Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it.
<true stuff snipped>
Consider that in the light of a market twice the size, the same 1% is twice as successful, a market half the size, the 1% could be a horrible failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IIRC Apple were aiming for 5% share of the MP3 market with iPod in order to break even.
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. If you need 25%, then you don't. The share doesn't justify the investment, though it *might* identify a measure where that investment breaks even (and in a growing or shrinking market, doesn't even do that.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny.
<strong>This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Its my turn to feed the troll:
Macluv, I love reading your posts! Although, its for the same reasons that make the Jerry Springer Show entertaining.
How many people ridiculing you from the audience will it take for you to step back and figure out why people perceive you in this way?
i think all of my quotes are from MacLuv (i think your name is a good sign that you can't move away from apple even if you want to right?)
[quote] Apple is in no position to be picky about speed right now. By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. A better speculation would assume that Apple is trying to devise a new business design that would allow the release of OS X onto x86. Thanks to Apple's own "processor wars", consumers are wise to CPU performance. If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers. From a business perspective, x86 offers a lower-priced performance solution with a standard upgrade pricing ramp. Investors are happy, customers are happy--it's a win-win across the board. All that is needed at this point is a strategy to make it work--and I'm not sure Mr. Jobs is our man for the task. <hr></blockquote>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970?
[quote] Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering <hr></blockquote>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money i think they will put enough of it in R&D to reach their final mark of a 10 times faster system than todays fastest (see top 500-supercomputer-list <a href="http://www.top500.org/list/2002/11/"; target="_blank">here</a>).
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays G4-performance to a factor of 3 performance will not be of any interest any more (cause anyone can have a machine that is as fast as the Wintels AND have all the benefits of the mac). if you like to explain why x86 should change the situation for apple at those points, please let us know.?.? again: apple can switch 4 to 16 970-cpus into their machines and let them fly with os x now. as far as i know the G4 we have now isn't that good in multiprocessing with >2cpus. and again - if you like to present us your experiences with pentium4-multiprocessing, please let us know.
[quote] Yes, Apple's profit design right now is based on perceived value rather than actual value. It is dependant upon people who do not yet realize PCs have become a commodoty market. It leeches off of what I call the Loyal Apple User Base (LAUB), locking us into a proprietary system that only Apple can control. Like you say, this means we pay extra for hardware that is outperformed by the competition--just because it looks pretty. <hr></blockquote>
i think x86 won't change the price of a mac!? i know the PCs and see that they all have problems - i don't know if it is windows or the cheap hardware which is the reason for these but i don't like to get a PC which stops working if i install some sofware or plug in a second graphics card. so i'm happy with mac and will be glad if i can continue to use my machine without re-configuring all the time. could be that os-x-on-x86 will change some of these problems but the machines would still be more expensive and will still look much better
[quote] Even if the migration to x86 seems unlogical from a developers' perspective, it can still be done. Everybody has a price. <hr></blockquote>
... for which customers have to pay more again for new HW/SW (from a business-standpoint) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. <hr></blockquote>
i like this sentence (really)
[quote] There is general speculation on this and other boards that Microsoft somehow would be able to fault XP on an AMD CPU if AMD supported Apple. Since AMD recently announced it is pursuing the technology rather than the market they are in a better position to support Apple. Big Blue has its own agenda, and if one recalls, the whole reason Motorola was brought into the AIM alliance is because Apple did not trust IBM. IBM, at any given time, presents so many conflicts of interest to Apple that it's not worth the risk, especially if Apple is counting on OS X to see Apple through the next 15 years. <hr></blockquote>
if microsoft will stop supporting x86-AMD-cpus we can see how x86 will die completely as AMD with their 64bit-on-x86-efforts are the only ones which will keep x86 alive. to this part another question: will x86 continue it's way up into the Ghz-heaven if intel will concentrate on itanium more and more? i thought the fast progress Mhz-wise is a result of the intel-AMD-x86-war? and can we trust intel more than IBM? can we trust AMD? i don't know...
could be that i've many things wrong in my post but if so,please try to explain a "normal" person (i hope i am) why x86 in an apple-mac will change all things or will be so much better? what excactly will be the benefit? what will apple so with the x86? will it sell less expensive macs? will iTunes or iMovie be better on x86? will i be happy? and why do you have an eMac? i thought you like to join the industry standard? i really don't get this ... i think i must be stupid. *oregs*
It sounds like Moto has moved the G4 to a smaller manufacturing process, and that they will have sufficient 1.2 Ghz chips sometime after January to supply Apple, and the upgrade manufacturers....Good news for me and my Cube. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Another thought, could this signal the end of the G4 in the PowerMac line? Think about it, if the PowerMac lost the G4, then Apple would be buying a lot less G4 processors. At the same time, the ones they buy Apple would want a lower power requirement, and heat disipation so that they could put them in iMacs and PowerBooks....yes this is rampent speculation....but a nice thought all the same.
how many people ridiculing you from the audience will it take for you to step back and figure out why people perceive you in this way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think he will stop if something else will become more interesting - this could be:
Another thought, could this signal the end of the G4 in the PowerMac line? Think about it, if the PowerMac lost the G4, then Apple would be buying a lot less G4 processors. At the same time, the ones they buy Apple would want a lower power requirement, and heat disipation so that they could put them in iMacs and PowerBooks....yes this is rampent speculation....but a nice thought all the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure where you got that statistic but it's a load of <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-843710.html?tag=rn"; target="_blank">crap</a>. I'm not even sure you know the difference between server and computer market right now.
IBM has led the server market for some time and only the recent merger of Compaq and HP has really threatened that. Dell has never been a force in the server market because their business model really hasn't been condusive to it. It's also worth noting IBM's market share has been increasing over the past few years.
As I said you really just don't know what you are talking about. There's no need to bother correcting each of your ideas, which would take more time than I really care to spend away from other activities (pay my consultancy fees for the time it'll take me and I'll gladly do it), when it is clear the person stating them lacks credibility.
On a side note try going to an IEEE conference and telling people IBM isn't on the cutting edge of research and see how many agree with you. Each year the top researchers at IBM publish a lot of papers on a lot of topics and their reasearch is very well respected. To say otherwise really does just make you look ignorant.
Finally I never made comment about your intelligence I just said you were lacking experience and understanding of the topic area. Big difference there. If you take that as an insult to your intelligence then that's your neurosis and really not my problem.
Edit: Sorry just have to pick up on this as well.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Worldwide the server market is US$40 billion. To go from 0% - 1.2% means Apple just captured in excess of $400 million in revenue, assuming the number carries over worldwide. That's significant.
What's more in a shrinking market where Apple has previously had no presense and no respect to have a 1.2% share 6 months after launch is fine. It gives them a launch, considerable revenue and something to grow on.
You really do seem to know absolutely nothing about business.
Hans-Georg Wagner, head of the communications and networking unit for the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, has high hopes for Linux on Intel: "In about three years time," he says, "I think Linux on Intel will be eating massively into the server market, and this will include datacentre applications."
When I read this in the Register, I immediately saw why IBM is also interested in using the 970 for their own lower end servers. They obviously see the threat from x86 hardware running Linux, and will pull out all stops to keep the server market. This is really good news for Apple, who will have a supplier that is very motivated to have the best possible chips for this market.
With regard to serves. For big servers price is not important quality is. Imagine that Ford or Walmart has all their inventory databases going down. They will lose the first million dollar in minutes and some hours that will add up. In this context you buy the solution that minimize such scenarios not with the smallest price tag.
This is a different world than personal computers were if A is twise as fast or half the price B but it craches once a year most people would by A not B.
Back to the G5.
If a 1GHz G4 dissapate 30W and a 1.8 GHz 970 is estimated to be about 42 W. Apple might not need 1.5 G4 or G5 for the portable computers but will use 1.5 GHz 970 instead. For the eMac and iMac the difference in heat output is trivial.
Back in 1997 and the 350 MHz 604E in the 9600 tower the promise that risc CPUs scaled better than cisc seemed to come true. It would be nice to be at least in the same range clock wise. Motorola has just got into the one point something GHz and Intel has left the two Ghz range behind, even their budget CPU celeron has reached the two GHz range.
My guess is that there will be no Motorola CPUs at all at Apple in 2004 but with Apple is hard to know. They had the PB 150 with a 33 MHz 68030 out until October 1995! At that time the laptops were using either 486dx4 or pentiums And Apple had 8500 with 604 CPus out in between that the 60040 still was around as was the old 601 and the newly introduced 603.
Having 5 different CPUs around at the same time with very different performance per clock cycle for very confusing line up. The higher numbered 040 was substantially faster than the 030 at 33 MHz. A 120 MHz 604 not 4 times the speed of a 33 Mhz 030 but much faster. The higher numbered 604 was a bit faster than the 601 if both were at 120 MHz but the 603 that also had a higher number than 601 was still substantially slower at the same clock speed.
If Apple take
G3 the current one
G3X with 200 Mhz bus and larger L2
G4 the current one
G4X with faster bus and other stuff
970
Then we are back to a similar mess.
G3=G4 unless VE
G3X faster than G4 VE you get the picture.
Apple should have a clear lineup were it is easy to figure out trade offs in performance between a iBook, BP or iMac-eMac-Tower.
One solution is to scrap the G3 as soon as possible. If the Velocity Engine aka Alti-Vec was the the future of computers back in 1999 why then sell computer lacking this important feature 2004 <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
So what about the G5? Well it is not and will not be!
Not sure where you got that statistic but it's a load of crap. I'm not even sure you know the difference between server and computer market right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm not sure you know the difference between analysing market penetration and evaluating total market worth.
I said, in a quick reply to another question:
[quote]<strong>
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, I was talking about estimated units shipped per 3Q. I realize I'm using the term "market" here loosely but as a *ahem* "consultant" I would expect that you knew what I was talking about. Sorry. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> (I also realize this wasn't the greaest of rebuttals, but what do you expect at 3AM? The fact that you couldn't point out my own mistake properly suggests a lack of depth on your part.)
Of course, when I mentioned market penetration I got this lovely joke:
[quote]from johnsonwax:<strong>
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. {...}
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry if I thought this was funny as it tries to dismiss the importance of market penetration by mistaking ROI analysis with a break-even analysis. If only it were that easy.
I realize what the post is trying to convey, but market penetration has nothing to do with financials--it's about sales/marketing. (at least, for the sake of this argument it is. I'm not going to split hairs with this sh*t.) If I'm talking about market penetration, evaluating what an industry is worth and who's on top of it has already been done.
I would expect a "consultant" to know all this.
[quote]<strong>
Worldwide the server market is US$40 billion. To go from 0% - 1.2% means Apple just captured in excess of $400 million in revenue, assuming the number carries over worldwide. That's significant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, then use a share figure I've gotten from a completely different report to support your own argument. I'm sorry Mr. Consultant, but you're fired.
PS. The statistic that you say is a load of crap was pulled from the same source your article pulled it from--Gartner Dataquest. Do your homework before you try to take me to school.
Comments
<strong>
Jesus, what a numbnuts...
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it.
<true stuff snipped>
Consider that in the light of a market twice the size, the same 1% is twice as successful, a market half the size, the 1% could be a horrible failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IIRC Apple were aiming for 5% share of the MP3 market with iPod in order to break even.
<strong>
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. If you need 25%, then you don't. The share doesn't justify the investment, though it *might* identify a measure where that investment breaks even (and in a growing or shrinking market, doesn't even do that.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>This is one of my favorite posts ever. I've printed it out and hung it on my wall. It's just that funny. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Its my turn to feed the troll:
Macluv, I love reading your posts! Although, its for the same reasons that make the Jerry Springer Show entertaining.
How many people ridiculing you from the audience will it take for you to step back and figure out why people perceive you in this way?
<strong>Macluv, I love reading your posts! </strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks a bunch! I love you too! I'd prefer it, though, if you stopped sifting through my mail. Some of that stuff is about <whatever>.
:eek:
Hey, you must be a fan of McCarthyism.
:if the beat's fat i use it:
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
[quote] Apple is in no position to be picky about speed right now. By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. A better speculation would assume that Apple is trying to devise a new business design that would allow the release of OS X onto x86. Thanks to Apple's own "processor wars", consumers are wise to CPU performance. If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers. From a business perspective, x86 offers a lower-priced performance solution with a standard upgrade pricing ramp. Investors are happy, customers are happy--it's a win-win across the board. All that is needed at this point is a strategy to make it work--and I'm not sure Mr. Jobs is our man for the task. <hr></blockquote>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970?
[quote] Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering <hr></blockquote>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays G4-performance to a factor of 3 performance will not be of any interest any more (cause anyone can have a machine that is as fast as the Wintels AND have all the benefits of the mac). if you like to explain why x86 should change the situation for apple at those points, please let us know.?.? again: apple can switch 4 to 16 970-cpus into their machines and let them fly with os x now. as far as i know the G4 we have now isn't that good in multiprocessing with >2cpus. and again - if you like to present us your experiences with pentium4-multiprocessing, please let us know.
[quote] Yes, Apple's profit design right now is based on perceived value rather than actual value. It is dependant upon people who do not yet realize PCs have become a commodoty market. It leeches off of what I call the Loyal Apple User Base (LAUB), locking us into a proprietary system that only Apple can control. Like you say, this means we pay extra for hardware that is outperformed by the competition--just because it looks pretty. <hr></blockquote>
i think x86 won't change the price of a mac!? i know the PCs and see that they all have problems - i don't know if it is windows or the cheap hardware which is the reason for these but i don't like to get a PC which stops working if i install some sofware or plug in a second graphics card. so i'm happy with mac and will be glad if i can continue to use my machine without re-configuring all the time. could be that os-x-on-x86 will change some of these problems but the machines would still be more expensive and will still look much better
[quote] Even if the migration to x86 seems unlogical from a developers' perspective, it can still be done. Everybody has a price. <hr></blockquote>
... for which customers have to pay more again for new HW/SW (from a business-standpoint) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. <hr></blockquote>
i like this sentence (really)
[quote] There is general speculation on this and other boards that Microsoft somehow would be able to fault XP on an AMD CPU if AMD supported Apple. Since AMD recently announced it is pursuing the technology rather than the market they are in a better position to support Apple. Big Blue has its own agenda, and if one recalls, the whole reason Motorola was brought into the AIM alliance is because Apple did not trust IBM. IBM, at any given time, presents so many conflicts of interest to Apple that it's not worth the risk, especially if Apple is counting on OS X to see Apple through the next 15 years. <hr></blockquote>
if microsoft will stop supporting x86-AMD-cpus we can see how x86 will die completely as AMD with their 64bit-on-x86-efforts are the only ones which will keep x86 alive. to this part another question: will x86 continue it's way up into the Ghz-heaven if intel will concentrate on itanium more and more? i thought the fast progress Mhz-wise is a result of the intel-AMD-x86-war? and can we trust intel more than IBM? can we trust AMD? i don't know...
could be that i've many things wrong in my post but if so,please try to explain a "normal" person (i hope i am) why x86 in an apple-mac will change all things or will be so much better? what excactly will be the benefit? what will apple so with the x86? will it sell less expensive macs? will iTunes or iMovie be better on x86? will i be happy? and why do you have an eMac? i thought you like to join the industry standard? i really don't get this ... i think i must be stupid. *oregs*
<strong>from Cube Owner:
It sounds like Moto has moved the G4 to a smaller manufacturing process, and that they will have sufficient 1.2 Ghz chips sometime after January to supply Apple, and the upgrade manufacturers....Good news for me and my Cube.
Another thought, could this signal the end of the G4 in the PowerMac line? Think about it, if the PowerMac lost the G4, then Apple would be buying a lot less G4 processors. At the same time, the ones they buy Apple would want a lower power requirement, and heat disipation so that they could put them in iMacs and PowerBooks....yes this is rampent speculation....but a nice thought all the same.
<strong>
how many people ridiculing you from the audience will it take for you to step back and figure out why people perceive you in this way?</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think he will stop if something else will become more interesting - this could be:
- a new car
- something to drink
- a new girlfriend
- a new XP-machine
- a new puzzle
- a new business-standpoint-gong-gong-report
- something to eat
- something to sleep (with?)
- someone real to beat
- a broken leg
- unreal tournament 2003
- an egg ("an egg? why the hell...?")
- ...
<strong>
Another thought, could this signal the end of the G4 in the PowerMac line? Think about it, if the PowerMac lost the G4, then Apple would be buying a lot less G4 processors. At the same time, the ones they buy Apple would want a lower power requirement, and heat disipation so that they could put them in iMacs and PowerBooks....yes this is rampent speculation....but a nice thought all the same.</strong><hr></blockquote>
good thought - i agree with this completely
<strong>
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure where you got that statistic but it's a load of <a href="http://news.com.com/2100-1001-843710.html?tag=rn"; target="_blank">crap</a>. I'm not even sure you know the difference between server and computer market right now.
IBM has led the server market for some time and only the recent merger of Compaq and HP has really threatened that. Dell has never been a force in the server market because their business model really hasn't been condusive to it. It's also worth noting IBM's market share has been increasing over the past few years.
As I said you really just don't know what you are talking about. There's no need to bother correcting each of your ideas, which would take more time than I really care to spend away from other activities (pay my consultancy fees for the time it'll take me and I'll gladly do it), when it is clear the person stating them lacks credibility.
On a side note try going to an IEEE conference and telling people IBM isn't on the cutting edge of research and see how many agree with you. Each year the top researchers at IBM publish a lot of papers on a lot of topics and their reasearch is very well respected. To say otherwise really does just make you look ignorant.
Finally I never made comment about your intelligence I just said you were lacking experience and understanding of the topic area. Big difference there. If you take that as an insult to your intelligence then that's your neurosis and really not my problem.
Edit: Sorry just have to pick up on this as well.
[quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:
<strong>Sorry, you hit a funny bone... the next time I write a business proposal I'll make sure to mention that a 1% market penetration is worthy of investment... </strong><hr></blockquote>
Worldwide the server market is US$40 billion. To go from 0% - 1.2% means Apple just captured in excess of $400 million in revenue, assuming the number carries over worldwide. That's significant.
What's more in a shrinking market where Apple has previously had no presense and no respect to have a 1.2% share 6 months after launch is fine. It gives them a launch, considerable revenue and something to grow on.
You really do seem to know absolutely nothing about business.
[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
When I read this in the Register, I immediately saw why IBM is also interested in using the 970 for their own lower end servers. They obviously see the threat from x86 hardware running Linux, and will pull out all stops to keep the server market. This is really good news for Apple, who will have a supplier that is very motivated to have the best possible chips for this market.
This is a different world than personal computers were if A is twise as fast or half the price B but it craches once a year most people would by A not B.
Back to the G5.
If a 1GHz G4 dissapate 30W and a 1.8 GHz 970 is estimated to be about 42 W. Apple might not need 1.5 G4 or G5 for the portable computers but will use 1.5 GHz 970 instead. For the eMac and iMac the difference in heat output is trivial.
Back in 1997 and the 350 MHz 604E in the 9600 tower the promise that risc CPUs scaled better than cisc seemed to come true. It would be nice to be at least in the same range clock wise. Motorola has just got into the one point something GHz and Intel has left the two Ghz range behind, even their budget CPU celeron has reached the two GHz range.
My guess is that there will be no Motorola CPUs at all at Apple in 2004 but with Apple is hard to know. They had the PB 150 with a 33 MHz 68030 out until October 1995! At that time the laptops were using either 486dx4 or pentiums And Apple had 8500 with 604 CPus out in between that the 60040 still was around as was the old 601 and the newly introduced 603.
Having 5 different CPUs around at the same time with very different performance per clock cycle for very confusing line up. The higher numbered 040 was substantially faster than the 030 at 33 MHz. A 120 MHz 604 not 4 times the speed of a 33 Mhz 030 but much faster. The higher numbered 604 was a bit faster than the 601 if both were at 120 MHz but the 603 that also had a higher number than 601 was still substantially slower at the same clock speed.
If Apple take
G3 the current one
G3X with 200 Mhz bus and larger L2
G4 the current one
G4X with faster bus and other stuff
970
Then we are back to a similar mess.
G3=G4 unless VE
G3X faster than G4 VE you get the picture.
Apple should have a clear lineup were it is easy to figure out trade offs in performance between a iBook, BP or iMac-eMac-Tower.
One solution is to scrap the G3 as soon as possible. If the Velocity Engine aka Alti-Vec was the the future of computers back in 1999 why then sell computer lacking this important feature 2004 <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
So what about the G5? Well it is not and will not be!
<strong>
(pay my consultancy fees for the time it'll take me and I'll gladly do it)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Consultancy fees for what?
I'll deal with you when I get back from the airport...
How would you best describe Macluv?
A troll [ ]
'Challenged' [ ]
Ignorant [ ]
Just plain stupid [ ]
All of the above [X]
This is my favorite quote so far.
[quote]I'll deal with you when I get back from the airport...<hr></blockquote>
Ooooohhhhh, Telomar you better run and hide before you get bludgeoned with yet another barrage of stupidity.
\tYea and I think you could use a good girl, as long as she doesn't work for AMD.
<strong>
Not sure where you got that statistic but it's a load of crap. I'm not even sure you know the difference between server and computer market right now.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm not sure you know the difference between analysing market penetration and evaluating total market worth.
I said, in a quick reply to another question:
[quote]<strong>
IBM has an estimated 13.9% of the worldwide server market, and an estimated 11.7% US. Obviously IBMs "name for quality and reliability in the industry" doesn't really help it to take control of DELL & HP, who are the industry leaders.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm sorry you've misunderstood me, I was talking about estimated units shipped per 3Q. I realize I'm using the term "market" here loosely but as a *ahem* "consultant" I would expect that you knew what I was talking about. Sorry. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> (I also realize this wasn't the greaest of rebuttals, but what do you expect at 3AM? The fact that you couldn't point out my own mistake properly suggests a lack of depth on your part.)
Of course, when I mentioned market penetration I got this lovely joke:
[quote]from johnsonwax:<strong>
Who the f*ck cares what your market penetration is. The issue is whether you get an ROI. If you can get that with 1%, then you do it. {...}
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry if I thought this was funny as it tries to dismiss the importance of market penetration by mistaking ROI analysis with a break-even analysis. If only it were that easy.
I realize what the post is trying to convey, but market penetration has nothing to do with financials--it's about sales/marketing. (at least, for the sake of this argument it is. I'm not going to split hairs with this sh*t.) If I'm talking about market penetration, evaluating what an industry is worth and who's on top of it has already been done.
I would expect a "consultant" to know all this.
[quote]<strong>
Worldwide the server market is US$40 billion. To go from 0% - 1.2% means Apple just captured in excess of $400 million in revenue, assuming the number carries over worldwide. That's significant.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
First, you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, then use a share figure I've gotten from a completely different report to support your own argument. I'm sorry Mr. Consultant, but you're fired.
PS. The statistic that you say is a load of crap was pulled from the same source your article pulled it from--Gartner Dataquest. Do your homework before you try to take me to school.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
NEXT!
<strong>NEXT!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh don't get me started about that company.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<hr></blockquote>
i think he will stop if something else will become more interesting - this could be:
- a new car
** i just got one (used) but i hate driving. I'm from New York and I miss the subway.
- something to drink
** at times i feel a bit parched but this wouldn't stop my obsessive posting behavior.
- a new girlfriend
** i have a "wife", but she's gone to Thailand/China for 8 weeks with her friend, so I've got a bit of time on my hands
- a new XP-machine
** i don't know if this would help...
- a new puzzle
** now you're starting to sound like my mother-in-law
- a new business-standpoint-gong-gong-report
**
- something to eat
** no thanks.
- something to sleep (with?)
** if you already haven't been able to figure it out, i suffer from chronic insomnia when I'm worried
- someone real to beat
** i'm not a big fan of violence. Sarcasm, sure.
- a broken leg
** i think that would make my posting habits worse
- unreal tournament 2003
** now we're getting somewhere... if only i had a faster machine! D'OH! I have a PS2, but haven't seen any good games recently...
- an egg ("an egg? why the hell...?")
** hmm...
- ...
*** i really want one of those micro racers. That would be cool.
Krassy, you're alright.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Hey and MacLuv you could use the egg to "egg" Krassy's car. Ummm on second thought don't they come in dozens? hehe