Xserve still a ways off since 'Server' is not yet Universal (can't run on Intel chips). Getting Server ported will take some work. Don't think it's been the highest software priority in the past few months.
My guess:
iBook - April
WWDC - 10.5 Preview
PowerMac - September/October
XServe - very late 2006 or early 2007 (MacWorld?), maybe even held to 10.5
Gotta believe the duo/quad core chips are going to be toasters in the PM/XServes. I see 10+ GHz marketing claims coming with their introduction.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of priority. MacOS X Server should be significantly easier to port than the client stuff. And Apple *could* come out with a P4 server that pretty much cleans the current xServe's clock all around.
But Apple isn't going to use any of the "old" chips because then their kernels are easier to hack to generic hardware. The only reason 10.4.5's kernel hasn't been hacked yet (although the rest of 10.4.5 has) is because it doesn't support anything other than the Core CPUs.
I wish Apple would come out with a product that could totally replace the Adobe DTP collection...
^p
I wish Apple would just buy Adobe. Then Apple could take a page out of the MS playbook and make windows users wait for their version and make it real buggy.
Screw buying Adobe. That's like buying a tenderloin that's %60 fat.
What I wish we had was a vibrant market like back in the days when you had Photoshop battling Live Picture and Xres. When you had Mtropolis battling Director from Macromedia.
The computer market is in need of a true revolution. Not the marketing kind.
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
Screw buying Adobe. That's like buying a tenderloin that's %60 fat.
What I wish we had was a vibrant market like back in the days when you had Photoshop battling Live Picture and Xres. When you had Mtropolis battling Director from Macromedia.
The computer market is in need of a true revolution. Not the marketing kind.
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
You can always trim fat. IMO, it's hard to inject market competition in mature markets like this. The cats already out of the bag, so to speak. I would love to see windows users wait a year after mac users to get version of cs2. Starve the users till they convert platforms. A mac inquisition. This formula works. I don't know why Apple won't take the gloves off and fight dirty.
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
If the PowerMac replacement is to be taken seriously as a workstation computer, then it will need workstation type chips, meaning Xeon DP or whatever they will rename it to with the Woodcrest generation as Woodcrest appears to be in that market and lineage. Conroe a chip meant for consumer desktops, not workstations.
You can always trim fat. IMO, it's hard to inject market competition in mature markets like this. The cats already out of the bag, so to speak. I would love to see windows users wait a year after mac users to get version of cs2. Starve the users till they convert platforms. A mac inquisition. This formula works. I don't know why Apple won't take the gloves off and fight dirty.
You know, the thought of buying Adobe had occurred to me as well... it would cost what, $30 billion? The problem would be, I think, getting management to go along with it--a hostile takeover would need to be avoided (and Adobe probably has a poision pill provision anyway). An even bigger problem would probably be the DoJ, getting them to approve a merger after Adobe and Macromedia just combined.
All those problems aside, though, I'm not sure what Adobe would bring to the table would be worth ~$30B. User base? Sure... but like you said, this is such a "mature market" that I significantly doubt that Apple couldn't invest elsewhere and get a better return on its money.
But even if Apple did buy Adobe, I wouldn't want them to sit on CS2 for Windows if it were ready (and the mac version weren't). Converting code does take time--and though Adobe has done abysmally so far, it's really more a question of money than anything else.
You know, the thought of buying Adobe had occurred to me as well... it would cost what, $30 billion? The problem would be, I think, getting management to go along with it--a hostile takeover would need to be avoided (and Adobe probably has a poision pill provision anyway). An even bigger problem would probably be the DoJ, getting them to approve a merger after Adobe and Macromedia just combined.
All those problems aside, though, I'm not sure what Adobe would bring to the table would be worth ~$30B. User base? Sure... but like you said, this is such a "mature market" that I significantly doubt that Apple couldn't invest elsewhere and get a better return on its money.
But even if Apple did buy Adobe, I wouldn't want them to sit on CS2 for Windows if it were ready (and the mac version weren't). Converting code does take time--and though Adobe has done abysmally so far, it's really more a question of money than anything else.
Comments on anti-trust issues are very true in my estimation. I'm really thinking out loud, which usually gets punished severely in the forums.
On a more serious note, you alluded to the dilema Apple faces. If they purchase Adobe they could ensure survival of macs in that industry, but if they killed off the windows user base then the value of the business might be decreased. MS can do shit like this (engage in practices that decrease their ROI in order to eventually dominate a market) and survive for years, see xbox. But Apple...
How do they get away with it when AMD is rox0ring their box0rz with such extreme prejudice?
Even for cheap and mid-range machines AMD is still better.. it's kind of sad.
I still think Apple should have gone with AMD over Intel...AMD is pwning them in every category...more performance for less money...I haven't had an Intel chip in my PC's since the original Pentium.
I still think Apple should have gone with AMD over Intel...AMD is pwning them in every category...more performance for less money...I haven't had an Intel chip in my PC's since the original Pentium.
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.
It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.
The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.
It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.
The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
Intels are running hotter than AMDs at this point, and may I remind you that coreduos are crazy 'spensive
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.
It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.
The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
I agree. Look I have a pc with AMD athlon chip. It's nice, no doubt. But looking foward, Intel seems to have the better hand. I'm sure AMD has some products it will bring out to challenge Intel, but with conroe and woodcrest coming put I think AMD will finally be chasing Intel for a while.
I agree. Look I have a pc with AMD athlon chip. It's nice, no doubt. But looking foward, Intel seems to have the better hand. I'm sure AMD has some products it will bring out to challenge Intel, but with conroe and woodcrest coming put I think AMD will finally be chasing Intel for a while.
The sensible option, performance wise at least, would have been to use both. Intel on the laptops, AMD on the PowerMac/Xserve. That way you get low power on the laptops where it's important, and high bandwidth and scalability on the PowerMac/XServe.
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.
Come now, for a desktop AMD's chips blow the doors off the Core Duo. Core Duo's the best laptop chip these days, but don't get carried away.
As for Photoshop, the folks who spent big bucks on the CS because of being forced into the Mac OS X migration are probably thinking they could have bought a PC for about the same price and stayed with PS7 (which does everything most people need and more). They might want to think along those lines again.
And Intel's coming chips are still playing catch-up with AMD's. Woodcrest is intended to compete with Opterons that have already been out for a year or more.
The sensible option, performance wise at least, would have been to use both. Intel on the laptops, AMD on the PowerMac/Xserve. That way you get low power on the laptops where it's important, and high bandwidth and scalability on the PowerMac/XServe.
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.
Yes all things being equal. I suspect Apple received some special inducements to be an all Intel inside maker that we just don't know about.
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD
I disagree and I'll tell you why. They big iron AMD stuff being good isn't hard to fathom. AMD bought the IP from DEC for the Alpha chip. That sucker was a beast back in the day. Thus it's not a stretch to see why they did very well in the Server sector.
The Pentium M was still competitive even at 90nm. AMD seems to be getting there. I saw a roadmap with Athlon at 35 watt TDP so both companies are minding the wattage which is good. However Intel IMO has more experience at the low watt/high performance architecture.
Quote:
Woodcrest is intended to compete with Opterons that have already been out for a year or more.
Woodcrest will be tough to beat even for the next Opteron (85 series ??) coming out. Think about the effects on a data center when you have servers that have Woodcrest chips running %30 cooler. It adds up quickly.
Hey I like AMD just like anyone but Intel isn't a company you just count out. They'll hit 45nm first and if CSI hits the ground running (their Hypertransport competitor) then things begin to get interesting. I don't expect ondie memory controllers to come anytime soon. FB-DIMMs reduce latency I don't see it as much of problem
Comments
Originally posted by atavistic
Xserve still a ways off since 'Server' is not yet Universal (can't run on Intel chips). Getting Server ported will take some work. Don't think it's been the highest software priority in the past few months.
My guess:
iBook - April
WWDC - 10.5 Preview
PowerMac - September/October
XServe - very late 2006 or early 2007 (MacWorld?), maybe even held to 10.5
Gotta believe the duo/quad core chips are going to be toasters in the PM/XServes. I see 10+ GHz marketing claims coming with their introduction.
Actually, I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of priority. MacOS X Server should be significantly easier to port than the client stuff. And Apple *could* come out with a P4 server that pretty much cleans the current xServe's clock all around.
But Apple isn't going to use any of the "old" chips because then their kernels are easier to hack to generic hardware. The only reason 10.4.5's kernel hasn't been hacked yet (although the rest of 10.4.5 has) is because it doesn't support anything other than the Core CPUs.
Originally posted by MacRonin
I wish Apple would come out with a product that could totally replace the Adobe DTP collection...
^p
I wish Apple would just buy Adobe. Then Apple could take a page out of the MS playbook and make windows users wait for their version and make it real buggy.
What I wish we had was a vibrant market like back in the days when you had Photoshop battling Live Picture and Xres. When you had Mtropolis battling Director from Macromedia.
The computer market is in need of a true revolution. Not the marketing kind.
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Screw buying Adobe. That's like buying a tenderloin that's %60 fat.
What I wish we had was a vibrant market like back in the days when you had Photoshop battling Live Picture and Xres. When you had Mtropolis battling Director from Macromedia.
The computer market is in need of a true revolution. Not the marketing kind.
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
You can always trim fat. IMO, it's hard to inject market competition in mature markets like this. The cats already out of the bag, so to speak. I would love to see windows users wait a year after mac users to get version of cs2. Starve the users till they convert platforms. A mac inquisition. This formula works. I don't know why Apple won't take the gloves off and fight dirty.
Originally posted by hmurchison
And ixnay on the eonxay. Bring on Conroe/Woodcrest...the Xeon is nasty cruft..and expensive at that.
If the PowerMac replacement is to be taken seriously as a workstation computer, then it will need workstation type chips, meaning Xeon DP or whatever they will rename it to with the Woodcrest generation as Woodcrest appears to be in that market and lineage. Conroe a chip meant for consumer desktops, not workstations.
WWDC - Preview Leopard (10.5) and announce Quad Core (2 X 2) '10' GHz Power Mac shipping 'next month'. (Sept. '06).
XServes to follow in Nov/Dec.
I need to stop predicting and buy a computer. My 12 PB 1 GHz is getting slower all the time.
Originally posted by backtomac
You can always trim fat. IMO, it's hard to inject market competition in mature markets like this. The cats already out of the bag, so to speak. I would love to see windows users wait a year after mac users to get version of cs2. Starve the users till they convert platforms. A mac inquisition. This formula works. I don't know why Apple won't take the gloves off and fight dirty.
You know, the thought of buying Adobe had occurred to me as well... it would cost what, $30 billion? The problem would be, I think, getting management to go along with it--a hostile takeover would need to be avoided (and Adobe probably has a poision pill provision anyway). An even bigger problem would probably be the DoJ, getting them to approve a merger after Adobe and Macromedia just combined.
All those problems aside, though, I'm not sure what Adobe would bring to the table would be worth ~$30B. User base? Sure... but like you said, this is such a "mature market" that I significantly doubt that Apple couldn't invest elsewhere and get a better return on its money.
But even if Apple did buy Adobe, I wouldn't want them to sit on CS2 for Windows if it were ready (and the mac version weren't). Converting code does take time--and though Adobe has done abysmally so far, it's really more a question of money than anything else.
Originally posted by Mr. Dirk
You know, the thought of buying Adobe had occurred to me as well... it would cost what, $30 billion? The problem would be, I think, getting management to go along with it--a hostile takeover would need to be avoided (and Adobe probably has a poision pill provision anyway). An even bigger problem would probably be the DoJ, getting them to approve a merger after Adobe and Macromedia just combined.
All those problems aside, though, I'm not sure what Adobe would bring to the table would be worth ~$30B. User base? Sure... but like you said, this is such a "mature market" that I significantly doubt that Apple couldn't invest elsewhere and get a better return on its money.
But even if Apple did buy Adobe, I wouldn't want them to sit on CS2 for Windows if it were ready (and the mac version weren't). Converting code does take time--and though Adobe has done abysmally so far, it's really more a question of money than anything else.
Comments on anti-trust issues are very true in my estimation. I'm really thinking out loud, which usually gets punished severely in the forums.
On a more serious note, you alluded to the dilema Apple faces. If they purchase Adobe they could ensure survival of macs in that industry, but if they killed off the windows user base then the value of the business might be decreased. MS can do shit like this (engage in practices that decrease their ROI in order to eventually dominate a market) and survive for years, see xbox. But Apple...
Can Apple introduce a competing app? I wonder.
Originally posted by slughead
Amen.
How do they get away with it when AMD is rox0ring their box0rz with such extreme prejudice?
Even for cheap and mid-range machines AMD is still better.. it's kind of sad.
I still think Apple should have gone with AMD over Intel...AMD is pwning them in every category...more performance for less money...I haven't had an Intel chip in my PC's since the original Pentium.
Originally posted by iPoster
I still think Apple should have gone with AMD over Intel...AMD is pwning them in every category...more performance for less money...I haven't had an Intel chip in my PC's since the original Pentium.
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.
It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.
The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.
It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.
The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
Intels are running hotter than AMDs at this point, and may I remind you that coreduos are crazy 'spensive
the one in 2.1ghz is $600.. yikes!
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Had Apple gone with AMD, we wouldn't have sleek MacBook Pros and iMacs with the same form factor.
It's incorrect to state that AMD is 'pwning them in every category'. Especially when the CoreDuo is giving AMD some serious competition right now...and it's a frickin' laptop chip.
The competition will be even more intense in the next 8-12 months.
I agree. Look I have a pc with AMD athlon chip. It's nice, no doubt. But looking foward, Intel seems to have the better hand. I'm sure AMD has some products it will bring out to challenge Intel, but with conroe and woodcrest coming put I think AMD will finally be chasing Intel for a while.
Originally posted by backtomac
I agree. Look I have a pc with AMD athlon chip. It's nice, no doubt. But looking foward, Intel seems to have the better hand. I'm sure AMD has some products it will bring out to challenge Intel, but with conroe and woodcrest coming put I think AMD will finally be chasing Intel for a while.
The sensible option, performance wise at least, would have been to use both. Intel on the laptops, AMD on the PowerMac/Xserve. That way you get low power on the laptops where it's important, and high bandwidth and scalability on the PowerMac/XServe.
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.
As for Photoshop, the folks who spent big bucks on the CS because of being forced into the Mac OS X migration are probably thinking they could have bought a PC for about the same price and stayed with PS7 (which does everything most people need and more). They might want to think along those lines again.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The sensible option, performance wise at least, would have been to use both. Intel on the laptops, AMD on the PowerMac/Xserve. That way you get low power on the laptops where it's important, and high bandwidth and scalability on the PowerMac/XServe.
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.
Yes all things being equal. I suspect Apple received some special inducements to be an all Intel inside maker that we just don't know about.
Originally posted by slughead
Intels are running hotter than AMDs at this point, and may I remind you that coreduos are crazy 'spensive
the one in 2.1ghz is $600.. yikes!
Hot like what exactly? Hot place, next to Whore peak?
The Core Duo chips are much cooler than the AMDs chips with the same clockrate.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD.
You don't say. I'm shocked.
Are there other ways to be ahead? How about you trying fabbing a 65nm chip and get back to us on how easy it is to 'get ahead'.
Originally posted by cubist
Come now, for a desktop AMD's chips blow the doors off the Core Duo. Core Duo's the best laptop chip these days, but don't get carried away.
The core duo is on par with AMD athlon. Maybe the opteron blows the doors off the core duo but not the athlon.
See link below:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2648&p=14
Intel are only ahead on the laptop front because they've hit 65nm before AMD
I disagree and I'll tell you why. They big iron AMD stuff being good isn't hard to fathom. AMD bought the IP from DEC for the Alpha chip. That sucker was a beast back in the day. Thus it's not a stretch to see why they did very well in the Server sector.
The Pentium M was still competitive even at 90nm. AMD seems to be getting there. I saw a roadmap with Athlon at 35 watt TDP so both companies are minding the wattage which is good. However Intel IMO has more experience at the low watt/high performance architecture.
Woodcrest is intended to compete with Opterons that have already been out for a year or more.
Woodcrest will be tough to beat even for the next Opteron (85 series ??) coming out. Think about the effects on a data center when you have servers that have Woodcrest chips running %30 cooler. It adds up quickly.
Hey I like AMD just like anyone but Intel isn't a company you just count out. They'll hit 45nm first and if CSI hits the ground running (their Hypertransport competitor) then things begin to get interesting. I don't expect ondie memory controllers to come anytime soon. FB-DIMMs reduce latency I don't see it as much of problem