Who's at fault?

[vniow]

Okay, by now you should realize that things between the PC world and the Mac world aren't so black and white now.
XP & 2k are much more crash proof than 9x, have become more user-friendly and have become a better value than the Mac in some ways.
The major issue right now betwen PCs and Macs isn't any of those however, it's raw speed.
With Intel approaching 3Ghz by November, the fastest Mac at 1.25Ghz (duals or not) is just not loking very speedy by comparison.
Granted, they're not THAT slow, but they're far from where they could be.

There was a time when the Mhz myth was valid, then CPUs started to hit Ghz, then twice that, now at 3Ghz.
If I'm shopping for a speedy computer right now, what looks fastest, a dual 1.25Ghz G4 or a single 3Ghz PIV?
Even Photoshop, long favored on the Mac platform is going to render faster on a top of the line PC.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of reasons to choose a Mac over a PC at the moment, but speed is not one of them.

My question to you is, whose fault is it that we have this problem?
Is it Apple's for not pushing Moto to make faster chips?
Is it Moto for not giving any intrest in making faster chips?
Is it Intel, for making consumers think that Mhz is a valid measure for performanance?


Could Apple have threatened Moto with moving over to IBM chips much earler to get them to crank out some killer chips, or does Moto not care too much about selling chips to Apple because they make more money in the embedded chip market?
Could Intel have resorted to a better marketing move than cranking up the Mhz every chance it got?

You decide.

Sticking the blame on someone and complaining about what should have been done isn't going to do much now, but in the future we can hopefully use this knowledge to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

[MacAztec]

I think its Apple's fault. Motorola too. Apple always says how an 800MHz Powerbook is better at x and x than a PC, but the PC is still faster at like everything.

Its motorolas problem for not makin faster chips! But its Apples fault for not moving to IBM by now, and Apple is just accepting that they are barely over 1GHz when PCs are moving up on 3GHz

[TheFink]

I can say with certainty that it is NOT Intel's nor AMD's fault. Megahertz is a valid benchmark for performance in the PC world. Although it may not be the end all in deciding factors which is faster, it's safe to say that a 1.4 mhz AMD is going to be faster than a 1.2mhz. When comparing megahertz to different architectures, that is where the problem lies. I don't think, however, that megahertz is a "myth". When Apple was close to wintel speeds, it was a good marketing campaign. But now with Apple so far behind, that whole slogan needs to be put to rest. PC's are ahead in all aspects except software.

When it comes to pointing the finger, I think it lies with Apple. Apple should have more of a push with the cpu manufacturers. Instead, it seems like the manufacturers are totally in controll and Apple is forced to sit on their hands. You would think Apple would develop more of a partnership, rather than being just another customer of Motorola and IBM.

In closing, I think Apple, Moto, and IBM all suck. They missed the boat and the best they can do is try to catch up. They ALL lose, along with the Apple consumers.

Just my $.02

[edesignuk]

Originally posted by TheFink
I can say with certainty that it is NOT Intel's nor AMD's fault. Megahertz is a valid benchmark for performance in the PC world.
I'd have to dissagree with you there, even in the x86 world Mhz is not a clear rating, take the P4 and XP+ for example.
The top Intel CPU at the moment is 2.8Ghz, while the AMD 2600+ (2.13Ghz) is AMD's best offering, even though there is almost a 700Mhz speed difference there the AMD will still be as fast if not faster as the apparently (going by Mhz) supreme Intel.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by edesignuk

I'd have to dissagree with you there, even in the x86 world Mhz is not a clear rating, take the P4 and XP+ for example.
The top Intel CPU at the moment is 2.8Ghz, while the AMD 2600+ (2.13Ghz) is AMD's best offering, even though there is almost a 700Mhz speed difference there the AMD will still be as fast if not faster as the apparently (going by Mhz) supreme Intel.
He didn't say it was valid for Intel v. AMD. He simply stated architecture. AMD has its own architecture, which is a RISC chip with CISC emulator as far as I'm concerned. He even compared two AMD chips. Here, the MHz/GHz is a very valid benchmark.

By the way, the 2.8GHz P4 kills AMD Athlon XP 2600+ for normal operations, but AMD Athlon XP 2600+ kills P4 when it comes to rendering with Maya, etc. Different things are superior in either.

[sturm375]

Apple computers are primarely sold to very practicle users. "We don't need 3 Ghz to read email." Most everything done on an Apple runs fast enough, plus the UI (user interface) is so exceptional, that many times you can do more with an Apple, than a PC.

You have to ask, "What drives inovation?" Consumer demand is usually the answer. Apple consumers, by and larger do not over clock, game, or generally tinker with it. If a standard hammer works to drive in a nail, why try to inovate on performance. Instead let's inovate on style, something the PC world is seriously lacking.

For a long time, Apple's products were pretty much closed to 3rd party vendors. Whether this was intentional on Apple's part, or just not financially fisible on the 3rd party's part, is up for debate.

In the PC world, there is a signifigant portion that: Game, overclock, and tinker. Also Hardware is fairly open to 3rd party vendors. There is a signifigant portion of PC users (probably equal, or greater than the total market share of Apple) bent on getting the absolute fasted rig they can possibly muster. And that is there prime goal, not using the functionality of the computer, just making it fast. Or if they use it for anything, it is gaming.

Basically what I am saying, lack of compitition in Apple's market, has squashed most of the performance inovation.

[blackpeter]

Originally posted by sturm375
Apple computers are primarely sold to very practicle users. "We don't need 3 Ghz to read email." Most everything done on an Apple runs fast enough, plus the UI (user interface) is so exceptional, that many times you can do more with an Apple, than a PC.

If a standard hammer works to drive in a nail, why try to inovate on performance. Instead let's inovate on style, something the PC world is seriously lacking.


Well said. I have to agree with you.

Most friends and relatives bring up the clock speed and price. But when they see how the machine looks on my desk, when they step up to OS X and take it for a spin, they see why I could take a speed "loss" for all the luxury that Apple brings to the user experience.

Now, a lot of us rumor-heads are focused on bleeding-edge. And it kinda burns us that Intel/Athlon chips are closing in on 3GHz and we've just broken 1 gig. But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.

[vniow]

Originally posted by tfaz1


But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.


I think that's true.
Look at the latest ads for Intel, no Ghz is mentioned at all, it focuses on multimedia stuff.
I think Apple had at least some part in that mindset.

They're slowy moving away from Ghz, but still, to do major multimedia stuff, you need speed.

[Quark]

There is a very good article in the latest Popular Science (just got it in the mail two days ago -- I assume it is Nov-2002 issue -- when I get home, I'll verify).

The article discusses everything you guys are talking about.

It shows, very clearly, how Mhz and Ghz for benchmarking is not a good idea - it compares AMD to Intel, then throws the PowerPC into the mix.

It's definitely worth a read.

Quark

[Spike Spiegel]

all of the mac users i know are casual to hardcore gamers. to say that the mac gaming community is a minority worth ignoring is not true. also, ALL of the mac users i know are more tech saavy than any of the PC users i know, who only use the internet, mail, and counter strike. In my experience, mac users are more apt to tinker with their machines(RAM,hard drives, video cards etc.) I think apple needs to re-evaluate its priorities and put performance before style.

[Falleron]

I think most of the blame lies with Motorola. Think of it this way, they have not even given Apple a processor that is fully DDRAM compatible (let alone enought speed bumps). Its a hash up system at the moment. I think when we get a full DDRAM G4 + the speed bump we need in Janaury the systems will get the performance needed.

[sturm375]

Originally posted by weezerophile
all of the mac users i know are casual to hardcore gamers. to say that the mac gaming community is a minority worth ignoring is not true. also, ALL of the mac users i know are more tech saavy than any of the PC users i know, who only use the internet, mail, and counter strike. In my experience, mac users are more apt to tinker with their machines(RAM,hard drives, video cards etc.) I think apple needs to re-evaluate its priorities and put performance before style.

I believe you are in the minority. I know many people who own Macs (either exclusively, or majority), and not a single one of them "tinkers" with their Apples. Also, it is a given that since the vast majority of games are released for PC only, there just isn't enough games to make an extensive Mac Gaming market. Lastly, motherboard makers (eg. A-Bit) make boards with BIOS features specifically designed for overclocking. I have seen Mac Overclocking, in consists of adding little resistors to the motherboard.

I am sure there are Mac Overclocker, Gamers, and Tinkerers, there just isn't enough (percentage wise) out of the market to cater to them.

I would venture to guess the a full 10% of the total computing market, consists of these hard core, overclocking, uber-geeks.

Another thing to consider: in the last 3-4 years, which of the Apple computer lines allow "Tinkering?" Only the PowerMacs, and PowerMac Servers. PowerBooks, iBooks, iMacs, iPods are all pretty much "Set it, and forget it" style computers.

[mr evil brkfast]

I think it was Motorola's Fault to start with. Ever since the G4 Debuted they have not pushed for improvements and left Apple having to drop speeds in realeased products (500 to 450 in the original), and dual processors (July2000) with no speed bump.

Apple should have realised long ago Mot uselessness and SERIOUSLY investigated other options, so the recent 1.25 GHZ update and any future poor updates are Apple's fault!

[Falleron]

I think Motorola has another Revision (January / Febuary) + then they will have competition from IBM. I dont like Motorolas chances in that fight. We will probably get this sytem next:

Dual 1.5Ghz with Full DDRAM Support
167Mhz Bus
ATI 9000 Pro (Option 9700 or Geforce TI)
Firewire 2
Bluetooth

I think this spec is what we will get.

[mr evil brkfast]

I think it was Motorola's Fault to start with. Ever since the G4 Debuted they have not pushed for improvements and left Apple having to drop speeds in realeased products (500 to 450 in the original), and dual processors (July2000) with no speed bump.

Apple should have realised long ago Mot uselessness and SERIOUSLY investigated other options, so the recent 1.25 GHZ update and any future poor updates are Apple's fault!

[etoiles]

Originally posted by sturm375
Apple computers are primarely sold to very practicle users. "We don't need 3 Ghz to read email." Most everything done on an Apple runs fast enough, plus the UI (user interface) is so exceptional, that many times you can do more with an Apple, than a PC.

You have to ask, "What drives inovation?" Consumer demand is usually the answer. Apple consumers, by and larger do not over clock, game, or generally tinker with it. If a standard hammer works to drive in a nail, why try to inovate on performance. Instead let's inovate on style, something the PC world is seriously lacking.


what about high end compositing/film editing ? What about the high end graphics market in general ? 3D anyone ? Apple has been very aggressive buying various software companies and technologies in the field, when are they going to deliver a matching workstation ?

[PrettyMan]

Originally posted by etoiles


what about high end compositing/film editing ? What about the high end graphics market in general ? 3D anyone ? Apple has been very aggressive buying various software companies and technologies in the field, when are they going to deliver a matching workstation ?

Wait, please, wait...

[APPLEP58]

I think you're over analyzing this situation. It is one that is purely BUSINESS.

Intel has AMD as direct competition, causing a "space race" sort of 'speed race', they keep topping eachother in speed and proccesses. Both are forced to innovate to remain competitive; and even in the PC world, it is a hard choice whether to choose Intel or AMD for your processor.

With Apple as their primary and only customer for the Mac specific chip, Motorolla has no need to innovate, there is no fire under ass, so to speak.

Basically, they don't care because they don't have to. And it is not Apple's "fault", but rather a credit that they have standerdized on one processor; but that is a convenience and a privelage for Apple, only because there is no other maker at the moment. I'm sure if there was, there would be court cases similar to Microsoft is in about anti-competiveness of Motorolla :P.


Motorolla has a pure monopoly on a private platform; if Apple were still licensing, and you could buy Umax, SuperMac and other Mac Clones, I'm 100% positive There'd be 4Ghz Macs by now, because those companies would strive to compete with Apple.

[j763]

Current situation:
Software: Macs are pretty good
Hardware: pssh... you've got to be kidding!

Situation as of MWSF03:
Software: Macs are great
Hardware: Kind of OK... just.

Situation as of MWNY03:
Software: Macs are fan-f:eek:ing-tastic
Hardware: Macs rock!!!

this isn't just made up... i've got some very reliable info

[mac15]

macs need to catch up, their Hardware is pretty mediocre, but hopefully it can change

[benixau]

You know, i dont think apple, motorola, or IBM cares. We will, regardless almost, buy macs next time. A mac is a mac, and a mac user, never goes to a pc. They may use one in preference to a mac, but, they still look at the mac market and hope for a time when they ca move back. I did. 4 years ago i couldnt afford a mac. Now i can, guess which company has an order for two of their professional machines????

Apple doesnt care because of this.
Motorola doesnt care because they make more money elsewhere
IBM doesnt care because they sell pcs and loads of other stuff for computers so they dont need to depend on anyone.

We are 5% of people with computers. If i had to make a hardware marketing decision, which group do you think i want to please?????

[Postal]

I'm pretty sure that Apple cares (at least to the degree that they want you to have enough reasons to buy), and I think the issue is mainly with Motorola.

However, I don't think any of us could honestly say whether it's because Motorola can't, or simply won't, put out the speeds and volumes that Apple would like. The G4 is indeed clock-limited (the higher the number of pipelines, the harder it is to speed them up); at the same time, they've gradually been disinterested in the CPU market. Their financial situation hasn't helped either.

It's difficult for me to blame IBM; yes, for the longest time they've been reluctant to include vector multimedia extensions (i.e. VMX, or something eerily similiar to Altivec) in a desktop-oriented PPC, but there hasn't been much doubt as to their capabilities for manufacturing. They said last year that they could get the G3 (in the 750FX version) up to 1 GHz, and they presumably didn't simply because it would have killed incentives to get the Powerbook. A lot of the speculation about the flat-panel iMac in late 2001 was that the iMac would have a 1 GHz G3 processor.

Now that IBM seems to be including VMX in their desktop Power4 variant, I wouldn't be surprised if IBM gladly stepped in and gave the lineup a good kickstart.

[benixau]

Look, dont get me wrong. I believe that as soon as apple and motorola say ta-ta to each other for the mac's CPU then we may have a decent processor under the hood. Look, whilst ironic that the very chip we want comes from a copmany at the complete opposite end of the market, a power4 even cut down at 2Ghz or 2.5Ghz may get apple upto maybe 10-15% of the market share. That is important because then we would become a sizable group. Worth seriously developing for maybe???

Most of the oldest apple allys dont take apple seriously anymore and they just pump out aps that are compatible to stop the email flood that would occur if they didnt.

[scem0]

You forgot to mention the price difference too.... Yeah they both have their advantages and disadvantages, but if I were to get a computer right now, I would get a PC. It is because I can find a 2.8 GHz PC for half the price of a 1.25 (2x) pMac. Luckily for apple, I am waiting, because I trust apple to release something revolutionary within a year from now. ::::coug:::: GPUL ::::cough::::.. :D

[etoiles]

Originally posted by j763


Situation as of MWNY03:
Software: Macs are fan-f:eek:ing-tastic
Hardware: Macs rock!!!

this isn't just made up... i've got some very reliable info

you just made my day better, I don't know if your info is really reliable or not, but as that other guy said: I want to believe !
:)

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by tfaz1


Well said. I have to agree with you.

Most friends and relatives bring up the clock speed and price. But when they see how the machine looks on my desk, when they step up to OS X and take it for a spin, they see why I could take a speed "loss" for all the luxury that Apple brings to the user experience.

Now, a lot of us rumor-heads are focused on bleeding-edge. And it kinda burns us that Intel/Athlon chips are closing in on 3GHz and we've just broken 1 gig. But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.

And I have to agree with you.


Apple is a business. They have shareholders that hold them accountable for their performance. They goal for them is to maximize profitability. To achieve this goal, apple has a marketing department. I know very little about marketing, but what I do tells me that the four P's of marketing are place, price, promotion, and product. My understanding is that "place" pertains to where you want to position yourself in the market. Do you want to sell high end, mid or low end? You get the idea. It is totally possible to sell a low end product, have less market share and still be more profitable than a company that sells high end and has more market share.

Bottom line, Apple does not exist to outperform pc's. They exist to make their share holders money. The original question was who should we blame? I am not sure that there is a problem. As one consumer, I would love to see macs outperform pc's, but before I am willing to accept there is a problem that will affect apple's profitability I would like to see a business case explaining how apple can make more money by fixing these alleged "problems". But, I really dont care. I use apple because i like it. when apple stops meeting my computer needs, i can go somewhere else, or do without.

Edvinow,l you do raise some thought provoking questions and I apprecaite that. My point was that just because we want more, doesnt necessarily means that a company's strategy is flawed. After all, you are dissappointed with some of what apple does, and they got your money didn't they :)

[Source]

Originally posted by tfaz1
But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.

You're kidding, right?

Unfortunately, most people are NOT computer savvy and when they see an Apple Mac at 1GHz and a PC at 2.5GHz and two thirds the price, which do you think they will pick?

It's the same reason people will pick up a Gamecube over an Xbox - They don't take time to find out what comes with either, they just pick the cheapest. Nemo: "Well it does the same thing, dunnit?"

Originally posted by Spike Spiegel
all of the mac users i know are casual to hardcore gamers. to say that the mac gaming community is a minority worth ignoring is not true. also, ALL of the mac users i know are more tech saavy than any of the PC users i know, who only use the internet, mail, and counter strike. In my experience, mac users are more apt to tinker with their machines(RAM,hard drives, video cards etc.) I think apple needs to re-evaluate its priorities and put performance before style.

No offense, Spike, but that is a joke. You simply can't configure your hardware in a mac as much as you can in a PC. I know people who are hardcore PC "tinkerers", who barely touch their mac (with regards to messing with the hardware), because there's simply nothing interesting to do with it, except maybe upgrade it.

Can you buy a 5 fan aluminium case for a mac? No.
Can you buy cooling systems, fan regulators and lights? No.
Can you buy wrapped IDE cables and cut a hole in the side of your mac to show off everything inside? No.
Do you have different types of hardware manufacturers, competing for your money? Well yes, but not as much as PC users.

The very market Apple has always played for and still plays for today, to some extent, is people who are computer illiterate. Nearly all of their advertising campaigns say: "Macs are easier to use that PCs." Thereby trying to attract those who can't use PCs, or at least, find them difficult to use.

Mac users are the most disillusioned people that i've ever seen. You guys lie and lie and lie to yourselves time and again, just to make yourselves feel better about buying a Mac.

In general, if you want a computer for gaming, you DO NOT buy a Mac, unless you're very stupid. I'd say about one tenth of the games that come out on PC, also get released on Macs, and even when they do, it's a few months to a year after the PC version is released. Granted, Apple is doing an amazing job of getting more games developers to release OSX version of their games, but still, most of the time Mac users have to wait for the game to be release after the PC version. Although, basically all of the best games do eventually get released on Macs. The words "Mac Gamer" is an oxymoron and the words "Hardcore Mac Gamer" is just a myth.

A Mac is a great computer, so stop bull****ting yourselves about all of the things you think it can do and just accept that Macs are still more stylish and more stable than PCs and have, in my opinion and i'm sure yours, a much better looking and interesting to use OS. PCs are slowly catching up to Macs in that department, especially with regards to stability and if you really want a stylish computer, it's easy to find as long as you have someone that can build it. I'd personally, rather have a well build, aluminium case (NOT Lian Li cr@p) cased computer than a white, plastic Mac that anyone can buy.

It's been proven that more intelligent and richer people buy Macs. And that is the most moronic thing i've ever heard. OF COURSE the people who buy macs are, in general, going to have more money and be more intelligent, for the simple fact that Macs are far more expensive than PCs. That's like saying:

"People that buy Mercedes cars are more intelligent and richer than people who buy Skodas."

Macs are more expensive, therefore you need more money to buy them, - the people who buy them have more money because they have better jobs and they have those better jobs because they have college degrees or a better education. GET IT?

Considering that statement says Mac users are more intelligent than PC users, Mac users sure do buy into a lot of stupid, ************, sensationalized advertising.

I believe that Apple WAS turning heads, but with the advent of the 3GHz Intel CPU, i hope Apple will finally start to realize that they need to do something, and fast, but i don't think they will.

Now don't get me wrong, i love Macs. What i HATE is Mac users who continue to lie about what Macs can do, what people who use Macs are like and spout crap like: "Mac users are sooo much better than PC users!". Just grow up!

And the sadness of it all is that, in my experience, PC users don't really give a crap about Mac users, but Mac users continue to insult PC users at every chance they get. It's childish.

It's Apples fault. If they can't run their company properly, they can't expect anyone else to do it for them.

Now when are the fricking new Macs going to be released?

[vniow]

Originally posted by buffsldr
Edvinow,l you do raise some thought provoking questions and I apprecaite that. My point was that just because we want more, doesnt necessarily means that a company's strategy is flawed. After all, you are dissappointed with some of what apple does, and they got your money didn't they :)

They don't have my money yet.;)
But not because they aren't the fastest thing around, I don't want that right now, I want a Cube and you know that's not going to be the fastest thing out there, It's going to be the fastest thing out there in an 8-inch cube.:p

Personally, I don't need a lot of speed and power right now, but I'm really getting into multimedia stuff (mostly animated GIFs now, but that's just the beginning) and most people don't need that kind of power, 800Mhz should be enough for the avererage user but if you're going to be doing some serious multimedia work, then you need all the speed you can get and that's my issue.
Who do we have to blame for the lack in speed at the moment?
I never said that their strategy is flawed, after all, Apple's goal shouldn't be to defeat Intel or Microsoft, it should be the best and fastest at what they do and right now, they're not.
Photoshop will run faster on a top of the line PIV than a top of the line Mac.
Plus, 3Ghz looks a helluva lot faster than dual 1.25 Ghz no matter how little the difference in performance may be.
Like it or not, that's how the PC world thinks.
In Ghz.
And that's where Apple is falling behind.
They have an OS that's at least 10 years ahead of anything else out there, top of the line multimedia apps for the consumer and pro user and well-integrated hardware and software, but they are falling behind in the speed department and that's going to hurt both their marketshare and their image and how a companies products look is what people first see when they're shopping around for a new computer and now Apple's don't look like the best deal out there.

[e-coli]

It's a combination of things, but all pointing to the same fact. There's virtually no competition in the Mac marketplace. Competition is what drives innovation. It's what makes Intel and AMD keep cranking out faster chips. There is no such competition in the Mac marketplace. Until there is, we're going to be stuck with slow(er), more expensive hardware. And Apple is still going to be percieved as a miniscule presence.

I think Steve Jobs is a good showman, but I don't think he's a very good CEO. Apple needs an enterprise strategy. A results-oriented approach to getting business done, and integrating data across multiple platforms and industries. They need to gain wider acceptence of the Mac platform to create competition and development. That's the only way Apple is going to succeed as a company.

Lou Gerstner (who is by far one of the most brilliant business men of our age, next to Billiam Gates) said in 1999; the days of the personal computer are numbered and dwindling. Business, education, and home usage are all moving to web-centered resources: allowing integration and data unity across the board. Without an enterprise strategy, Apple won't survive. I'm not saying this to be a doom-and-gloom soothsayer. But I'm afraid it's true. Processor speed is only one crack in the hull, so to speak.

[Source]

Originally posted by buffsldr
Bottom line, Apple does not exist to outperform pc's. They exist to make their share holders money. The original question was who should we blame? I am not sure that there is a problem. As one consumer, I would love to see macs outperform pc's, but before I am willing to accept there is a problem that will affect apple's profitability I would like to see a business case explaining how apple can make more money by fixing these alleged "problems". But, I really dont care. I use apple because i like it. when apple stops meeting my computer needs, i can go somewhere else, or do without.

Oh please!

Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware! If Apple didn't want to compete with PCs, then they wouldn't make so much out of the MGz myth and say that "Apple Mac X will outperform Wintel X, even with two thirds of the processor speed!".

Apple needs to do something fast, beause virtually forcing schools across America to take on Macs and whining that Microsoft are big bullies isn't going to help them.

Sorry, i'm being a bit extreme, but i wish Apple would hurry up and do something.

PCs are the competition and releasing an update of a product every six months, while the competition is constantly updating, isn't going to work for them for much longer.

Originally posted by e-coli
I think Steve Jobs is a good showman, but I don't think he's a very good CEO. Apple needs an enterprise strategy. A results-oriented approach to getting business done, and integrating data across multiple platforms and industries. They need to spurn wider acceptence of the Mac platform to create competition. That's the only way Apple is going to succeed as a company.


Agreed! And one of the reasons Apple isn't working fast enough is because you're all so busy kissing their @ss! Start a petition (http://www.petitiononline.com), write an email, send a fax or even write a letter telling Apple to release the latest batch of Hardware and then get on with moving this company forward.

You guys seem to spend so much time talking, but you take no action!

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by Source


Oh please!

Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware! If Apple didn't want to compete with PCs, then they wouldn't make so much out of the MGz myth and say that "Apple Mac X will outperform Wintel X, even with two thirds of the processor speed!".

Apple needs to do something fast, beause virtually forcing schools across America to take on Macs and whining that Microsoft are big bullies isn't going to help them.

Sorry, i'm being a bit extreme, but i wish Apple would hurry up and do something.

PCs are the competition and releasing an update of a product every six months, while the competition is constantly updating, isn't going to work for them for much longer.

I am shocked to hear you say that "Apples exists to compete with PCs and one of, if not THE major element of that is having the best/fastest hardware!" Apple exists to make money, and part of that means competing with pcs. But again, the motivation is the need to make money, not to compete with pcs for the sake of competing with pcs. Not all users want more power, ease of use is more important than some. I merely suggested that this is a complex problem that requires serious marketing, not simple, uni-variable analysis (eg. faster= more market share). WHere do you consider all the factors of buying a computer? This is why you can never say which computer is "best" At work my pc is tons better than a mac, because I can run ProEngineer (a solid modeling program). At home, my mac is best, because of imovie, itunes, the os, and .mac, etc

Why do you want apple to "hurry up and do something"? You can buy a pc if you want to.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Source

You're kidding, right?

This is gonna be fun...

Unfortunately, most people are NOT computer savvy and when they see an Apple Mac at 1GHz and a PC at 2.5GHz and two thirds the price, which do you think they will pick?


Agreed, most will go the cheaper route with the bigger numbers, and it should stay that way. I'm all for Apple quadrupling their market share up to about 20%, but once we get past that share we start getting 'undocumented Windows features' on our Macs. Virii, security exploits, crappy software, spyware, etc.

I don't expect 20% of the cars I see to be luxury cars, the same is true of computers.


It's the same reason people will pick up a Gamecube over an Xbox - They don't take time to find out what comes with either, they just pick the cheapest. Nemo: "Well it does the same thing, dunnit?"


If I'm not mistaken, most of the 'people' you're referring to bought a PS2.


You simply can't configure your hardware in a mac as much as you can in a PC. I know people who are hardcore PC "tinkerers", who barely touch their mac (with regards to messing with the hardware), because there's simply nothing interesting to do with it, except maybe upgrade it.



True, if you want a neon coumputer with hydraulics that'll do the '3 wheel motion' get a PC. If you want a computer which looks great as manufactured, get a Mac.

To put it into my beloved auto analogies, you can lower and tune a Honda Accord, put neon lights, big woofers, nitrous, and glitter paint on it. You could spend six figures doing this.

If you have half a brain, you spend 80k and buy a 1997 Porsche Turbo.


Can you buy a 5 fan aluminium case for a mac? No.


With a cool running chip, why run 5 fans?


Can you buy cooling systems, fan regulators and lights? No.


Well, you can, but, why would you?


Can you buy wrapped IDE cables and cut a hole in the side of your mac to show off everything inside? No.

Oh yeah, I forgot, only those proprietary Apple brand flat IDE cables work in a Mac.

And I've got a Dremel and a Sawzall, I can cut a hole in anything I want to. However, I find my computer aesthetically pleasing, and don't enjoy looking at cables, cards, and drives as they sit static all day long


Do you have different types of hardware manufacturers, competing for your money? Well yes, but not as much as PC users.


More and more we're gonna ruin this argument. UNIX has as many driver options for hardware as Windows. Already, some PC cards are working out of the box, and drivers for many more are being rewritten for Jaguar (PPC+BSD). This argument is valid now, but not for long.


The very market Apple has always played for and still plays for today, to some extent, is people who are computer illiterate. Nearly all of their advertising campaigns say: "Macs are easier to use that PCs." Thereby trying to attract those who can't use PCs, or at least, find them difficult to use.


What they're playing for is those who want to use a computer to do work, not those who want to do work on a computer. I've got 2 Macs, 2 PCs, and a Sun box at my desk. I am able to do more in a day on the Macs, because they don't get in my way, they don't have DLL conflicts, they don't BSOD, they just work.

Talk to the smartest engineers in the world about anything, and they'll all tell you to employ the KISS principle at all times for a better product. That's 'Keep it simple, stupid'.

Apple has always made things simple, yet powerful, well still keeping them idiot proof. That is why they have such amazing loyalty.


Mac users are the most disillusioned people that i've ever seen. You guys lie and lie and lie to yourselves time and again, just to make yourselves feel better about buying a Mac.


There's a lot of truth to this. People who think that the G4 1GHz is faster than 2+GHz x86's are indeed delusional. I will, however, be glad to point out that Windows is not a productive place to work, and all the extra mousing, clicking, rebooting, debugging, and BSODing adds up to a lot of wasted time you don't have with a Mac. Additionally, the TCO and downtime/year of the Mac is far superior in a business environment (businesses are the places where computers don't have neon lights, and the people want to work, FYI).


In general, if you want a computer for gaming, you DO NOT buy a Mac, unless you're very stupid. I'd say about one tenth of the games that come out on PC, also get released on Macs, and even when they do, it's a few months to a year after the PC version is released. Granted, Apple is doing an amazing job of getting more games developers to release OSX version of their games, but still, most of the time Mac users have to wait for the game to be release after the PC version. Although, basically all of the best games do eventually get released on Macs. The words "Mac Gamer" is an oxymoron and the words "Hardcore Mac Gamer" is just a myth.


Sure, we're not a gaming platform first and foremost. You should see the three bad games I have on my Solaris machine... Anyway, we get out games a bit later, and I'm okay with that, but as things progress, I think you'll see the quality games released concurrently (like Warcraft III).


A Mac is a great computer, so stop bull****ting yourselves about all of the things you think it can do and just accept that Macs are still more stylish and more stable than PCs and have, in my opinion and i'm sure yours, a much better looking and interesting to use OS. PCs are slowly catching up to Macs in that department, especially with regards to stability and if you really want a stylish computer, it's easy to find as long as you have someone that can build it. I'd personally, rather have a well build, aluminium case (NOT Lian Li cr@p) cased computer than a white, plastic Mac that anyone can buy.


To each they're own. I'm not 13, so I don't wan't an erector set case with lights and a window, and 5 noisy fans.

PCs maybe catching up on stability (I stop at Win2k Pro), but they are losing on Privacy, Fair Use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use. and productivity.

Also, anyone here can fix a Mac with relative ease (if something goes wrong), but 90% of PC users flail miserably until calling in professional support. That says a lot.


It's been proven that more intelligent and richer people buy Macs. And that is the most moronic thing i've ever heard. OF COURSE the people who buy macs are, in general, going to have more money and be more intelligent, for the simple fact that Macs are far more expensive than PCs. That's like saying:

"People that buy Mercedes cars are more intelligent and richer than people who buy Skodas."

Macs are more expensive, therefore you need more money to buy them, - the people who buy them have more money because they have better jobs and they have those better jobs because they have college degrees or a better education. GET IT?

Considering that statement says Mac users are more intelligent than PC users, Mac users sure do buy into a lot of stupid, ************, sensationalized advertising.

Well, aside from making an argument, and immediately contradicting it, did you have a point?

The cult of Macintosh is built around taste. An appreciation for design, ease of use, quality, value, etc.

That doesn't mean stupid people don't have Macs, and smart people don't have PCs.

It simply means PC users, on the average, are likely to own Lay-Z-Boys, and Mac owners, on the average are likely to own Eames chairs.

Taste, some have it, some don't.

I believe that Apple WAS turning heads, but with the advent of the 3GHz Intel CPU, i hope Apple will finally start to realize that they need to do something, and fast, but i don't think they will.


Ever seen a PC on the cover of Time magazine? Ever seen a bunch of Mac journalists go 'wow, this Windows on Intel thing is really cool'? Ever think that maybe you're not privy to Apple's master plan?

I've been using Macs since 1984, and I've heard 'Apple better....' more times than I care to imagine. Like before they revolutionized the publishing industry. Like before the orignal iMac was introduced. Like before they brought UNIX to the masses. I'm really not too worried that 'Apple had better...'


Now don't get me wrong, i love Macs. What i HATE is Mac users who continue to lie about what Macs can do, what people who use Macs are like and spout crap like: "Mac users are sooo much better than PC users!". Just grow up!

What can't a Mac do? Play DiVX movies well.
What can a Mac do? Run 99% of all software ever written (MacOS, UNIX, Windows via VPC, C64, SNES, etc through emulation).

Mac users are uppity about being Mac users because they have less problems, it doesn't make them better.


And the sadness of it all is that, in my experience, PC users don't really give a crap about Mac users, but Mac users continue to insult PC users at every chance they get. It's childish.


Actually, Mac users tend to bash PC users who show up in Mac forums touting the great benefits of Wintel.

Mac users (over 18) usually don't have the energy to go muckraking in the PC world.


It's Apples fault. If they can't run their company properly, they can't expect anyone else to do it for them.


Can't run their company? This is too puerile to be real. They're doing huge things in a crap market, creating new revenue streams, new products, etc.

Name a profitable PC company recently?

Give you a hint, starts with A

Maybe by 'can't run thier company' you meant 'can't please me'?


Now when are the fricking new Macs going to be released?

When the planets chip/market/inventory/r&d/manufacturing/cost align in 2003.

[Nipsy]

I actually had to shorten that message considerably becuase of a heretofore unbeknownst to me MacRumors post length limit!!!!

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by Nipsy
I actually had to shorten that message considerably becuase of a heretofore unbeknownst to me MacRumors post length limit!!!!

Nipsy..... you crack me up.

BTW, I loved reading your post. Awesome

[e-coli]

Originally posted by Nipsy

Nipsy, while I know you are simply trying to defend your viewpoint (as we all should), you have a very simplistic view of a computers role in society. This is a tragic flaw with all Mac users. Running a piece of software in "emulation" is a poor example of compatibility. It's like having to buy an external drive for your portable computer. It's cumbersome, hardly ideal, and defeats the purpose.

The problem with Apple simple. They have no enterprise strategy. They have no muscle to get developers to begin including Macs in custom software solutions, database integration, and web-services compatibility. Apple is totally missing the point, and doesn't understand the place of the computer in business and (this is the sad one) education.

So, Apple has the Xserve, right? Huge dismal failure for them. They are giving hardware to Universities, but they're not leveraging their weight to get software and datablase companies on board to write enterprise-wide server-based applications. A good example: some universities are in the process of migrating all their research to secure server farms, and interconnecting them nationwide to increase the pool of information available to researchers. This means that different applications, different file types, and different methods of gathering that information (such as a custom-written piece of software that, say, reads indentity cards or thumb-print records) need to become recognizeable, retrieveable, and editable from any location. Or what if libraries wanted to interconnect, creating a real-time updated database of all published works and periodicals known to mankind. They need to be able to trade data, and allow data to be submitted by individual users (such as a publication written by an independent party).

These are great examples of how the world is becoming more interdependent, and the personal computer is becoming merely a gateway to more information, applications and services. It's also a great way of illustrating how Apple is missing the boat entirely. They have made no such moves at the university (or even lower education) level. They have no plan (or so it seems) for the time when data unity is going to becom an essential element of the computing environement. They are making a wonderful move with embracing open standards, but they need to drive enterprise-level development. They need to sell solutions to the enterprises now, and make sure their technology is implemented, instead of trying to retrofit Mac-compatibility into an implemented solution. By then it will be too late, and the Mac platform will become obsolete.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by e-coli


Nipsy, while I know you are simply trying to defend your viewpoint (as we all should), you have a very simplistic view of a computers role in society. This is a tragic flaw with all Mac users. Running a piece of software in "emulation" is a poor example of compatibility. It's like having to buy an external drive for your portable computer. It's cumbersome, hardly ideal, and defeats the purpose.

Admittedly, running in emulation is slow and cumbersome, but the simple fact is that we can, and PC users can't. Just one of those things to counter the 'Windows can do so much more' argument.

I don't believe that argument, but hey, my Mac can run Windows (acceptably), so it is not a point of contention any more.

For most tasks, we have native software, but for the very rare occasion when something can not be done natively, it can still be done.


The problem with Apple simple. They have no enterprise strategy. They have no muscle to get developers to begin including Macs in custom software solutions, database integration, and web-services compatibility. Apple is totally missing the point, and doesn't understand the place of the computer in business and (this is the sad one) education.


Ummmm....developers? Developers are flocking to OSX, because it gives a good UNIX environment, with a good user experience. I see more geeks at more non-Mac conventions with iBooks and TiBooks every time I go.

Databases...you haven't been paying attention! Sybase, Oracle 9i, MySQL, PostGreSQL, which db were you looking for?
http://developer.apple.com/server/

Web services...my machine is running Tomcat, apache, php/mysql, and Webobjects servers. ASP is available for UNIX, which means an apache module could prolly be compiled for Mac. Which services did you want? .net? passport?

Businesses...businesses are slow to change, but I have seen increased interest in Apple (since OSX) for the first time in a decade.


So, Apple has the Xserve, right? Huge dismal failure for them. They are giving hardware to Universities, but they're not leveraging their weight to get software and datablase companies on board to write enterprise-wide server-based applications. A good example: some universities are in the process of migrating all their research to secure server farms, and interconnecting them nationwide to increase the pool of information available to researchers. This means that different applications, different file types, and different methods of gathering that information (such as a custom-written piece of software that, say, reads indentity cards or thumb-print records) need to become recognizeable, retrieveable, and editable from any location. Or what if libraries wanted to interconnect, trade data, and allow data to be submitted by individual users (such as a publication written by an independent party).


Xserve adoption will be slow, and the product needs to be excellent to gain share. Thankfully, I, and many many reviewers, think it is.

However, your argument about data migration is silly, as data is accessed through a pipe (odbc, jdbc, etc.) and Mac OSX has a nice set of pipes. You can put a GUI on a pipe and call it an app, but all it does it form a query which gets fed to a stored proc and echo the data.

It can be done now via the command line, which means easily via an app. With data, the 'server based app' is a collection of stored procs, and the client (a browser, Sherlock, a custom client, etc.) makes it pretty.

Furthermore, the developers I mention above, are making sure we get many good browsers, and the browser will be the path to data (hell, it already is).


These are great examples of how the world is becoming more interdependent, and the personal computer is becoming merely a gateway to more information, applications and services.

Affirms my point above...


It's also a great way of illustrating how Apple is missing the boat entirely. They have made no such moves at the university (or even lower education) level. They have no plan (or so it seems) for the time when data unity is going to becom an essential element of the computing environement. They are making a wonderful move with embracing open standards, but they need to spurn enterprise-level development.

Again, you seem to be missing the fact that OSX is UNIX, and UNIX is the platform of nearly all .edu servers, and most .com servers. Platform interoperability is the best it has ever been, and will only get better.

You accuse me of having a simplistic view, when it is yours which seems limited!

[e-coli]

sweet retort.

btw, love the sig. ;)

[TMay]

I have better things to do than rehash a situation that I have no control over. Especially a situation that gets rehashed on a biweekly basis by generally the same individuals.


Still, four options await:

complain; then buy a PC
complain; but wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for
don't complain; then buy a PC
don't complain; and wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for

In the mean time, I suggest that we all prepare ourselves for the reality of faster machines by mastering all of the software that we already have in our toolboxes.

I'm done...

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by TMay


Still, four options await:

complain; then buy a PC
complain; but wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for
don't complain; then buy a PC
don't complain; and wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for


Option 5:

Buy a $1700 Dualie, and sell it for $1000 when the great leap forward happens.

I can't deny that I think a lot of people who post here want speed for speed's sake, not because they need it.

I run a HEAVY load of services (Apache, TomCat, MySQL, a lot of cron, etc.) on my machine at all times, iTunes at all times, many terminal sessions, several browsers, BBEdit, CodeWarrior, Excel, Mail, and often have DreamWeaver, Photoshop, Thoth, Flash, and several others open, and I seldom have slowdowns. I don't render anything, and I respect the complaints of people doing heavy rendering.

If you're are noticing slowdowns, max your RAM, and get a RAID card. If you're peaking both processors with 2GB of RAM, and an U160 SCSI, or ATA 133 RAID, complain, otherwise, you don't really have a right to!

[Source]

Good replies, Nipsy. Although you completely misunderstood some of my points addressed some points that i wasn't even talking about and also made some points that i completely disagree with.

I might make a proper reply addressing these tomorrow, if:

A. I have the time.
B. I can be bothered.

Oh and i'm well over 18, have a very high IQ and a masters degree. :) That doesn't make me any more likely to be right or wrong than you, i'm just saying, seeing as you made some delightful comments about 13 and under 18 year olds in your aforementioned post.

If you guys don't mind Apple being behind in hardware, then, quite honestly, stop whining about it.

So many Mac users spend hours a day, talking about Apple and what they're doing wrong, but never take any action. If those who care about Apple being the slowest computers on the market are not going to do something about it, then they should shut up about it.

If you're going to whine about it constantly and then get upset with someone who says it's not good enough, then you're just a stupid hypocrit. I realize that you're happy with the productivity your Mac(s) has brought you, and are incredibly loyal to Apple, as well you should be, but if you're going to complain about it, then at least make some attempt to do something about it. or shut up about it.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Nipsy
PCs maybe catching up on stability (I stop at Win2k Pro), but they are losing on Privacy, Fair Use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use. and productivity.
Well, wow. How uneducated you are.

You don't lose privacy, fair use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use, and productivity on PCs. I run Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS 7.6.1 on my Athlon 1400MHz. I don't lose those things you mention while using Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, I don't lose them even in Windows. I know what to avoid.

Extensibility. Let's see. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft.NET platform? It's an excellent platform for development. Microsoft.NET completely replaces their old ****ty Win32. In fact, Microsoft.NET isn't even tied to Win32. I run implementations of Microsoft.NET on Linux and FreeBSD. Microsoft.NET is the, if not one of the, most extensible application programming framework ever engineered. It takes the concept of SUN's Java and made it an unified framework for several specific languages of which are designed for specific types of programming, for example, C# should be used for general applications programming, VB.NET should be used for quick and simple solutions, JScript.NET for scripting, Eiffel.NET for mathematics, Delphi.NET for whatever Delphi was for. Best of all, you can even program dll's in separate languages and combine them in one powerful program. That's some serious leveraging you don't have in UNIX without making wrappers for each language. Microsoft has said bye bye to dll hell (Microsoft.NET actually adopts the UNIX versioning system. Before, it was conflicting versions of dll's that couldn't be installed at the same time. But now, you can have multiple dll's and no dll hell) Besides, I also run *n?x on my PC, that's extreme extensibility by using free OSes. I get benefits of UNIX on my PC as well.

Style. You're saying that PC users don't have style? Maybe their style is to buy affordable computers, run them fast, get **** done. Various people have different style flavors.

Ease of use. Windows XP is easy enough. Hell, command line UNIX is easy for me to use. Sure Mac OS X might be easier to use than Windows XP. But seriously, who cares. Windows has an established GUI that many people know how to use.

Productivity. Mac OS X is the worst OS for productivity at least for me. It's so frickin' slow drawing all the eye candy crap. At least in Windows XP you can turn them off. Ease of use does not necessarily equate to productivity. Ease of use *AND* GUI responsiveness sum to equate mostly what productivity. Windows XP has both. Mac OS X has only the ease of use while people need huge amounts of RAM on a lower end Mac to run it at least fast enough. Windows XP is usable on a Pentium II 233MHz with 128MB RAM just fine. Windows XP has less BSODs these days, but when they do occur, it's usually memory corruption. That's what you get for not using top notch RAM. I've had people who have gotten kernel panics as much as BSODs. Myself, I haven't gotten a single BSOD since my install of Windows XP except when I overclocked my CPU, but that's not XP's fault. XP even ran when Linux wouldn't boot with 1400MHz@1522MHz.

By the way, the PC is not Windows. Windows is an operating system. The PC is a collection of computer components independent from OSes. So don't dare to say PCs are catching up in stability--they're already friggin' stable.

I simply use what makes me productive. The only reason I'm a Mac guy is because I'm a PC, Sun, IBM (POWER4), etc. guy who likes to have and play with them all. In fact, my first computer was IIsi--they kicked ass back then. They still kick ass today IMHO so I still have old Macs around to tinker around to have fun.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Source
Good replies, Nipsy. Although you completely misunderstood some of my points addressed some points that i wasn't even talking about and also made some points that i completely disagree with.

I might make a proper reply addressing these tomorrow, if:

A. I have the time.
B. I can be bothered.

Oh and i'm well over 18, have a very high IQ and a masters degree. :) That doesn't make me any more likely to be right or wrong than you, i'm just saying, seeing as you made some delightful comments about 13 and under 18 year olds in your aforementioned post.

If you guys don't mind Apple being behind in hardware, then, quite honestly, stop whining about it.

So many Mac users spend hours a day, talking about Apple and what they're doing wrong, but never take any action. If those who care about Apple being the slowest computers on the market are not going to do something about it, then they should shut up about it.

If you're going to whine about it constantly and then get upset with someone who says it's not good enough, then you're just a stupid hypocrit. I realize that you're happy with the productivity your Mac(s) has brought you, and are incredibly loyal to Apple, as well you should be, but if you're going to complain about it, then at least make some attempt to do something about it. or shut up about it.

Just a quickie:
I'm not whining about anything. I think of Macs as entry level workstations (not as desktops), and as such, I find them cheap, reliable, and speedy.

I'd like more speed (as I do tax my machine), but I'm not known to whine about anything. If you'll notice, my post is very point/counterpoint, and primarily designed to dispel some of the myths proffered from either side of the fence. If you read it carefully, I think you'll see that I'm neither a hypocrite, nor stupid. My spelling and grammar are strong. My arguments and points are logical, and put forth based on data, published and empirical.

Note I was quick to agree that Macs are not the fastest machines...

Secondly, Macs are not the slowest machines on the market. For processing only arguments, the Mac line sits squarely between the top and bottom end Windows machines. For reliability (uptime, TCO), the Mac sits between more mature UNIX distros, and Windows.

As for age, there are a lot of people here in the 12-20 demographic, who agrue with zeal, but without fact. Oddly, it is this demographic which are most likely to buy neon case lights, watercoolers, billet milled aircraft aluminum cases, etc.

No need to take the vertical demographics as an insult!

Furthermore, what action do you propose we comsumers take to speed Apple development?

I would wager that no active posters have high level chip design on their resumes. I would further speculate that few really understand the in-and-outs of a complex gate setup, so I doubt we're going to design it for them.

Should we boycott Apple products? This drains R&D capital from Apple, and forces people to use Windows, certainly not an elegant soultion.

I am open to any suggestion you have as to how I can speed the delivery of a G5 or Power4 Lite.

Lastly, I'm a happy Apple customer, but my loyalty is available. If you can create a better matrix of performance/stability/standards based computing/availabilty of apps/cost/TCO/OS elegance I'm a customer.

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Nipsy
Should we boycott Apple products? This drains R&D capital from Apple, and forces people to use Windows, certainly not an elegant soultion.
Forcing Apple to compete more roughly... thus giving us better machines.

AMD is in a similar case right now. Many people are turning away from AMD to Intel simply because AMD sucks now. So AMD is trying to get their ass together to innovate further. Thus giving us faster and faster CPUs from both AMD or Intel. Competition is good. Apple needs to compete more aggressively.

[Source]

Sorry Nipsy, i know you weren't talking about Apple's speed in your posts and i meant to say that in my last post, but i'm too tired and must have missed it out somewhere in typing everything.

Again, more good replies from you.

I agree in some parts, but i also agree with MacCoaster.

I propose that we don't design chips for Apple, but let them know what we want. Sure, some Apple people may (and i'm not saying definately do), check up on a few forums to find out what their customers want, but until you hit apple with multiples of requests for what you want, you won't get anywhere by just sitting here and complaining about it (again, not directing this at you, Nipsy, but everyone who does complain).

[Nipsy]

You don't force a boutique operation to lower prices by lowering demand.

It is fundamental economics.

Also, 999 of 1000 things which get said here have already been researched by BizDev, R&D, Manufacturing, etc. in Cupertino.

They know we want a G5/Power4 Lite. They know we're savvy enough not to accept a 7470 or some other rebadged G4.

They know that the G4 is not as fast as some PIV and Athlons. They know we know this.

They know that MHz matters, no matter how much they downplay it.

They know the Photoshop bake off is a bad metric.

So, since I don't care either way, complain, don't complain, write your congressman, eat J-ello, but know for a fact that unless you have an amazing insight, a moment of pure clarity, or an unused superchip design in you desk drawer, that you won't be changing the future with suggestions, and you'll only impact it negatively by boycotting Apple products.

As a shareholder and a customer, that idea spells doom, not development.

Do what you want to do, but get your facts straight, and don't talk out of your sunshine hole!

[Nipsy]

Server burped

[MacCoaster]

Originally posted by Nipsy
You don't force a boutique operation to lower prices by lowering demand.

It is fundamental economics.
It's working for AMD, ironically.
Also, 999 of 1000 things which get said here have already been researched by BizDev, R&D, Manufacturing, etc. in Cupertino.
Clarify please. You just threw that out of the blue. I'm not understanding where you're getting that from.

They know we want a G5/Power4 Lite. They know we're savvy enough not to accept a 7470 or some other rebadged G4.

They know that the G4 is not as fast as some PIV and Athlons. They know we know this.

They know that MHz matters, no matter how much they downplay it.

They know the Photoshop bake off is a bad metric.
Then why the hell aren't they doing anything about it.

So, since I don't care either way, complain, don't complain, write your congressman, eat J-ello, but know for a fact that unless you have an amazing insight, a moment of pure clarity, or an unused superchip design in you desk drawer, that you won't be changing the future with suggestions, and you'll only impact it negatively by boycotting Apple products.

As a shareholder and a customer, that idea spells doom, not development.

Do what you want to do, but get your facts straight, and don't talk out of your sunshine hole!
It's a lose-lose situation for you then. Apple won't improve for you. You don't promote competition to help Apple improve. And I do have my facts straight, thank you.

[TMay]

I like your style Nipsy and your points are well taken. I think that a lot of people are just venting.

Personally, I would find it extremely hard to believe that Apple wants to live and die by a Photoshop metric. On the other hand, Intel and AMD don't seem to be making bank on every speed increase either, which tells me that PC's are price constrained commodities for the most part.

Apple, on the other hand, is quite aware of the dollars that can be generated with a quick and substantial speed bump in January, especially as most of the bleeding edge types that have stuck their noses up at the 7455 machines.

I have a dual 500 with a hardware raid (ata66), and I can get a good speed bump by jumping to a 133 raid and 7200 RPM drives, should I need to stretch this a bit more. Then, of course, there are dual 800 and 1G upgrades, though I would need to see quite a price decrease to be interested in these.

Is it worth it to incrementally bump the machine? Probably not.

I bought my first, a 128, in Feb 84. There wasn't, for all practical purposes, any software other than MacWrite and MacPaint. Then we went through both the Sculley and Amelio eras.

Apple has had its up's and down's. Apple's definitely on an up swing now with the release of Jaguar.

I advocate patience regarding hardware. Apple knows quite well that we want to splend our money. 3 more months, I would think.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Well, wow. How uneducated you are.


Thanks!


You don't lose privacy, fair use, extensibility, programmability, style, ease of use, and productivity on PCs. I run Windows XP, Linux, FreeBSD, and Mac OS 7.6.1 on my Athlon 1400MHz. I don't lose those things you mention while using Linux or FreeBSD. Hell, I don't lose them even in Windows. I know what to avoid.


Well, I like to listen to music on an MP3 player. Windows does not natively support MP3. I don't like product activation, as it means I have to call and reactivate when I change a bunch of hardware, which I'm likely to do enough for it to be a problem. I don't like paying for an OS with an insecure foundation. I don't like paying for an OS which with IE 'removed' still manages to pop up ads in ... IE. I don't like a dos cli, which has some UNIX commands, but ususally requires DOS commands.


Extensibility. Let's see. Have you ever looked at the Microsoft.NET platform? It's an excellent platform for development. Microsoft.NET completely replaces their old ****ty Win32. In fact, Microsoft.NET isn't even tied to Win32. I run implementations of Microsoft.NET on Linux and FreeBSD. Microsoft.NET is the, if not one of the, most extensible application programming framework ever engineered. It takes the concept of SUN's Java and made it an unified framework for several specific languages of which are designed for specific types of programming, for example, C# should be used for general applications programming, VB.NET should be used for quick and simple solutions, JScript.NET for scripting, Eiffel.NET for mathematics, Delphi.NET for whatever Delphi was for. Best of all, you can even program dll's in separate languages and combine them in one powerful program. That's some serious leveraging you don't have in UNIX without making wrappers for each language. Microsoft has said bye bye to dll hell (Microsoft.NET actually adopts the UNIX versioning system. Before, it was conflicting versions of dll's that couldn't be installed at the same time. But now, you can have multiple dll's and no dll hell) Besides, I also run *n?x on my PC, that's extreme extensibility by using free OSes. I get benefits of UNIX on my PC as well.


.net is an entirely closed initiative. JScript is JavaScript crippled for IE only. C# is (from what I've heard) bad C++. I have tried to avoid .net for many reasons. I enjoy open standards. I like learning languages which are more likely to succeed in the broadest audience. I hate the whole .dll structure. COM/ASP services I have built in the past refused to scale well.

Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with .net, and some people will surely code for it, as long as its around.


Style. You're saying that PC users don't have style? Maybe their style is to buy affordable computers, run them fast, get **** done. Various people have different style flavors.


No what I'm saying is that Apple is a company that invest heavily in its industrial design, its UI development, etc. which gives it a high degree of style.

The hardware of Apple's line, love it or hate it, is highly stylized. The OS has a lot more visual appeal, and more thoughful and intuitive layout. It's bloody UNIX my Granny sends me email from. Windows is available as delivered in Marshmellow or 98 Mode. It just looks bad...


Ease of use. Windows XP is easy enough. Hell, command line UNIX is easy for me to use. Sure Mac OS X might be easier to use than Windows XP. But seriously, who cares. Windows has an established GUI that many people know how to use.


The ease of use argument is primarily focused opn productivity.

In Windows, when you empty the trash, an alert/confirmation box appears. You can then change focus to another window, burying the alert box, and freezing the OS, so you have to drill down through all the windows you have open to answer this alert before continuing.

Windows will take you through a great help tour in order to tell you it can't help you.

Little annoying counter-intuitive time wasters abound.

I have both, I use both, I code on both, and I just feel from experience that the Mac is a better environment to code on. As I said, I'm not rendering, so the raw speed advantages of x86 are lost to the clunkiness of the UI.


Productivity. Mac OS X is the worst OS for productivity at least for me. It's so frickin' slow drawing all the eye candy crap. At least in Windows XP you can turn them off. Ease of use does not necessarily equate to productivity. Ease of use *AND* GUI responsiveness sum to equate mostly what productivity. Windows XP has both. Mac OS X has only the ease of use while people need huge amounts of RAM on a lower end Mac to run it at least fast enough. Windows XP is usable on a Pentium II 233MHz with 128MB RAM just fine.


I will happily concede that RAM and system spec can make all the difference here, and that Windows will run on a broader base of machines.

My main machine is a DP867 with 2GB of RAM and a ATA133 RAID.

It is as responsive it can be.


Windows XP has less BSODs these days, but when they do occur, it's usually memory corruption. That's what you get for not using top notch RAM. I've had people who have gotten kernel panics as much as BSODs. Myself, I haven't gotten a single BSOD since my install of Windows XP except when I overclocked my CPU, but that's not XP's fault. XP even ran when Linux wouldn't boot with 1400MHz@1522MHz.


Well, I run a Dual PIII 500 Server/occasional workstation with 1GB of PC100 Registered ECC Micron RAM, all name brand, unaltered stuff. It also runs only heavily tested commercial apps (no kazaa like crap).

It has a BSOD often enough to cause hair loss. Also, it has very destructive BSODs, meaning I get to use my 4 Win2k boot floppies...that's 3 hours of lost time.


By the way, the PC is not Windows. Windows is an operating system. The PC is a collection of computer components independent from OSes. So don't dare to say PCs are catching up in stability--they're already friggin' stable.


Semantic point taken...if you were following in context, you would see and know I was referring to the Windows on x86 platform...but thanks.


I simply use what makes me productive. The only reason I'm a Mac guy is because I'm a PC, Sun, IBM (POWER4), etc. guy who likes to have and play with them all. In fact, my first computer was IIsi--they kicked ass back then. They still kick ass today IMHO so I still have old Macs around to tinker around to have fun.

Entirely fair. I have Mac boxes, Windows boxes, Solaris boxes, and a few Linux boot partitions. My point is that in my considerable experience Windows on Intel has been the source of the greatest frustration and consternation for myself and my end users, and Mac OSX has been the source of the least.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Also, 999 of 1000 things which get said here have already been researched by BizDev, R&D, Manufacturing, etc. in Cupertino.
----------------------------------------------
Clarify please. You just threw that out of the blue. I'm not understanding where you're getting that from.

What I meant to say is that the things we suggest and clamor for here are things which Apple already knows.

We aren't going to alter their course with any of our statements, save for that 1 in 1000.

Apple is a $5-7 billion dollar company (depending on AAPL when you read this). A full fledged chip maturation is a multi billion dollar process, thusly Apple relies on other larger companies to fab its chips. It provides input, but it is a slave to their whims. Sadly, Motorola's whims have not included advancing the G4 at a 'market leading' pace.

We can tell Apple what we want them to do, but they are aware, and they are doing.

A Power4 derivative with 160+ vector instructions just doesn't make sense for IBM to develop, if they don't have a specific user, or feel like adding Vector based instructions to AIX.

So do what you will, but know that you won't change the future in a positive way by vocalizing.

[MacCoaster]

Well, I like to listen to music on an MP3 player. Windows does not natively support MP3. I don't like product activation, as it means I have to call and reactivate when I change a bunch of hardware, which I'm likely to do enough for it to be a problem. I don't like paying for an OS with an insecure foundation. I don't like paying for an OS which with IE 'removed' still manages to pop up ads in ... IE. I don't like a dos cli, which has some UNIX commands, but ususally requires DOS commands.
Uh. Windows does have the support. I can play MP3s in Windows Media Player. I can write programs using the API to play MP3s, WMA, ASF, whatever. Maybe you mean to encode? Sure, Microsoft didn't want to pay Fraunhofer for the license, since they have their own audio format that works just fine.

Product activation. Just sends info on computer--no personal info. One click. No big deal. Microsoft is just protecting its profits losses. I've had my Athlon for a year, changed a lot, XP still runs fine and hasn't bitched.

Windows is just as insecure as any desktop OS. I've seen many OS X security updates. Desktop OSes are worst for security if you don't know how to fully utilize the OS security components (i.e. NT Security Model, UNIX security model).

If you want UNIX in Windows. Get cygwin.

.net is an entirely closed initiative. JScript is JavaScript crippled for IE only. C# is (from what I've heard) bad C++. I have tried to avoid .net for many reasons. I enjoy open standards. I like learning languages which are more likely to succeed in the broadest audience. I hate the whole .dll structure. COM/ASP services I have built in the past refused to scale well.

Outside of that, I see nothing wrong with .net, and some people will surely code for it, as long as its around.
Very wrong. Microsoft has a shared-source (other name for open source) .NET VM, compiler, etc. for BSD called ROTOR. It's just as good as the commercial counterpart for Windows, which is free. Hell, ROTOR works on Windows if you want to have ROTOR on Windows. Besides, Mono is GPL'ed open source implementation of Microsoft.NET.

JScript is not only for IE. It's used in scripting. JScript.NET isn't for IE anyways. It's a scripting language that can be compiled into .NET MSIL CLR.

C# is a ECMA standard. Java isn't. It isn't bad C++. It isn't even C++. It's Microsoft's version of SUN's Java with quite some differences from Java. C# isn't Java per se, but very similar. C# is actually a very elegant language. It just works.

Microsoft also encourages standards with XML Web Services. It's an open standard. There's a XML Web Service implementation for Java by SUN. It will play friendly with Microsoft.NET.

COM/ASP scalability is just as bad as PHP scalability. Microsoft.NET solves this with ASP.NET which is far much more powerful and scalable.
No what I'm saying is that Apple is a company that invest heavily in its industrial design, its UI development, etc. which gives it a high degree of style.
No arguments there. Then again, Microsoft has too, especially with Microsoft.NET.

The hardware of Apple's line, love it or hate it, is highly stylized. The OS has a lot more visual appeal, and more thoughful and intuitive layout. It's bloody UNIX my Granny sends me email from. Windows is available as delivered in Marshmellow or 98 Mode. It just looks bad...
Opinionated. I don't care if its bloody UNIX your granny sends emails from, she still doesn't know and therefore doesn't take full advantage of UNIX. Marshmellow? 98 Mode? Microsoft has dumped 9x and moved on with NT/2k/XP.

The ease of use argument is primarily focused opn productivity.

In Windows, when you empty the trash, an alert/confirmation box appears. You can then change focus to another window, burying the alert box, and freezing the OS, so you have to drill down through all the windows you have open to answer this alert before continuing.
Why not simply respond to the request of action immediately then move on. Since when would it freeze the OS? Never happened to me. You don't have to answer to continue. Windows NT/2k/XP uses protected memory, just like Mac OS X. In fact, Windows had it long before Mac OS X even came out the public.
Little annoying counter-intuitive time wasters abound.
Well... I haven't come across anything counter-intuitive or time wasting in XP. It's all opinonated.
I have both, I use both, I code on both, and I just feel from experience that the Mac is a better environment to code on. As I said, I'm not rendering, so the raw speed advantages of x86 are lost to the clunkiness of the UI.
Mac is better vs. PC again. Remember. PC isn't Windows. Besides, the faster speed can help by increasing productivity by making things seem extremely responsive.
My main machine is a DP867 with 2GB of RAM and a ATA133 RAID.

It is as responsive it can be.
Wow, you need that much to be productive under Mac OS X? Jeez.

Well, I run a Dual PIII 500 Server/occasional workstation with 1GB of PC100 Registered ECC Micron RAM, all name brand, unaltered stuff. It also runs only heavily tested commercial apps (no kazaa like crap).

It has a BSOD often enough to cause hair loss. Also, it has very destructive BSODs, meaning I get to use my 4 Win2k boot floppies...that's 3 hours of lost time.
Then you're doing something wrong. Try out Windows XP. Very destructive BSODs, like what? I've only had one about win32k.sys, but that was a memory corruption issue that I quickly solved. Windows XP is absolutely STABLE here.

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by Nipsy


Just a quickie:
I'm not whining about anything. I think of Macs as entry level workstations (not as desktops), and as such, I find them cheap, reliable, and speedy.


I didn't want to quote everything Nipsy said, but can I just say that I am becoming a huge Nipsy fan.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by MacCoaster

Uh. Windows does have the support. I can play MP3s in Windows Media Player. I can write programs using the API to play MP3s, WMA, ASF, whatever. Maybe you mean to encode? Sure, Microsoft didn't want to pay Fraunhofer for the license, since they have their own audio format that works just fine.


Out of the box Win2k does not map mp3 files to an application.


Product activation. Just sends info on computer--no personal info. One click. No big deal. Microsoft is just protecting its profits losses. I've had my Athlon for a year, changed a lot, XP still runs fine and hasn't bitched.


That's fine, however, I build a lot of RAIDS, shange a lot of hardware for testing and dev, and basically from my undersatnding of XP, you need to phone MS after X number of component changes.

Pain I don't need.


Windows is just as insecure as any desktop OS. I've seen many OS X security updates. Desktop OSes are worst for security if you don't know how to fully utilize the OS security components (i.e. NT Security Model, UNIX security model).


Windows and MS have a security record I'll leave to the press to explain. FreeBSD is a damn secure building block, and the OSX updates make me happy, because they are quick, and proactive.

MS is reactive...only after someone disobeys their security through obscurity model.

IIS has holes everywhere (new one baked fresh daily), while Apache has had...ummm...one.


If you want UNIX in Windows. Get cygwin.


I don't. I want UNIX.


Very wrong. Microsoft has a shared-source (other name for open source) .NET VM, compiler, etc. for BSD called ROTOR. It's just as good as the commercial counterpart for Windows, which is free. Hell, ROTOR works on Windows if you want to have ROTOR on Windows. Besides, Mono is GPL'ed open source implementation of Microsoft.NET.

JScript is not only for IE. It's used in scripting. JScript.NET isn't for IE anyways. It's a scripting language that can be compiled into .NET MSIL CLR.

C# is a ECMA standard. Java isn't. It isn't bad C++. It isn't even C++. It's Microsoft's version of SUN's Java with quite some differences from Java. C# isn't Java per se, but very similar. C# is actually a very elegant language. It just works.


You're correct about C# (do you call it c sharp, c pound, c hash, or c octothorpe (http://theregister.co.uk/content/archive/26108.html) ). I brain farted there. I was thinking of something else, and can't find the link, so I'll let it be.

Anyway, regardless of MS trying, perhaps well, to open the .net framework, I still know hundreds of network application builders, and maybe 5 are really excited about .net. Additionally, in my application service provider experience, ASP/COM/IIS caused more trouble than Java servlets on Solaris, and again, scaled like dookie.

Anyway, I'm happy in JavaLand, and you seem happy in the .net, so we can close that argument here, unless, of course, you'd like to close.


Microsoft also encourages standards with XML Web Services. It's an open standard. There's a XML Web Service implementation for Java by SUN. It will play friendly with Microsoft.NET.


Good. Now if only they could encourage compliant html...


COM/ASP scalability is just as bad as PHP scalability. Microsoft.NET solves this with ASP.NET which is far much more powerful and scalable.


I've seen more ways to create memory leaks with ASP/IIS/COM than anywhere ever before. I've seen a PowerEdge serving 5 QA testers slow to a full and complete stop.

I'm glad to hear that this is improving.


I don't care if its bloody UNIX your granny sends emails from, she still doesn't know and therefore doesn't take full advantage of UNIX. Marshmellow? 98 Mode? Microsoft has dumped 9x and moved on with NT/2k/XP.


My opinion is based solely on the number of annoying relatives who I have to support over the phone!

Marshmellow and 98 refer to the two XP themes, also commonly referred to as Fisher Price and Classic.

Also, look at the UI, HID, and Usability Departments of your major OS vendors. Many OS vendors and software developers hire FROM Apple. Wonder why that is....?

At the end of the day, if I'm going to look at it 40+ hours a week, I appreciate it looking good.


Why not simply respond to the request of action immediately then move on. Since when would it freeze the OS? Never happened to me. You don't have to answer to continue. Windows NT/2k/XP uses protected memory, just like Mac OS X. In fact, Windows had it long before Mac OS X even came out the public.


'Cause I multitask. I hit 'Empty Recycle Bin', and I start doing things. If I'm tossing an enormous old source tree, it takes the computer a few seconds to catch up. I'm in a different window. I can now do nothing until I drill back down and close that alert. Try it, you'll see what I mean.

This is the one bothering me right now, but there are many others.


Well... I haven't come across anything counter-intuitive or time wasting in XP. It's all opinonated.


As I said, I don't use XP, and I'm glad it is improving. However, I do find 2k clunky and counter intuitive.


Mac is better vs. PC again. Remember. PC isn't Windows. Besides, the faster speed can help by increasing productivity by making things seem extremely responsive.


Thanks for semantic shout out number 2. I will go on the record now, and let y'allses (plural of y'all) know that by PC I mean Windows on x86. When I want to talk about other OSes on x86, I'll reference them by name.

The faster speed does help combat the clunk.


Wow, you need that much to be productive under Mac OS X? Jeez.


When I'm doing everything I can do, and letting the computer do everything it can do, it can't hurt. How much RAM does Windows want to burn a cd, while watching a QT stream, while editing text, while compiling, with people banging on your Apache server, and iSyncing your iPod, as well as browsing, with a cron job running, while your other optical drive is ripping MP3s?

In my experience, Windows used to beat a Mac senseless in multi tasking, and now the reverse is true...could be me just doing too much though...


Then you're doing something wrong. Try out Windows XP. Very destructive BSODs, like what? I've only had one about win32k.sys, but that was a memory corruption issue that I quickly solved. Windows XP is absolutely STABLE here.


Having gone a few months without one (feverishly knock on wooden desk), I don't know off the top of my head what they are. However, I know at least 4 times in 12 months I've had my Win2k partition go south...way south.

I know my Win2k serial by heart (looks down in shame).

Again, I'm responding based on things I've experienced and things I've read, and sometimes (C#) something gets replaced inthe memory array. If you're happy where you are, run with it, but don't expect me not to defend my platform of (informed) choice here at macrumors.com.

[Source]

Well as Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

Nipsy, you seem to be in a world of your own here. You're not paying attention to what people are saying and doing on this board and simply believing that you're right because you're a shareholder. I could buy a single share in Apple, but it doesn't mean that i'm going to be right about everything i think Apple should do.

If you want Apple to continue to be "behind" (is that a gentle enough word for you?) in the hardware sector, then that's fine.

But the FACT is that most Apple users, DON'T. They want to see Apple competing with PC hardware properly. Apple is already such a small part of the market and IMO, they need to increase speed to

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Give the people what they want" ? Well most people want speed and numbers.

And anyone who has said "I like your style, Nipsy" in this thread, no you don't, you just like the fact that he's defending your precious Macs. You guys whine and complain about what Apple's needs to do right, but as soon as someone points out that Apple is doing something wrong, you suddenly completely disagree with the very points that you yourselves were making. It's pretty pathetic.

[benixau]

Source you are absolutely pathetic yourself. Mac users, like myself, have to defend our machines. You idiots who use pc's just dont get it. You bash macs evey chance you get and i just wonder how many have actually used one for an extended period of time. You cant honeslty tell me that the very first time you used a pc you were able to figure everything out. I cant tell if it was your first machines but i will tell you this. People who use macs for the first time generally have an easier time than pc users do.

Now think that over and realise. it is a personal preference. Not a defining factor of who a person is.

PS. Stop bashing macs!!!!!! (bast*rd)

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by Source
Well as Burke said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

Nipsy, you seem to be in a world of your own here. You're not paying attention to what people are saying and doing on this board and simply believing that you're right because you're a shareholder. I could buy a single share in Apple, but it doesn't mean that i'm going to be right about everything i think Apple should do.

If you want Apple to continue to be "behind" (is that a gentle enough word for you?) in the hardware sector, then that's fine.

But the FACT is that most Apple users, DON'T. They want to see Apple competing with PC hardware properly. Apple is already such a small part of the market and IMO, they need to increase speed to

Have you ever heard of the phrase "Give the people what they want" ? Well most people want speed and numbers.

And anyone who has said "I like your style, Nipsy" in this thread, no you don't, you just like the fact that he's defending your precious Macs. You guys whine and complain about what Apple's needs to do right, but as soon as someone points out that Apple is doing something wrong, you suddenly completely disagree with the very points that you yourselves were making. It's pretty pathetic.

[Insert Random Unrelated Patriotic statement here]

[Insert unwanted opinion #1 here]

[Insert half truth here (eg Give the people what they want, then fail to back it up with marketing research) here]

[Attack supporters of your fellow debater with personal insults here]

[Source]

Originally posted by benixau
Source you are absolutely pathetic yourself. Mac users, like myself, have to defend our machines. You idiots who use pc's just dont get it. You bash macs evey chance you get and i just wonder how many have actually used one for an extended period of time. You cant honeslty tell me that the very first time you used a pc you were able to figure everything out. I cant tell if it was your first machines but i will tell you this. People who use macs for the first time generally have an easier time than pc users do.

Now think that over and realise. it is a personal preference. Not a defining factor of who a person is.

PS. Stop bashing macs!!!!!! (bast*rd)

If you had read any of my posts, in whole, you would know that i love Macs. Nice work though! I haven't bashed Macs once, just a few Mac users on this board. lol

buffsldr - Give yourself a gold star for that one. :) [/sarcasm]

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Source


Nipsy, you seem to be in a world of your own here. You're not paying attention to what people are saying and doing on this board and simply believing that you're right because you're a shareholder. I could buy a single share in Apple, but it doesn't mean that i'm going to be right about everything i think Apple should do.


At no point did I say that Apple (and AAPL) would not benefit greatly from faster hardware.

I'm simply stating that talking about it here won't change the path that Apple is on.

Perhaps you may want to direct your concerns to Apple, Moto Semiconductor, IBM, etc.

This is a rumors site occasionally perused by Apple legal, and maybe some employees looking for a laugh.


If you want Apple to continue to be "behind" (is that a gentle enough word for you?) in the hardware sector, then that's fine.


I don't, no one here does, but I could type 'til I'm blue in the face here, and it wouldn't change the course that Apple is on.

Oddly enough, The Steve is not sitting in his office, with a bunch of processor designers, eagerly awaiting your (or my) next post.


But the FACT is that most Apple users, DON'T. They want to see Apple competing with PC hardware properly. Apple is already such a small part of the market and IMO, they need to increase speed to


Agreed, speed would help gain new market share. Never said anything to the contrary.


Have you ever heard of the phrase "Give the people what they want" ? Well most people want speed and numbers.


Most people want cheap computers too. Most people want a lot of things. I'm all for better numbers, as long as they are performance and not GHz based.

If we artificailly inflate numbers at the cost of performance (PIV) we have more GHz doing the same amount of work. If we lower margins and Apple quits being a botique company, quality will suffer, profits will suffer, and the overall effect won't be good.

If Apple has a 30% share in the future, do you think we'll remain virus free? Do you think we'll get more attention from the pop-up spyware writers? Do you think the hardware will still be built to as high of a spec?


And anyone who has said "I like your style, Nipsy" in this thread, no you don't, you just like the fact that he's defending your precious Macs. You guys whine and complain about what Apple's needs to do right, but as soon as someone points out that Apple is doing something wrong, you suddenly completely disagree with the very points that you yourselves were making. It's pretty pathetic.

Actually, I beleive I may be getting kudos for writing clear responses, provinding links, admitting I'm wrong when I make a mistake, and speaking with a modicum of business acumen. I'm intelligent enough to know that Apple does not have the market cap to fully control their chip evolution, and you, it seems, are not.

In case you still believe that it is Apple's fault, I will make an offer right now.

Call Motorola, order 2000 2.4GHz G5s (you can order IBM 970s if you'd like). Send me the bill, and I'll upgrade eveyone's machine for free.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by buffsldr


[Insert Random Unrelated Patriotic statement here]

[Insert unwanted opinion #1 here]

[Insert half truth here (eg Give the people what they want, then fail to back it up with marketing research) here]

[Attack supporters of your fellow debater with personal insults here]

Nice!

[Source]

Again, you've made some good points, Nipsy. But you're so childish in the way you present your replies, with stupid and pointless remarks about things that i haven't addressed and wouldn't care to address, that i'm not about to take you seriously.

You have insulted me and since you are taking my responses so personally, i will respond in like.

"business acumen"? Hahaha. Grow up, kid. You have demonstrated that you know nothing of the computer industry or the position that Apple holds, but merely fabricated what position YOU think Apple holds, "as a shareholder". You haven't admitted when you were wrong and you're just blindly arguing for Apple.

I never said anything about us designing chips for Apple and to even bring that up is moronic. It doesn't add to the argument or make a point, it's just suggesting that i said something that i didn't. If you can't see that, then kindly re-read my posts before replying.

You are not getting kudos for making good points, you are getting kudos for making popular replies. The ones that most Mac users here want to hear - How much Apple owns and how they have a masterplan that, mysteriously, never seems to quite work out for them, now does it.

Well it seems as though Apple has gone with IBM, so part of their "plan" is to improve chip speed, just as i suggested they should.

I never suggested that the only way for Apple to survive is purely chip speed, i suggested that that is a major part of it and to say it isn't is moronic.

In the end, Nispy, we have agreed on many points and if this whole argument had gone a little better, without petty, childish insults on your part, which i'm ashamed to say that i have contributed to in this last post, and complete missunderstandings of my posts, we could have come to some kind of constructive conclusion. Clearly that wasn't your aim.

I just hope you have achieved whatever you intended to with your childish endeavors in this thread.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Source
Again, you've made some good points, Nipsy. But you're so childish in the way you present your replies, with stupid and pointless remarks about things that i haven't addressed and wouldn't care to address, that i'm not about to take you seriously.

You have insulted me and since you are taking my responses so personally, i will respond in like.

Originally posted by Source
If you're going to whine about it constantly and then get upset with someone who says it's not good enough, then you're just a stupid hypocrit.

Now, I'd love if you could quote an insult from me.


"business acumen"? Hahaha. Grow up, kid. You have demonstrated that you know nothing of the computer industry or the position that Apple holds, but merely fabricated what position YOU think Apple holds, "as a shareholder". You haven't admitted when you were wrong and you're just blindly arguing for Apple.

I know the following. Apple is turning a profit in a crappy market. Apple layoffs have been light. Apple is not a company with the recources (based on market cap) to fab its own chips. These are things which you can verify for yourself.

Originally posted by Nipsy
You're correct about C# (do you call it c sharp, c pound, c hash, or c octothorpe ). I brain farted there.


I never said anything about us designing chips for Apple and to even bring that up is moronic. It doesn't add to the argument or make a point, it's just suggesting that i said something that i didn't. If you can't see that, then kindly re-read my posts before replying.


No, but you suggested that we should rally around some cause (design chips, boycott Apple, etc.) and vocalize. I merely pointed out that neither would do any good.


You are not getting kudos for making good points, you are getting kudos for making popular replies. The ones that most Mac users here want to hear - How much Apple owns and how they have a masterplan that, mysteriously, never seems to quite work out for them, now does it.


When we started this argument, I observed that executive teams at publicly traded companies prolly knew more than you about what was happening. A day later, with have a 64 Bit IBM chip, with many sources (sfgate.com, cnn.com, etc.) independently confirming it is to become an Apple part.

Hmmmm.....looks like it worked out to me.


Well it seems as though Apple has gone with IBM, so part of their "plan" is to improve chip speed, just as i suggested they should.


Without you, I'm sure they'd be gunning to slow things down. I'm sure you'll be back to tell us how this 1.8 GHz 64 bit Power4 derivative is slow compared to the 3.8 GHz PIV next year.


I never suggested that the only way for Apple to survive is purely chip speed, i suggested that that is a major part of it and to say it isn't is moronic.


I guess it's a good thing I haven't, else you could call me a moron.


In the end, Nispy, we have agreed on many points and if this whole argument had gone a little better, without petty, childish insults on your part, which i'm ashamed to say that i have contributed to in this last post, and complete missunderstandings of my posts, we could have come to some kind of constructive conclusion. Clearly that wasn't your aim.


Originally posted by Source
If you're going to whine about it constantly and then get upset with someone who says it's not good enough, then you're just a stupid hypocrit.

Again, please, show me an insult of mine.


I just hope you have achieved whatever you intended to with your childish endeavors in this thread.

I let you know later, it's my nap time, and I need a daipy change.

[Source]

Remember something, Nipsy, i'm on your side here. I want Apple to do well just as much as you do. I just happen to believe that Apple needs to do it in a different way than you and I don't know why you needed to take this argument to insults, other than some need to always believe that you are right.

benixau made a rash reply, without reading my posts and believed that i hate Macs, because he was blindly supporting Apple, just as you are.

"Now, I'd love if you could quote an insult from me."

That wasn't actually directed towards you.

"I'm intelligent enough to know that Apple does not have the market cap to fully control their chip evolution, and you, it seems, are not."

There you go.

"No, but you suggested that we should rally around some cause (design chips, boycott Apple, etc.) and vocalize. "

Where did i say we should design chips or boycott Apple? Now you're just liying and it's no wonder you have come to your conclusions, considering you fabricate things like this.

"When we started this argument, I observed..."

This is exactly my point! We are suggesting virtually the same thing, except you are fabricating arguments for some reason that i can't understand, unless you simply "like the sound of your own voice" as it were.

"Without you, I'm sure they'd be gunning to slow things down. I'm sure you'll be back to tell us how this 1.8 GHz 64 bit Power4 derivative is slow compared to the 3.8 GHz PIV next year."

Yes, that's very intelligent. [/sarcasm] See i can do it too! I wasn't saying that my suggestion in any way influences Apple, and if you were so intelligent, you would have known that.

This is the exact reason i suggested that people let Apple know what they want. A company, one that wants to stay in business at least, will not completely ignore its customers and if you let them know what you want in large numbers, you may well get it.

If anyone has demonstrated lack of intelligence in this whole thread, Nipsy, it's you. You lie and misinterpret peoples posts in order to get your points across. Which, in the end, seem to be incredibly similar to the very points that you are dismissing.

I'll say it again, take your arguments elsewhere, as someone who lies, misinterprets people's posts and more importantly seems to simply want to fire up an argument that isn't there, as you do, is pointless in discussing anything with.

If you are intelligent, as you so call yourself, i fear for society.

[Nipsy]

Originally posted by Source
Remember something, Nipsy, i'm on your side here. I want Apple to do well just as much as you do. I just happen to believe that Apple needs to do it in a different way than you and I don't know why you needed to take this argument to insults, other than some need to always believe that you are right.

I have a day off, and my baseball game hasn't started yet.


benixau made a rash reply, without reading my posts and believed that i hate Macs, because he was blindly supporting Apple, just as you are.

I'm not blindly supporting Apple, I'm very well informed in many facets of harware and OS decision making. Based on that, I've chosen to promote Apple to my small and mid-size business clients. I have crates of research and papers I've read to come to this conclusion.


"Now, I'd love if you could quote an insult from me."

That wasn't actually directed towards you.

"I'm intelligent enough to know that Apple does not have the market cap to fully control their chip evolution, and you, it seems, are not."

There you go.


Good point. You win. However, I just went back and re-read this whole thread, and while I have made one insult (sorry), you've made a rash of them.


"No, but you suggested that we should rally around some cause (design chips, boycott Apple, etc.) and vocalize. "

Where did i say we should design chips or boycott Apple? Now you're just liying and it's no wonder you have come to your conclusions, considering you fabricate things like this.


You suggsted we rally around some cause. BEGIN PARENTHETICAL EXPRESSION. INSERT CAUSE OTPIONS DISCUSSED IN THIS THREAD. END PARENTHETICAL EXPRESSION.

Originally posted by Source
You guys seem to spend so much time talking, but you take no action!

Originally posted by Source So many Mac users spend hours a day, talking about Apple and what they're doing wrong, but never take any action. If those who care about Apple being the slowest computers on the market are not going to do something about it, then they should shut up about it.

If you'll remember, I suggested some things, and invited suggestions from you.


"When we started this argument, I observed..."

This is exactly my point! We are suggesting virtually the same thing, except you are fabricating arguments for some reason that i can't understand, unless you simply "like the sound of your own voice" as it were.


Yes, I never argued that I didn't want better performance. I only got involved in this thread when I saw the whole Apple had better do this, or else. Its great fun to have that argument...


"Without you, I'm sure they'd be gunning to slow

things down. I'm sure you'll be back to tell us how this 1.8 GHz 64 bit Power4 derivative is slow compared to the 3.8 GHz PIV next year."

Yes, that's very intelligent. [/sarcasm] See i can do it too! I wasn't saying that my suggestion in any way influences Apple, and if you were so intelligent, you would have known that.


You may or may not have noticed, but I don't flag my sacrasm with smilies or tags.


This is the exact reason i suggested that people let Apple know what they want. A company, one that wants to stay in business at least, will not completely ignore its customers and if you let them know what you want in large numbers, you may well get it.


Actually, you suggest we shut up and do something about it. You never quantified what that something was. I was eager, at this point to explain that Apple Corporate knows very well what the end users want.


If anyone has demonstrated lack of intelligence in this whole thread, Nipsy, it's you. You lie and misinterpret peoples posts in order to get your points across. Which, in the end, seem to be incredibly similar to the very points that you are dismissing.


Awww...shucks.


I'll say it again, take your arguments elsewhere, as someone who lies, misinterprets people's posts and more importantly seems to simply want to fire up an argument that isn't there, as you do, is pointless in discussing anything with.


You can feel free to add me to your ignore list.


If you are intelligent, as you so call yourself, i fear for society.

Glad to help!

[Source]

Again, you're lying and have again, misinterpreted my posts.

"You suggsted we rally around some cause."

No, i suggested people contact Apple in some form, be it email, letter, fax or petition.

"You never quantified what that something was."

See above.

"Good point. You win."

It's not about winning you arrogant buffoon. Neither of us has "won" anything in this whole thread, i've been trying to point out to you time and time again, that the things we are arguing about are very similar, and yet you continue on a rampage of lies and misinterpretations.

You see you, Nipsy, make arguments for the sake of looking good to your "audience". You don't hope to achieve anything constructive by making an argument, other than looking good and padding your ego by using sarcasm and making the other person look as bad as you can. You fabricate points in your replies when the person your replying to has made no such point, and if you are as intelligent as you say you are, i can only assume that you are doing that on purpose.

An intellectual person will try to make constructive comments, and contribute to some kind of solution, you however, do not.

I agree with you on most of your points, Nipsy, as i have said many times ("Good points").

If you want a one man show, go on stage or become a politician. They fabricate lies and will do anything to come across as though they're making a good point, when they're not, too.