Please don't bother with the "Macs stay useful for longer periods of time" argument because it just doesn't wash. People don't buy new systems because their old one stopped working. They buy new systems because they believe there is a compelling reason to do so.
I disagree. A huge part of people buying new computers are people whose Windows registry has been corrupted in some way (go figure,) and they believe that either it's too old or the hardware is somehow broken. Over and over and over and over ($$$$$.) Every time they think they are getting a deal! lol
Do you have a link or quote? Not that I doubt you, but I hadn't heard that, and I'd love to see something new.
[edit] Also, I would be willing to bet that IBM's intention is not to limit the possibilities of potential buyers, but simply to protect any IP or marketing rights. As such, if Company X came to IBM and wanted to design a 3 core, 90nm PPC 97x with on chip memory controlers and ultra wide-fast caches, IBM would not turn them away, no matter how similar that was to MS's XBox chip. IBM simply wouldn't list the 976 as a preconfigured option for everyone to choose. [/edit]
Hm, so maybe I extrapolated some of that info in dreamworld, since I for sure can't find anything that's written in words on this issue again, now. But at least, the roadmap says nothing about further designs, just "custom designs" in the path of the 9XX class.
I'll eat any crow if somebody prove me wrong, however. :-)
I disagree. A huge part of people buying new computers are people whose Windows registry has been corrupted in some way (go figure,) and they believe that either it's too old or the hardware is somehow broken. Over and over and over and over ($$$$$.) Every time they think they are getting a deal! lol
I was one of those. I had my Gateway for about 3 years. The Windows registry was corrupted and some type of virus downloaded itself on my system then somehow installed programs that completely destroyed my system. I tried re-loading Windows and that did not work. I had been holding off on buying an iMac, but that finally threw me over the edge sooner. I wanted to wait for the new iMac model.
I also had so many pop-us with my system browser even after I installed software to stop pop-ups. I love my iMac, I don't understand why people say they are outdated. The OSX just kicks. It takes a little time to get use to the OSX operating system. But it rocks and kicks. I not sure Grandma and Grandpa can handle the change from Windows to OSX. Most people don't like change even if it is for the better. One thing that is very interesting about the difference between Mac and Wintel user: Wintel users have been brainwashed into believing that Wintel is better because everyone uses it, the herd theory of behavior. But Wintel users are not passionate about their systems. On the other hand, many Mac users will go down fighting for their passion in Mac and OSX. I now proudly tell me friends about my rocking iMac and OSX.
I have been a shareholder in Apple before an owner of a Mac. When I see articles saw articles that were critical of Mac market share it made me very nervous, thinking that maybe they were not that good if the market share was not higher or maybe that Apple might go out of business. Now, I fear no more because I have experienced and I know.
I hate to say this but your experiences hav little to do with Apple going out of the Mac business or not. That is simply a matter of market share and how it supports their business model. Not enough sales to support the business structure and bye bye goes the mac.
It is absolutely critical for Apples success for them to work at increasing sales and aquiring market share. It really makes little difference how good technically the OS and hardware is, if to few are being sold the business will collapse. This isn't rocket science, there are other examples of businesses in other sectors that are dealling with massive drop off in sales.
The question becomes is a market that generates less the 200,000 in sales a quarter of PowerMacs sustainable. Mind you you have to realize that this is world wide. Think about things like software development, how many business can survive developing software for a market that small and shrinking? It is a bit silly to bother with software development for a platform that cna not generate enough sales to cover the expense of running your company. Without software the PowerMac is nothing more than a heap of highly processed silicon.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by gensor
I was one of those. I had my Gateway for about 3 years. The Windows registry was corrupted and some type of virus downloaded itself on my system then somehow installed programs that completely destroyed my system. I tried re-loading Windows and that did not work. I had been holding off on buying an iMac, but that finally threw me over the edge sooner. I wanted to wait for the new iMac model.
I also had so many pop-us with my system browser even after I installed software to stop pop-ups. I love my iMac, I don't understand why people say they are outdated. The OSX just kicks. It takes a little time to get use to the OSX operating system. But it rocks and kicks. I not sure Grandma and Grandpa can handle the change from Windows to OSX. Most people don't like change even if it is for the better. One thing that is very interesting about the difference between Mac and Wintel user: Wintel users have been brainwashed into believing that Wintel is better because everyone uses it, the herd theory of behavior. But Wintel users are not passionate about their systems. On the other hand, many Mac users will go down fighting for their passion in Mac and OSX. I now proudly tell me friends about my rocking iMac and OSX.
I have been a shareholder in Apple before an owner of a Mac. When I see articles saw articles that were critical of Mac market share it made me very nervous, thinking that maybe they were not that good if the market share was not higher or maybe that Apple might go out of business. Now, I fear no more because I have experienced and I know.
I hate to say this but your experiences hav little to do with Apple going out of the Mac business or not. That is simply a matter of market share and how it supports their business model. Not enough sales to support the business structure and bye bye goes the mac.
What business structure? If you're talking about Enterprise and Small Biz then that's a different scenario as Apple has never had any decent marketshare here so any gains here are gravy.
Quote:
The question becomes is a market that generates less the 200,000 in sales a quarter of PowerMacs sustainable. Mind you you have to realize that this is world wide. Think about things like software development, how many business can survive developing software for a market that small and shrinking? It is a bit silly to bother with software development for a platform that cna not generate enough sales to cover the expense of running your company. Without software the PowerMac is nothing more than a heap of highly processed silicon.
Why the mypic view. Should we really be looking "just" Powermac sales or should we attempt to actually realize that some users prefer notebooks and bring Powerbook sales into the equation? Apple will not live or die with the Powermac. Apple has been saying for a couple years now that they have always expected the Powermacs to taper off in lieu of users moving to the benefits of Powerbooks. They call the newest Powerbooks "Desktop Replacements" for nothing.
You've hit the point that means the most for future sales. It isn't about Powermac sales per qtr it's about Applications. Hardware doesn't provide the same "lock in" opportunity that software does (Thus don't expect iTunes to open up to different DRM and vice versa). Cross platform apps are an anathema to Apple. Apple needs apps like Final Cut Pro, popular and only available on the Mac. 3rd party developers are simply not going to be able to finance a single platform application like Apple can.
It's obvious what Apple needs to do.
1. Reclaim it's standing in education. There's no reason why they should allow schools to foist Dulls on everyone. Powerschool seems to have made no impact. Get something going here.
2. Develop an Apple Enterprise strategy that allows a company to run the core essentials using Apple tools. This puts Apple directly in competition with MS but that has to happen eventually.
3. Continue to push forward in Content Creation. In 5 years 20% of what we see or hear on TV should have been partially created by an Apple solution.
Apple will not live or die with the Powermac. Apple has been saying for a couple years now that they have always expected the Powermacs to taper off in lieu of users moving to the benefits of Powerbooks. They call the newest Powerbooks "Desktop Replacements" for nothing.
Love it or hate it, Apple IS the Macintosh. Power, Portable, doesn't matter. The desktop workhorse is the flag-bearer.
They have begun saying that when Moto started following Murphy's law instead of Moore's (to cite Amorph). Nevertheless their portables are simply great. Good for them, and for us (I love my iBook G4). But the i386 world didn't stand still, Centrino is a reality, and it is so good that Intel has deicded to use it everywhere, and in 2007 the server, dektop and laptop technologies will converge upon it.
Sitting on the portable's laurels will buy no bread.
1. Reclaim it's standing in education. There's no reason why they should allow schools to foist Dulls on everyone. Powerschool seems to have made no impact. Get something going here.
[/B]
Bad news, education can no longer support music and athletic programs. When it comes to the computer labs, price is king. While some teachers are clamoring to hang on to the beloved Macs, (change is hard for anyone), Band directors are looking for other work. Teachers better be glad they still have computers in the budget. Hight profile cases like Main aside, Apple has been losing ground since the introduction of the iMac 2. Schools have a different economic reality. Apple does not. For education, they need better price, not better product.
Quote:
[i]
2. Develop an Apple Enterprise strategy that allows a company to run the core essentials using Apple tools. This puts Apple directly in competition with MS but that has to happen eventually.
[/B]
What types of business are you referring to? Most of the places I have worked use cheap Gateway and Dell system that use generations old technology. Now, they have to have network solutions to run all those cheap terminals. But it seems to me that it starts with the 400-500 terminals they have to install. Apple does not offer a cheap terminal solution. They may have great server solutions but why would a company try to make an Apple server solution work for their cheap Wintels? I don't know much about this market. But it seems to me that until Apple offers a cheap terminal for the average dolt in the company, then their enterprise strategy is only half full, and it's the wrong half.
Quote:
[i]
3. Continue to push forward in Content Creation. In 5 years 20% of what we see or hear on TV should have been partially created by an Apple solution. [/B]
Again, this seems to be an area where Apple has lost ground, not gained it. When I first started looking at DAWs, Macs were the only serious choice for pros. Now, they are not. In fact, as computing power gets more affordable, Wintel solutions make more sense for more people because they can do pro work on a tighter budget. Suddenly, Photoshop and the Mac are not the only winning combo in print. Final Cut is nice. But guess where you can get the best and most affordable 3D solutions. It is not on the Mac side. 3D is now available for the low budget producer with a fast PC. Apple cannot depend on inertia to hold the pro market. That is what held the print market for so long. Publishers were already heavily invested in the Mac. In fact, inertia kept them from upgrading to OS X. Now that some of their systems have to be replaced and change is inevitable, they are free to look at the PC for their next solution.
Apple still can win in these markets if they are willing to do what it takes to win. I believe they have to accept the new economic reality and find a better way to keep pace with the times. Also, you failed to mention the one market that could sink them, the consumer market. All of the enterprise, content creation, and education business in the world won't mean spit if they cease to be the computer for the "rest of us". Here is what they need to do.
1. They need to develop an aggressive gaming strategy. They need the equivalent of Direct X. Consumer mentality is if it can't even play games, then what can it do? Apple needs to develop a Mac gaming unit.
2. They need 15" iBooks. The smaller sizes may be good for certain types of professionals, but the average consumer looks at screen size first. With no built in spanning feature, the 12" is just not a serious option for far too many. Just look at the PC notebook offerings. There is no 12" notebook on the PC side. 14" is the absolute smallest in a consumer config. I can't believe that a 15" iBook would cost that much more the the 12". The screens are so cheap and they are industry standard so Apple would be taking advantage of the economy of scale with a more standard sized screen.
3. They need to quit trying to monopolize the display market for their consumers. Their displays are simply not good enough to be the only choices. Headless consumer machine is a must. They have to get more models out the door for under $1000. The new economic and technological realities demand this.
...then again, I could be wrong about all of this.
Bad news, education can no longer support music and athletic programs
Well my Education and Enterprise points must go together. Apple cannot attack Edu until they have a viable software strategy. That's MS's cash cow. Once Apple has the necessary cadre of applications they can give the HW away. Software is always the "lock in"
Quote:
What types of business are you referring to? Most of the places I have worked use cheap Gateway and Dell system that use generations old technology.
Exactly you're catching my drift. Depending on HW is folly. Software software software. Low cost terminals aren't needed. Great applications(stable) with favorable licensing is desired.
Quote:
gain, this seems to be an area where Apple has lost ground, not gained it
Well only if you call a quarter of a million registered FCP installs "losing" ground. FCP is a crown jewel that Apple will be able to print money from. Within two years I'll be running FCP/DVDSP/Motion/Logic/unamed DAW so I'm going to be putting my money where my mouth is. Apple has some nice stuff going. The only "?" is whether rumors of a new DAW(not Logic) is true. There's a slight possibility that Apple will develop a 3D package but that's a little less likely.
I'm liking your thoughts on this MacVoyer. I've been saying for sometime that Apple should create a Game Division. It's great for the hype alone. OpenGL 2.0 should be ready for Tiger. Apple needs to promote it.
Quote:
then again, I could be wrong about all of this
I think you're closer to right than wrong.
Faster and lower cost hardware yes.
More consumer focus..games yes
Grow Content creation. yes
Grow Enterprise yes.
Hit education hard yes.
We finally have the OS for the future. We have capable hardware. Don't get conservative Apple..get agressive. Tell Developers that you need to build the platform so that you must encroach on some of their territory to further it for all.
I don't know if anyone already knows this but some guy in a Lightwave forum mentioned the next mac could have 4 processors. In his own words....
ÒAppleMacRISC4PE.kextÓ is a 4PE (Processor Enabler).
AppleMacRisc2PE.kext is corresponding enebler for 2CPU machines.
If you check the file you can find more things that points to 4 CPU..
So what ya think?
I don't think the next Mac would have 4 processors. Think about what that would require.
4 CPU sockets.
Each CPU(4) would need its own FSP to the Mem Controller
New Memory controller
Motherboard space and complexity.
If the 975 is based on the POWER5 we may have 4 "Logical" processors via having Dual CPU with Simultaneous Multi Threading to each Processor. I'd love that. A kernet extension would probably be needed for even threaded CPU's
Perhaps Programmer or another Code Junkie could tell us more.
Is it possible that the Power5-derivative could be dual core, making a dualie really a quad? 8)
Probably not. The POWER5 has SMT, so we already know that an OS running on a dual POWER5 machine would see 4 logical processors. It only makes sense that there would be a 4 processor enabler.
If this info is right, it really tells me that we'll be seeing 975/980 G5s at WWDC, and maybe we'll get the bump al the way to 3Ghz.
Probably not. The POWER5 has SMT, so we already know that an OS running on a dual POWER5 machine would see 4 logical processors. It only makes sense that there would be a 4 processor enabler.
If this info is right, it really tells me that we'll be seeing 975/980 G5s at WWDC, and maybe we'll get the bump al the way to 3Ghz.
Sorry, but AppleMacRISC4PE has nothing to do with 4 processors.
It's platform expert for G5. Current PMacG5 and XserveG5 already use it.
You can download the source code if you are an ADC member.
# you can join online member free.
Apple haven't released 10.3.4's AppleMacRISC4PE code yet.
Because if they do, we'll know what SMU_Neo2 is.
I'm not denying the possibility of quad logical processors.
I'm glad I did a search for this. But I have a hard time believing Apple is going to put fourth a 4-way crossbar SMP home PC at WWDC.
I think whatever you guys are guessing at is a Shared Memory Unit though.
Quote:
2 Overview of StarT-ng A site in StarT-ng is a commercial PowerPC 620 SMP augmented with special hardware for message-passing and shared memory. The PowerPC 620 is a 64-bit, 4-way superscalar processor with a dedicated 128-bit wide L2 cache interface and a 128-bit wide L3 path to memory. It employs some of the most sophisticated techniques for pipelining instructions and memory management. It also has a novel feature that allows the processor to communicate with coprocessors over its L2 cache interface.
The StarT-ng SMP has 4 processor card slots that are connected to the main memory by a data crossbar. The crossbar has substantially better throughput than a traditional bus. In the commercial version, each processor card contains 2 processors and their L2 caches. StarT-ng replaces one to four of these processor cards with network-endpoint-subsystem (NES) cards, each containing a single 620 processor, 4 MBytes of L2 cache and a network interface unit (NIU). The NIU allows the 620 to communicate with an MIT-developed Arctic network router chip[7]. The StarT-ng system delivered to MIT will have 4 NES boards per site and will have a total of 8 sites.
One of the NES boards at each site has an address capture device (ACD) which allows a designated processor at the site to monitor and respond to bus transactions. When used in this role, a processor is called a service processor(sP); when used to run application code, it is called an application processor (aP). The ACD and sP, collectively called the Shared Memory Unit (SMU), will be used to implement globally shared coherent memory, with coherence controlled at cacheline granularity. The ACD can be disabled when global shared memory is not needed making it completely invisible to the system, allowing all four processors at a site to serve as aPs.
Here is what I want to know.
How come months before MS even decided to use IBM processors in the XBOX2 we were talking about the 976 as an IBM PPC that was a multi-core processor that was presumed to be in a future design of the PowerMac?
Now it's Microsoft's' processor? Did they say their processor was the 976, or is that part of a spill over of the rumor that IBM was making G5's for MS for use in the XBOX2? Cause that is what it sounds like to me.
Comments
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Please don't bother with the "Macs stay useful for longer periods of time" argument because it just doesn't wash. People don't buy new systems because their old one stopped working. They buy new systems because they believe there is a compelling reason to do so.
I disagree. A huge part of people buying new computers are people whose Windows registry has been corrupted in some way (go figure,) and they believe that either it's too old or the hardware is somehow broken. Over and over and over and over ($$$$$.) Every time they think they are getting a deal! lol
Originally posted by Stecs
Symmetric Multiprocessor Unit
Sounds good to me
Originally posted by concentricity
agreed, so let's get back on topic...
"SMU_Neo2" what can we speculate about the SMU part?
System Management Unit
Simple Memory Unit
Strangely Mutilated Underside
Standard Macintosh User
Sounds Mighty Unusual
...which I suspect many of us are if post counts are anything to judge by.
Originally posted by concentricity
Do you have a link or quote? Not that I doubt you, but I hadn't heard that, and I'd love to see something new.
[edit] Also, I would be willing to bet that IBM's intention is not to limit the possibilities of potential buyers, but simply to protect any IP or marketing rights. As such, if Company X came to IBM and wanted to design a 3 core, 90nm PPC 97x with on chip memory controlers and ultra wide-fast caches, IBM would not turn them away, no matter how similar that was to MS's XBox chip. IBM simply wouldn't list the 976 as a preconfigured option for everyone to choose. [/edit]
Piccy piccy
Hm, so maybe I extrapolated some of that info in dreamworld, since I for sure can't find anything that's written in words on this issue again, now. But at least, the roadmap says nothing about further designs, just "custom designs" in the path of the 9XX class.
I'll eat any crow if somebody prove me wrong, however. :-)
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
I disagree. A huge part of people buying new computers are people whose Windows registry has been corrupted in some way (go figure,) and they believe that either it's too old or the hardware is somehow broken. Over and over and over and over ($$$$$.) Every time they think they are getting a deal! lol
I was one of those. I had my Gateway for about 3 years. The Windows registry was corrupted and some type of virus downloaded itself on my system then somehow installed programs that completely destroyed my system. I tried re-loading Windows and that did not work. I had been holding off on buying an iMac, but that finally threw me over the edge sooner. I wanted to wait for the new iMac model.
I also had so many pop-us with my system browser even after I installed software to stop pop-ups. I love my iMac, I don't understand why people say they are outdated. The OSX just kicks. It takes a little time to get use to the OSX operating system. But it rocks and kicks. I not sure Grandma and Grandpa can handle the change from Windows to OSX. Most people don't like change even if it is for the better. One thing that is very interesting about the difference between Mac and Wintel user: Wintel users have been brainwashed into believing that Wintel is better because everyone uses it, the herd theory of behavior. But Wintel users are not passionate about their systems. On the other hand, many Mac users will go down fighting for their passion in Mac and OSX. I now proudly tell me friends about my rocking iMac and OSX.
I have been a shareholder in Apple before an owner of a Mac. When I see articles saw articles that were critical of Mac market share it made me very nervous, thinking that maybe they were not that good if the market share was not higher or maybe that Apple might go out of business. Now, I fear no more because I have experienced and I know.
It is absolutely critical for Apples success for them to work at increasing sales and aquiring market share. It really makes little difference how good technically the OS and hardware is, if to few are being sold the business will collapse. This isn't rocket science, there are other examples of businesses in other sectors that are dealling with massive drop off in sales.
The question becomes is a market that generates less the 200,000 in sales a quarter of PowerMacs sustainable. Mind you you have to realize that this is world wide. Think about things like software development, how many business can survive developing software for a market that small and shrinking? It is a bit silly to bother with software development for a platform that cna not generate enough sales to cover the expense of running your company. Without software the PowerMac is nothing more than a heap of highly processed silicon.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by gensor
I was one of those. I had my Gateway for about 3 years. The Windows registry was corrupted and some type of virus downloaded itself on my system then somehow installed programs that completely destroyed my system. I tried re-loading Windows and that did not work. I had been holding off on buying an iMac, but that finally threw me over the edge sooner. I wanted to wait for the new iMac model.
I also had so many pop-us with my system browser even after I installed software to stop pop-ups. I love my iMac, I don't understand why people say they are outdated. The OSX just kicks. It takes a little time to get use to the OSX operating system. But it rocks and kicks. I not sure Grandma and Grandpa can handle the change from Windows to OSX. Most people don't like change even if it is for the better. One thing that is very interesting about the difference between Mac and Wintel user: Wintel users have been brainwashed into believing that Wintel is better because everyone uses it, the herd theory of behavior. But Wintel users are not passionate about their systems. On the other hand, many Mac users will go down fighting for their passion in Mac and OSX. I now proudly tell me friends about my rocking iMac and OSX.
I have been a shareholder in Apple before an owner of a Mac. When I see articles saw articles that were critical of Mac market share it made me very nervous, thinking that maybe they were not that good if the market share was not higher or maybe that Apple might go out of business. Now, I fear no more because I have experienced and I know.
I hate to say this but your experiences hav little to do with Apple going out of the Mac business or not. That is simply a matter of market share and how it supports their business model. Not enough sales to support the business structure and bye bye goes the mac.
What business structure? If you're talking about Enterprise and Small Biz then that's a different scenario as Apple has never had any decent marketshare here so any gains here are gravy.
The question becomes is a market that generates less the 200,000 in sales a quarter of PowerMacs sustainable. Mind you you have to realize that this is world wide. Think about things like software development, how many business can survive developing software for a market that small and shrinking? It is a bit silly to bother with software development for a platform that cna not generate enough sales to cover the expense of running your company. Without software the PowerMac is nothing more than a heap of highly processed silicon.
Why the mypic view. Should we really be looking "just" Powermac sales or should we attempt to actually realize that some users prefer notebooks and bring Powerbook sales into the equation? Apple will not live or die with the Powermac. Apple has been saying for a couple years now that they have always expected the Powermacs to taper off in lieu of users moving to the benefits of Powerbooks. They call the newest Powerbooks "Desktop Replacements" for nothing.
You've hit the point that means the most for future sales. It isn't about Powermac sales per qtr it's about Applications. Hardware doesn't provide the same "lock in" opportunity that software does (Thus don't expect iTunes to open up to different DRM and vice versa). Cross platform apps are an anathema to Apple. Apple needs apps like Final Cut Pro, popular and only available on the Mac. 3rd party developers are simply not going to be able to finance a single platform application like Apple can.
It's obvious what Apple needs to do.
1. Reclaim it's standing in education. There's no reason why they should allow schools to foist Dulls on everyone. Powerschool seems to have made no impact. Get something going here.
2. Develop an Apple Enterprise strategy that allows a company to run the core essentials using Apple tools. This puts Apple directly in competition with MS but that has to happen eventually.
3. Continue to push forward in Content Creation. In 5 years 20% of what we see or hear on TV should have been partially created by an Apple solution.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple will not live or die with the Powermac. Apple has been saying for a couple years now that they have always expected the Powermacs to taper off in lieu of users moving to the benefits of Powerbooks. They call the newest Powerbooks "Desktop Replacements" for nothing.
Love it or hate it, Apple IS the Macintosh. Power, Portable, doesn't matter. The desktop workhorse is the flag-bearer.
They have begun saying that when Moto started following Murphy's law instead of Moore's (to cite Amorph). Nevertheless their portables are simply great. Good for them, and for us (I love my iBook G4). But the i386 world didn't stand still, Centrino is a reality, and it is so good that Intel has deicded to use it everywhere, and in 2007 the server, dektop and laptop technologies will converge upon it.
Sitting on the portable's laurels will buy no bread.
ZoSo
[i]
1. Reclaim it's standing in education. There's no reason why they should allow schools to foist Dulls on everyone. Powerschool seems to have made no impact. Get something going here.
[/B]
Bad news, education can no longer support music and athletic programs. When it comes to the computer labs, price is king. While some teachers are clamoring to hang on to the beloved Macs, (change is hard for anyone), Band directors are looking for other work. Teachers better be glad they still have computers in the budget. Hight profile cases like Main aside, Apple has been losing ground since the introduction of the iMac 2. Schools have a different economic reality. Apple does not. For education, they need better price, not better product.
[i]
2. Develop an Apple Enterprise strategy that allows a company to run the core essentials using Apple tools. This puts Apple directly in competition with MS but that has to happen eventually.
[/B]
What types of business are you referring to? Most of the places I have worked use cheap Gateway and Dell system that use generations old technology. Now, they have to have network solutions to run all those cheap terminals. But it seems to me that it starts with the 400-500 terminals they have to install. Apple does not offer a cheap terminal solution. They may have great server solutions but why would a company try to make an Apple server solution work for their cheap Wintels? I don't know much about this market. But it seems to me that until Apple offers a cheap terminal for the average dolt in the company, then their enterprise strategy is only half full, and it's the wrong half.
[i]
3. Continue to push forward in Content Creation. In 5 years 20% of what we see or hear on TV should have been partially created by an Apple solution. [/B]
Again, this seems to be an area where Apple has lost ground, not gained it. When I first started looking at DAWs, Macs were the only serious choice for pros. Now, they are not. In fact, as computing power gets more affordable, Wintel solutions make more sense for more people because they can do pro work on a tighter budget. Suddenly, Photoshop and the Mac are not the only winning combo in print. Final Cut is nice. But guess where you can get the best and most affordable 3D solutions. It is not on the Mac side. 3D is now available for the low budget producer with a fast PC. Apple cannot depend on inertia to hold the pro market. That is what held the print market for so long. Publishers were already heavily invested in the Mac. In fact, inertia kept them from upgrading to OS X. Now that some of their systems have to be replaced and change is inevitable, they are free to look at the PC for their next solution.
Apple still can win in these markets if they are willing to do what it takes to win. I believe they have to accept the new economic reality and find a better way to keep pace with the times. Also, you failed to mention the one market that could sink them, the consumer market. All of the enterprise, content creation, and education business in the world won't mean spit if they cease to be the computer for the "rest of us". Here is what they need to do.
1. They need to develop an aggressive gaming strategy. They need the equivalent of Direct X. Consumer mentality is if it can't even play games, then what can it do? Apple needs to develop a Mac gaming unit.
2. They need 15" iBooks. The smaller sizes may be good for certain types of professionals, but the average consumer looks at screen size first. With no built in spanning feature, the 12" is just not a serious option for far too many. Just look at the PC notebook offerings. There is no 12" notebook on the PC side. 14" is the absolute smallest in a consumer config. I can't believe that a 15" iBook would cost that much more the the 12". The screens are so cheap and they are industry standard so Apple would be taking advantage of the economy of scale with a more standard sized screen.
3. They need to quit trying to monopolize the display market for their consumers. Their displays are simply not good enough to be the only choices. Headless consumer machine is a must. They have to get more models out the door for under $1000. The new economic and technological realities demand this.
...then again, I could be wrong about all of this.
Bad news, education can no longer support music and athletic programs
Well my Education and Enterprise points must go together. Apple cannot attack Edu until they have a viable software strategy. That's MS's cash cow. Once Apple has the necessary cadre of applications they can give the HW away. Software is always the "lock in"
What types of business are you referring to? Most of the places I have worked use cheap Gateway and Dell system that use generations old technology.
Exactly you're catching my drift. Depending on HW is folly. Software software software. Low cost terminals aren't needed. Great applications(stable) with favorable licensing is desired.
gain, this seems to be an area where Apple has lost ground, not gained it
Well only if you call a quarter of a million registered FCP installs "losing" ground. FCP is a crown jewel that Apple will be able to print money from. Within two years I'll be running FCP/DVDSP/Motion/Logic/unamed DAW so I'm going to be putting my money where my mouth is. Apple has some nice stuff going. The only "?" is whether rumors of a new DAW(not Logic) is true. There's a slight possibility that Apple will develop a 3D package but that's a little less likely.
I'm liking your thoughts on this MacVoyer. I've been saying for sometime that Apple should create a Game Division. It's great for the hype alone. OpenGL 2.0 should be ready for Tiger. Apple needs to promote it.
then again, I could be wrong about all of this
I think you're closer to right than wrong.
Faster and lower cost hardware yes.
More consumer focus..games yes
Grow Content creation. yes
Grow Enterprise yes.
Hit education hard yes.
We finally have the OS for the future. We have capable hardware. Don't get conservative Apple..get agressive. Tell Developers that you need to build the platform so that you must encroach on some of their territory to further it for all.
ÒAppleMacRISC4PE.kextÓ is a 4PE (Processor Enabler).
AppleMacRisc2PE.kext is corresponding enebler for 2CPU machines.
If you check the file you can find more things that points to 4 CPU..
Search for 8,1 in this file the reference to the new model:
/System/Library/Extensions/AppleMacRISC4PE.kext/
Contents/info.plist
So what ya think?
Originally posted by silvergun
I don't know if anyone already knows this but some guy in a Lightwave forum mentioned the next mac could have 4 processors. In his own words....
ÒAppleMacRISC4PE.kextÓ is a 4PE (Processor Enabler).
AppleMacRisc2PE.kext is corresponding enebler for 2CPU machines.
If you check the file you can find more things that points to 4 CPU..
So what ya think?
I don't think the next Mac would have 4 processors. Think about what that would require.
4 CPU sockets.
Each CPU(4) would need its own FSP to the Mem Controller
New Memory controller
Motherboard space and complexity.
If the 975 is based on the POWER5 we may have 4 "Logical" processors via having Dual CPU with Simultaneous Multi Threading to each Processor. I'd love that. A kernet extension would probably be needed for even threaded CPU's
Perhaps Programmer or another Code Junkie could tell us more.
Originally posted by BRussell
Is it possible that the Power5-derivative could be dual core, making a dualie really a quad? 8)
Probably not. The POWER5 has SMT, so we already know that an OS running on a dual POWER5 machine would see 4 logical processors. It only makes sense that there would be a 4 processor enabler.
If this info is right, it really tells me that we'll be seeing 975/980 G5s at WWDC, and maybe we'll get the bump al the way to 3Ghz.
-OR-
Single Microprocessor Unit
For a new matrix of single chip CPU computers versus the PowerMacs who'll all have dual CPUs
Originally posted by spankalee
Probably not. The POWER5 has SMT, so we already know that an OS running on a dual POWER5 machine would see 4 logical processors. It only makes sense that there would be a 4 processor enabler.
If this info is right, it really tells me that we'll be seeing 975/980 G5s at WWDC, and maybe we'll get the bump al the way to 3Ghz.
Sorry, but AppleMacRISC4PE has nothing to do with 4 processors.
It's platform expert for G5. Current PMacG5 and XserveG5 already use it.
You can download the source code if you are an ADC member.
# you can join online member free.
Apple haven't released 10.3.4's AppleMacRISC4PE code yet.
Because if they do, we'll know what SMU_Neo2 is.
I'm not denying the possibility of quad logical processors.
It's just not related to AppleMacRISC4PE.
Originally posted by no1allowed
SMU - Single-chip Matrix Unit
-OR-
Single Microprocessor Unit
For a new matrix of single chip CPU computers versus the PowerMacs who'll all have dual CPUs
Single-chip Multicore Unit?
Simultaneous Multithreading Unit?
I'm glad I did a search for this. But I have a hard time believing Apple is going to put fourth a 4-way crossbar SMP home PC at WWDC.
I think whatever you guys are guessing at is a Shared Memory Unit though.
2 Overview of StarT-ng A site in StarT-ng is a commercial PowerPC 620 SMP augmented with special hardware for message-passing and shared memory. The PowerPC 620 is a 64-bit, 4-way superscalar processor with a dedicated 128-bit wide L2 cache interface and a 128-bit wide L3 path to memory. It employs some of the most sophisticated techniques for pipelining instructions and memory management. It also has a novel feature that allows the processor to communicate with coprocessors over its L2 cache interface.
The StarT-ng SMP has 4 processor card slots that are connected to the main memory by a data crossbar. The crossbar has substantially better throughput than a traditional bus. In the commercial version, each processor card contains 2 processors and their L2 caches. StarT-ng replaces one to four of these processor cards with network-endpoint-subsystem (NES) cards, each containing a single 620 processor, 4 MBytes of L2 cache and a network interface unit (NIU). The NIU allows the 620 to communicate with an MIT-developed Arctic network router chip[7]. The StarT-ng system delivered to MIT will have 4 NES boards per site and will have a total of 8 sites.
One of the NES boards at each site has an address capture device (ACD) which allows a designated processor at the site to monitor and respond to bus transactions. When used in this role, a processor is called a service processor(sP); when used to run application code, it is called an application processor (aP). The ACD and sP, collectively called the Shared Memory Unit (SMU), will be used to implement globally shared coherent memory, with coherence controlled at cacheline granularity. The ACD can be disabled when global shared memory is not needed making it completely invisible to the system, allowing all four processors at a site to serve as aPs.
Here is what I want to know.
How come months before MS even decided to use IBM processors in the XBOX2 we were talking about the 976 as an IBM PPC that was a multi-core processor that was presumed to be in a future design of the PowerMac?
Now it's Microsoft's' processor? Did they say their processor was the 976, or is that part of a spill over of the rumor that IBM was making G5's for MS for use in the XBOX2? Cause that is what it sounds like to me.