. So I can't believe that Apple with more cash in the bank haven't take 'future' hardware moves to resolve the problem. Moto' made noises about the G5 over two years ago circa 1999. The impression was that it would have been here THIS year. SO, WHERE THE HELL IS IT?!
"I would really like Apple to come close in performance at least."
That's my point. All things 'being equal-ish'. I go Mac. At the moment, the current look of the 'power'Mac looks like disinterest and willful neglect!
"In the back of my mind, I keep hoping for a 'G5' with a speedy FSB, DDR2700, more pci slots, AGP 8x etc. But I don't believe this will happen, not anytime soon at least."
It's the only thing in my mind for my next POWERMAC computer. I don't buy less. Apple's cpu problems are not mine. I'm an Apple customer. Ready to give them the cash. But they have to be competitive.
"I really need to buy a new Mac as my B&W 400 with stock Rage card can't cut it anymore."
My Powermac didn't cut it either anymore. So I got rid of it. An aging OS on an old machine. The machines that ambled along as I hoped in earnest for the 'G5' didn't deserve my cash. Not the stuck at 500mhz G4 with Rage card. Not the Overpriced dual 500mhz, not the 733mhz top end with out of date Geforce 2mx, not the little better dual 800, not the apologetically late dual 1 gig. I want a competitive product. I feel the current hardware is out of date. Fine if you like being shafted. I don't.
It's all too predictable.
I hope Apple will surprise me come MWNY. "
Snap.
If Apple is going to keep the G4 this Summer then at least stick it in a rapid io framework. Do something...nay THINK DIFFERENT.
"gee wiz guys! WTH? <-- My new obscenity free abreviation, think Heck.
Anyway, when people start with the whole 'market-share doesn't matter, and even if it does, product offerings (and prices) don't affect that, they'll be just fine as they are, go buy a PC see if I care,' infinite apologists loop, what can you do but point out that clearly product decisions over the last decade and a half have consistently reduced market-share, and that as far as platform viability is concerned Market-share certainly does matter.
...
As they say, it only hurts 'cause it's true."
And Mithral said:
"Brilliant."
Yeah. I know. I wish I'd a said it. But seriously, Matsu hits home. Apple's behind the curve on a key issue. Bout sums Apple up...so...I'm...
Waiting for the last sacred cow to be Doom III'd. Where's that chainsaw...
Lemon and Matsu my first intention was to come in here and rant at you, your sorely lacking in both moderation and hind site as far as i can see. However without digressing further, you both make a valid point or two. The problem is that your points are directed at Apple.
Apple, short of taking over PPC architecture has no say in the processor roadmaps and manufacturing. The problem if there is one lies with Motorola and IBM. Yes they could do better in production of chips but they haven't. Yet in the past this has all cycled Intel and Windows on top in the MIPS then IBM Moto and Apple with PPC's intro. Well the next generation is not far away and with it will be the next cycle.
One of the things that i believe will happen is that in the future as in the past Apple will innovate not only with plastic but with device support, ie firewire and airport. Those are Apple innovations they not only caught on they are now desktop and laptop standards on good computers in both worlds. That's a decent achievement in my book. What will the next one be?
Apple is doing it's job and making money for it, we are a niche and will be. I'll buy when they release the next one that i want.
MacWorld will be a disappointment to some and every bit of what others want. Will it have a 2.5 gig G5, nope i'll say that, but will we see nothing worth the effort well nope i'll say that too. I am interested in what Apple can do to bring the rest of the motherboard up to speed so it's not choking a 1 gig PPC let alone a 2.2 gig P4 or an XP 2100+(1700 Mhz? 1800) Then i'll hope to see the 2 gig + in januaury so i can buy my 1.6 gig <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
mmmm, i cant wait to run on emulators... yeah.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're thinking software emulator like virtualPC. The item being discussed is a a hardware part of of a PC processor that translates the x86 instructions to RISCish commands that can be executed very quickly. All current X86 PC processors use these "code translators" and of course they are much slower than our "native" PPC design.
*Note the PPC is more efficient I believe in how it handles commands (=less silicon to do the same job). But raw clock speed covers a multitude of sins.
[quote] In a conventional x86 processor like the PIII or the Athlon, x86 instructions make their way from the instruction cache into the decoder, where they're broken down into multiple smaller, more uniform, more easily managed instructions called µops. These µops are actually what the out-of-order execution engine schedules, executes, and retires. As you know if you've read my K7 articles, this instruction translation happens each time an instruction is executed, so it adds a few pipeline stages to the beginning of the processor's basic pipeline. <hr></blockquote>
Comments
I'd hardly call a seasoned 'insider' vet' like Matsu a 'whiner'.
A lot of apple watchers on many of these type of boards are fed up with the poor value of the 'power'Macs and the tardy cpu upgrading of the 'power'Mac line. I wanna see Apple do well. And in many ways they are.
However, their hardware specs are P*SS POOR!
"I wonder how Apple got $4,000,000,000 in cash in the bank. "
By selling 'p*ss' poor specs in plastic cases at a whopping premium perhaps?
Lemon Bon Bon
:eek:
Is there a way to move this diatribe about the relative inadequacies of Apple's current hardware and splice it into a thread on the current hardware boards?
Thanks.
<strong>"A couple of whiners."
I'd hardly call a seasoned 'insider' vet' like Matsu a 'whiner'.
A lot of apple watchers on many of these type of boards are fed up with the poor value of the 'power'Macs and the tardy cpu upgrading of the 'power'Mac line. I wanna see Apple do well. And in many ways they are.
However, their hardware specs are P*SS POOR!
"I wonder how Apple got $4,000,000,000 in cash in the bank. "
By selling 'p*ss' poor specs in plastic cases at a whopping premium perhaps?
Lemon Bon Bon
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I've been more than happy to help them amass their cash and will continue.
Don't like it don't buy it.
<strong>Don't like it don't buy it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In fact he does not.
I tend to agree with you Lemon, although you sound a little pessimistic... I personally think that Apple is building some really good machines (compared to the Wintel world on a price/performance ratio - Apple's design will always be a winner) right now. The problem is, none of those machines is a desktop system. Ti PowerBooks and iBooks (and iPods) are really something no competitor can offer. For the past three years I've never owned a desktop Mac (although I'd love to have a nice Flower Power iMac + h/k to use as a juke box - that's soooo hippy! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> ) and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to - at least for the foreseeable future... Hell, Diablo II runs like sh*t on my Ti666 - but it runs perfectly on an old PIII 800!
I know, gamers are not probably the target Apple has in mind for the UnderPowerMac line - but we're not all video artists... Or are we? Anyway, just my .02...
ZoSo
<strong>"A couple of whiners."
I'd hardly call a seasoned 'insider' vet' like Matsu a 'whiner'.
A lot of apple watchers on many of these type of boards are fed up with the poor value of the 'power'Macs and the tardy cpu upgrading of the 'power'Mac line. I wanna see Apple do well. And in many ways they are.
However, their hardware specs are P*SS POOR!
"I wonder how Apple got $4,000,000,000 in cash in the bank. "
By selling 'p*ss' poor specs in plastic cases at a whopping premium perhaps?
Lemon Bon Bon
:eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
[rant]
Sounds like you should buy an Athlon... go ahead buy an athlon... then you can run WINDOWS or LINUX or another version of WINDOWS that is slightly different, or another version of linux..
but forget about all the cool free things that make a mac great like the iApps or an operating system TESTED on humans not programmers. And hardware matched to the software, and device conflicts, and all the other crap that goes along with buying a COMMODITY BOX from someone who has never worked on an operating system.
Sorry for the rant but you can not have it all. You can not have power parity with the PC unless you pay for it. Those PC companies work 24hrs a day to get more performance out of their huge grey/black boxes because they dont have to write any software. So accept a slower more usable machine or keep whining and dreaming.
Take the f*&$ing Pepsi challenge (or vote with your feet as they say)... I do every day, Im a windows programmer, but when I want to relax and do ANYTHING relating to multi-media (incl. simply mp3's or i'net radio) i go to my mac because I dont want to fight my computer when I dont have to. I'm sure their are Athlon message boards dying for someone to say 'Athlongs rock because their fast'.
At least you could run BeOS easily on an Athlon
[/rant]
my apologies again...
Anyway, when people start with the whole 'market-share doesn't matter, and even if it does, product offerings (and prices) don't affect that, they'll be just fine as they are, go buy a PC see if I care,' infinite apologists loop, what can you do but point out that clearly product decisions over the last decade and a half have consistently reduced market-share, and that as far as platform viability is concerned Market-share certainly does matter.
Is apple going to die? NO But they may not be the company/platform you currently enjoy if trends continue to their ultimate conclusion.
If we're going to talk about CPU tech, then lets do that. I don't care if the CPU is very deeply piped and runs at a gazillion GHz, or if it's very efficient and hugely parallel and does a gazillion things with comparatively few Mhz.
Look at the prospectus for X86 (Wintelon) vs PPC.
IBM uses the best fab tech on any currently shipping CPU -- Copper interconnect, SOI, Low K, .13u -- but they do it to an architecture that's a little long in the tooth -- no SIMD, so-so FPU/int, NO Book-E compliance. Their process tech is currently state of the art, but their choice of CPU core is a little old. GREAT embedded part, good laptop part, doesn't cut it for a desk-top.
Motorola makes a better PPC, on a slightly old fab tech. Yes, they use copper and SOI, but they're still fabbing at .18. Not good considering die size is the quickest way to get a cooler faster cheaper chip. They're mapping .13u. They have FSB problems whichg need to be fixed and also have so-so FP function. By numbers I don't think their FP performance is so bad, but they don't have the megahertz to make it run with x86. Athlons and P3/4's at the same speed return similar FP from what I've seen benchmarked around the net. But they have the best SIMD on the planet, and when the software uses it they can hang in there. Think FCP versus premier on the mac, think mac versus PC on premier, see trend. Think DVD encoding. Altivec, seems to work pretty well. A G4 on a .13u fab (with it's commensurate clock increase), a true 266Mhz FSB, and perhaps an extra FPU would make a pretty good chip.
But what has Moto been talking about, HiP7? .13u fab goodness. Is it coming to a G4? Maybe, but they haven't got it mapped out yet, that's just for 85xx ('g5'ish, Book-E parts) ATM. Is this Book-E part ever going to arrive? Will the G4 ever get a modern FSB or die-size?
It seems we need both much and little for a better PPC spec sheet. It's got to be something a little hard to work out, or we all be playing on it already.
Now look at wintelon. Intel. They're talking about .09u, not .13u (which they already use) or .11, they're talking .09! When? by the end of '03. Moto might have it's .13u part ready to go for '03, but I doubt they're going to be ready to go to .09 within 12 months of that. Now, we know that copper (especially on SOI) is cooler & more efficient than Aluminum at a given die size so we should be willing to spot PPC a nanometer or two worth of fab, but .09 is going to make for some VERY small transistors/chips. Intel's talking 1MB L2, on chip! And 6MB backside L2! And unlike Mot or IBM, Intel delivers product at a very fast pace, if they demo it, it might be a few weeks late, they might miss/fugde a release date a bit, but it gets out there. How long ago was it that IBM was talking about 2Ghz PPC's ?
If, by year's end, mac's are using PPC's a whopping 50% faster than current parts, Apple mat still find itself just as far behind, if not more (through 2003).
As they say, it only hurts 'cause it's true.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
I would really like Apple to come close in performance at least. In the back of my mind, I keep hoping for a 'G5' with a speedy FSB, DDR2700, more pci slots, AGP 8x etc. But I don't believe this will happen, not anytime soon at least.
I really need to buy a new Mac as my B&W 400 with stock Rage card can't cut it anymore. I hope Apple will surprise me come MWNY. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
So, so reply. Typical retort. I put forth the many positives of Apple's fine software and design work. I know all that already. They're doing many things right and clearly that's stemming the tide for now. But they've got to get their house in order regarding using components that are plainly out of date. Not the only component for growth...but a significant factor in getting many of the other 95% to come over.
You can defend out of date ram. Out of date bus. Out of date processor. Ridiculously high price and no monitor. But it's apologetic.
So, in the 'future' I'd like to see them adopt ram improvements sooner. Faster chips...bumped sooner. Faster bus...bigger hard drives. Not every six months. Sooner than that.
"In fact he does not."
Yeah. Unfortunately, I'm voting with my wallet. (Though I did buy my wife an ibook because she wanted one. Antiquainted rage card/g3 an' all...) Nice laptop. Specs. Weak. (Were when I bought last December...)
ZoSo. A reasonable reply. Apple's getting away with it in laptops. The design here is quite superb. But once that novelty wears off, they've got to be competitive on specs. Apple have a habit of coming out with great design hits like the Powerbook and ibook but fail to build upon their initial sales impact by letting 'specs' languish for too long, sales decline and they're back to square one needing another 'home run'. Recent sales figures bare this out. The lap tops aren't selling as well as they did previously.
Matsu. Blistering ripost to the apologetic naysayers. You said it all.
When Id's chief programmer publicly deconstructs Apple's 'photoshop test' diatribe...you know Apple are putting a brave face on the cpu situation.
Okay. Let's talk 'future hardware' (and the problems of Apple's current desktop hardware is inextricably linked to future hardware...)
Apple has had several years since the '500' mhz debacle to put things right. In three years we've seen 'moderate' improvement.
I'd like to see Macworld New York given a miss if all they can do is dual 1.2 g4s on DDR at 266. Poor. Very poor.
Quietly make them dual across the line now. Drop the prices further as an interim measure...and bring forward the 'probable' (in my mind...) San Fran 2003 launch of the 'next gen' 7500 with Rapid Io to October 2002. At least look like they're trying.
Languishing. That's how I describe the 'power'Macs. The best think to have happend to them in the last year or so? Nvidia and the Superdrive.
Apple should be busting a gut to bring 'future' hardware to us. My perception is that their pace of change is leisurely. Six months between bumping a bit of ram, a hard drive spec or a cpu is poor. Many analysts site Apple's product ramps as ongoing problem. I think Apple's willful use of old tech' is hurting their sales.
(Look how long it took to get the Nividia 'Titanium' shipping... Apple seem to have a persistent problem of being unable to deliver the latest specs in their computers. Where is all that R & D spend going? Flower Power designs?)
Bring on something special. A real performance 'engine' and weak IT economy or not, people will buy in droves. I will.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
A week before MWNY. Something is brewing? the announcement of Firewire 2? We shall soon see.
<strong>gee wiz guys! WTH? <-- My new obscenity free abreviation, think Heck.
Anyway, when people start with the whole 'market-share doesn't matter, and even if it does, product offerings (and prices) don't affect that, they'll be just fine as they are, go buy a PC see if I care,' infinite apologists loop, what can you do but point out that clearly product decisions over the last decade and a half have consistently reduced market-share, and that as far as platform viability is concerned Market-share certainly does matter.
...
As they say, it only hurts 'cause it's true.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Brilliant. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
I feel that way too. I may come across as a 'mac' basher. Not so. I'm a reluctant x86 guy at the moment. I'm dying to buy POWERmac. But the current desktops are weak. I know. Apple knows it. Mark Rogers of Apple UK knows it. Macuser KNOWS it!!! (See their latest issue...)
Why else are 'power'Mac sales slooooooooooooow?
P*ss poor specs for too much money. You can get a decent x86 computer for £1000. You shouldn't have to spend twice that for half the spec, half the speed and the privilage of running 'X'.
"Apple has the greatest OS ever in OS X."
Yes. They have. And it's only going to get better. But they've got to start thinking bigger re: performance if they're serious about the 3D/workstation/performance market. Quartz Extreme cannot compensate for out of date specs at a premium price.
"The ease of use, looks, and overall stability are great."
You don't have to tell me
"Over the past few weeks, I have had more windows OS problems that I have ever had with my Macs since I first bought an LC."
I hear you. I KNOW what you mean. I've had more probs on the PC than I ever had using my recently departed POWERmac (it was when I bought it...)
"However, I need processing power and the current AMDs are just more powerful and cheaper."
Yeah. Get the job done quicker which is what it is ultimately about. You can have 'ease of use' all you like. But when it comes down to waiting for that 3D render to finish...
"I guess that when you buy an Apple, you pay more for the problem free OS and less hassles than a pc. The pcs only way to compete is to make it faster, cheaper, hold more drives, etc."
I don't accept this. It wasn't that long ago that AMD was bleeding cash, looked ready for a merger with Moto'...or anybody(!) and bet the farm on 'Athlon'. It paid off. Eventually. So I can't believe that Apple with more cash in the bank haven't take 'future' hardware moves to resolve the problem. Moto' made noises about the G5 over two years ago circa 1999. The impression was that it would have been here THIS year. SO, WHERE THE HELL IS IT?!
"I would really like Apple to come close in performance at least."
That's my point. All things 'being equal-ish'. I go Mac. At the moment, the current look of the 'power'Mac looks like disinterest and willful neglect!
"In the back of my mind, I keep hoping for a 'G5' with a speedy FSB, DDR2700, more pci slots, AGP 8x etc. But I don't believe this will happen, not anytime soon at least."
It's the only thing in my mind for my next POWERMAC computer. I don't buy less. Apple's cpu problems are not mine. I'm an Apple customer. Ready to give them the cash. But they have to be competitive.
"I really need to buy a new Mac as my B&W 400 with stock Rage card can't cut it anymore."
My Powermac didn't cut it either anymore. So I got rid of it. An aging OS on an old machine. The machines that ambled along as I hoped in earnest for the 'G5' didn't deserve my cash. Not the stuck at 500mhz G4 with Rage card. Not the Overpriced dual 500mhz, not the 733mhz top end with out of date Geforce 2mx, not the little better dual 800, not the apologetically late dual 1 gig. I want a competitive product. I feel the current hardware is out of date. Fine if you like being shafted. I don't.
It's all too predictable.
I hope Apple will surprise me come MWNY. "
Snap.
If Apple is going to keep the G4 this Summer then at least stick it in a rapid io framework. Do something...nay THINK DIFFERENT.
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
In my opinion, the best thing that Apple could do for itself is start designing it's own processors, and outsourcing fabbing to either AMD or IBM...
"gee wiz guys! WTH? <-- My new obscenity free abreviation, think Heck.
Anyway, when people start with the whole 'market-share doesn't matter, and even if it does, product offerings (and prices) don't affect that, they'll be just fine as they are, go buy a PC see if I care,' infinite apologists loop, what can you do but point out that clearly product decisions over the last decade and a half have consistently reduced market-share, and that as far as platform viability is concerned Market-share certainly does matter.
...
As they say, it only hurts 'cause it's true."
And Mithral said:
"Brilliant."
Yeah. I know. I wish I'd a said it. But seriously, Matsu hits home. Apple's behind the curve on a key issue. Bout sums Apple up...so...I'm...
Waiting for the last sacred cow to be Doom III'd. Where's that chainsaw...
'It only hurts because it's true...'
Lemon Bon Bon <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
In my opinion, the best thing that Apple could do for itself is start designing it's own processors, and outsourcing fabbing to either AMD or IBM..."
I think one of the best ideas I caught on these boards is the idea of Apple and AMD working to add a PPC decoder to the Octeron/Hammer chip.
If they can add a decoder for an aging x86 architecture, why not for the PPC?
Can Programmer or somebody say why such a thing is technologically improbable? Bet AMD could do with access to another 25 million customers...
(I bet the Hammer would run PPC code faster than a dual 1 gig G4 in emulation...)
Lemon Bon Bon
Apple, short of taking over PPC architecture has no say in the processor roadmaps and manufacturing. The problem if there is one lies with Motorola and IBM. Yes they could do better in production of chips but
One of the things that i believe will happen is that in the future as in the past Apple will innovate not only with plastic but with device support, ie firewire and airport. Those are Apple innovations they not only caught on they are now desktop and laptop standards on good computers in both worlds. That's a decent achievement in my book. What will the next one be?
Apple is doing it's job and making money for it, we are a niche and will be. I'll buy when they release the next one that i want.
MacWorld will be a disappointment to some and every bit of what others want. Will it have a 2.5 gig G5, nope i'll say that, but will we see nothing worth the effort well nope i'll say that too. I am interested in what Apple can do to bring the rest of the motherboard up to speed so it's not choking a 1 gig PPC let alone a 2.2 gig P4 or an XP 2100+(1700 Mhz? 1800) Then i'll hope to see the 2 gig + in januaury so i can buy my 1.6 gig <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>"Lemon Bon Bon/Matsu, unfortunately I have to agree with you...
In my opinion, the best thing that Apple could do for itself is start designing it's own processors, and outsourcing fabbing to either AMD or IBM..."
I think one of the best ideas I caught on these boards is the idea of Apple and AMD working to add a PPC decoder to the Octeron/Hammer chip.
If they can add a decoder for an aging x86 architecture, why not for the PPC?
Can Programmer or somebody say why such a thing is technologically improbable? Bet AMD could do with access to another 25 million customers...
(I bet the Hammer would run PPC code faster than a dual 1 gig G4 in emulation...)
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
mmmm, i cant wait to run on emulators... yeah.
<strong>
mmmm, i cant wait to run on emulators... yeah.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're thinking software emulator like virtualPC. The item being discussed is a a hardware part of of a PC processor that translates the x86 instructions to RISCish commands that can be executed very quickly. All current X86 PC processors use these "code translators" and of course they are much slower than our "native" PPC design.
*Note the PPC is more efficient I believe in how it handles commands (=less silicon to do the same job). But raw clock speed covers a multitude of sins.
[quote] In a conventional x86 processor like the PIII or the Athlon, x86 instructions make their way from the instruction cache into the decoder, where they're broken down into multiple smaller, more uniform, more easily managed instructions called µops. These µops are actually what the out-of-order execution engine schedules, executes, and retires. As you know if you've read my K7 articles, this instruction translation happens each time an instruction is executed, so it adds a few pipeline stages to the beginning of the processor's basic pipeline. <hr></blockquote>