PDA

View Full Version : Apple Marketshare on the Rise


arn
Jul 3, 2002, 06:17 PM
Apple's marketshare is creeping upward, according to this MacCentral (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0207/03.marketshare.php) article:

For the current quarter (Q1, 2002) IDC shows Apple as the number six computer maker with a 3.48 percent market share. This is an increase of 0.4 points over Q4 2001 and a 0.25 point increase year over year. Worldwide, Apple is in ninth place with a 2.4 percent market share.


As well, Apple is implementing a new "Mac Pack" service at Apple Stores which involves installing software, setting up your internet account as well as moving your files from your PC to the Mac.

Ouroboros
Jul 3, 2002, 06:27 PM
Well I guess every little bit helps huh?

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 06:28 PM
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4ís donít operate at 2.4 Ghz.
My electronics teacher informed me that a true and verifiable test was performed on the P4 to measure itís operating speed. The University that did the study hooked up oscilloscopes to the P4 to find itís Hertz reading. What they discovered was the main cpu runs at 1.4 Ghz and the co-processor (Internal Math) runs at 1.0 Ghz. Intel added the 2 speeds together to advertise a total additive speed of 2.4 Ghz. The P4 isnít a true 2.4 Ghz and up processor. The P4 actual speed runs far less than the advertised speed. Intel can do this cause there isnít any government regulation on processor speeds. This is very similar to the case of the monitors being sold by viewable and monitor size. The government started to require a ďbuyer bewareĒ regulation stating the true viewable size verse the monitorís physical size. Not many people know this fact cause the results have just been published. This also explains the huge difference in the Athlon 1.7Ghz kiling the P4 2.4Ghz. Come on guys do the math 1.7 greater than 2.4????? Iíll try to find a link soon and post it. This could really change the future of the computer industry. All you people thinking wintel is winning......surprise!! Bottom line stick with the MAC. Intel is pulling the wool over peopleís eyes. Just like Microsoft. Like those apples....

Wake up people!!!!
Spread the real News!!!!
Knowledge is contagious!!!

drastik
Jul 3, 2002, 07:00 PM
that is cool about the processors, and your right, they should be required to label that on the advertising. There is a law about falsr claims in advertisig, though.

Anyway, good for apple, if this continues, things will be great. And the Mac pack seems good too, get people more interested.

billiam0878
Jul 3, 2002, 07:12 PM
I like the Mac Pack idea, perhaps with this and an updated iMac, Apple can add another .4% to its marketshare. One step at a time...

Bill

TeraRWM
Jul 3, 2002, 08:10 PM
Well Johnny7896 I certainly hope this is true, but wouldn't IBM and Moto do the same? If they didn't wouldn't they have already saturated the market with this information? Also in your story you said Intel added the two numbers (1.2Ghz clock speed and 1.0 Ghz co-processor) and said the two values together were 2.4Ghz.......how old are you?

decimal
Jul 3, 2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4ís donít operate at 2.4 Ghz.
My electronics teacher informed me that a true and verifiable test was performed on the P4 to measure itís operating speed. The University that did the study hooked up oscilloscopes to the P4 to find itís Hertz reading. What they discovered was the main cpu runs at 1.2 Ghz and the co-processor (Internal Math) runs at 1.0 Ghz. Intel added the 2 speeds together to advertise a total additive speed of 2.4 Ghz. The P4 isnít a true 2.4 Ghz and up processor. The P4 actual speed runs far less than the advertised speed. Intel can do this cause there isnít any government regulation on processor speeds. This is very similar to the case of the monitors being sold by viewable and monitor size. The government started to require a ďbuyer bewareĒ regulation stating the true viewable size verse the monitorís physical size. Not many people know this fact cause the results have just been published. This also explains the huge difference in the Athlon 1.7Ghz kiling the P4 2.4Ghz. Come on guys do the math 1.7 greater than 2.4????? Iíll try to find a link soon and post it. This could really change the future of the computer industry. All you people thinking wintel is winning......surprise!! Bottom line stick with the MAC. Intel is pulling the wool over peopleís eyes. Just like Microsoft. Like those apples....

Wake up people!!!!
Spread the real News!!!!
Knowledge is contagious!!!

I must say that is most strange of Intel to do such a thing, especially the part of saying 1.2+1=2.4 :confused: I agree, definitely a wrong thing to do.

alex_ant
Jul 3, 2002, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
HOT NEWS!!!!!!

I have been informed that the 2.4 Ghz P4ís donít operate at 2.4 Ghz.
My electronics teacher informed me that a true and verifiable test was performed on the P4 to measure itís operating speed. The University that did the study hooked up oscilloscopes to the P4 to find itís Hertz reading. What they discovered was the main cpu runs at 1.2 Ghz and the co-processor (Internal Math) runs at 1.0 Ghz. Intel added the 2 speeds together to advertise a total additive speed of 2.4 Ghz. The P4 isnít a true 2.4 Ghz and up processor. The P4 actual speed runs far less than the advertised speed. Intel can do this cause there isnít any government regulation on processor speeds. This is very similar to the case of the monitors being sold by viewable and monitor size. The government started to require a ďbuyer bewareĒ regulation stating the true viewable size verse the monitorís physical size. Not many people know this fact cause the results have just been published. This also explains the huge difference in the Athlon 1.7Ghz kiling the P4 2.4Ghz. Come on guys do the math 1.7 greater than 2.4????? Iíll try to find a link soon and post it. This could really change the future of the computer industry. All you people thinking wintel is winning......surprise!! Bottom line stick with the MAC. Intel is pulling the wool over peopleís eyes. Just like Microsoft. Like those apples....

Wake up people!!!!
Spread the real News!!!!
Knowledge is contagious!!!
In other news, did you know that Lisa Marie Presley is pregnant with Jesus' baby? I just read it in line at the supermarket today.

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 09:10 PM
Sorry guys I meant 2.2 Ghz. You know what I mean. It would be a bad business partice, but it's legal. There is no legal definition of how to label processor speeds or bandwidth. Until someone gets busted (ie the monitor rip offs). Then things change. Apple can put 2 1Ghz in a computer and call it 2 Ghz. It's legal also. But it's easy to visually see 2 processors. Internaly, Intel can separate internal functions. From there they can call, lable or add speeds what ever way intel wants. Just remember it's not a crime untill your caught. Also why do you think the Itanium2 runs so slow at 1 ghz with 64 bits. G5 won't even come out that slow and it's 64 bits? Hertz is a good marketing tool, it sells. Even if it's not actual. Remember the Atrari Jaguar the said it was 64 bits. It had like 2 small 32 bit processors. Nobody stopped them. I'll find the article or link and post it on monday.

Peace

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2002, 09:15 PM
Johnny7896:

The Pentium 4 2.4 runs at 1.2 ghz huh?

So lets pretend for a moment that you are in fact not WRONG.

Pretending that, do you feel bad that the P4 at 1.2ghz (or 1.0ghz or whatever you're claiming) kicks the crap out of the G4 at 1.0ghz? Oooh, gee, so much for "more work per clock." Now that we have that out of the way, lets move on to the impossibility of your wild claims.

Do you care to explain how you hooked up electrical leads to the P4? Did you shave/grind off the outer layer and get straight at the itty bitty transistors? Pretty steady hand! In fact, you'd need an electron microscope to even see them! Furthermore, even if you could expose them without destroying them, it is highly unlikely that you could attach your connectors to them, and if you could do that, its even more unlikely that you would fail to destroy them doing so!

Oh, the fun. Imagine trying to attach a heatsink to your dissected P4 to keep it cool while you are running it... but make sure that metal heatsink doesn't touch those exposed transistors.

Really, since this "test" is "verifiable" you should provide us with detailed instructions. No simple ones, mind you, since dissecting a CPU is no small task.

Are you a troll visiting from PC-land to make fun of the less-knowledgeable Mac users?

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 09:39 PM
I'll post the link or article on monday. Judge for yourself. Second, my teacher stated that the P4 was tested at a state university. Their equipment is able to test at that small of size milli or micron. State universities create and inovate many milli, micron, and nano technologies. It wouldn't be a hard task for them to test any exisiting electrical technology. Bash me if you want, I'm right. I'll prove it. Real deal. Third, I've used apple products only for 18 years. I've never and will never own a PC.

Peace

Eliot
Jul 3, 2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
Johnny7896:

The Pentium 4 2.4 runs at 1.2 ghz huh?

So lets pretend for a moment that you are in fact not WRONG.

Pretending that, do you feel bad that the P4 at 1.2ghz (or 1.0ghz or whatever you're claiming) kicks the crap out of the G4 at 1.0ghz? Oooh, gee, so much for "more work per clock." Now that we have that out of the way, lets move on to the impossibility of your wild claims.

Do you care to explain how you hooked up electrical leads to the P4? Did you shave/grind off the outer layer and get straight at the itty bitty transistors? Pretty steady hand! In fact, you'd need an electron microscope to even see them! Furthermore, even if you could expose them without destroying them, it is highly unlikely that you could attach your connectors to them, and if you could do that, its even more unlikely that you would fail to destroy them doing so!

Oh, the fun. Imagine trying to attach a heatsink to your dissected P4 to keep it cool while you are running it... but make sure that metal heatsink doesn't touch those exposed transistors.

Really, since this "test" is "verifiable" you should provide us with detailed instructions. No simple ones, mind you, since dissecting a CPU is no small task.

Are you a troll visiting from PC-land to make fun of the less-knowledgeable Mac users?

:Let's wait and see what the guy means .......if it's not going to stand up, it'll all be revealed by analysis, not by your half-a***d
posturing. Trolls are those whose opinions and methods are ugly,
but your post displays the kind of attitude I personally have no time for. Matey boy NEVER claimed to have done the research himself and was only quoting.......................
Maybe he's misunderstood, maybe he's wrong........what's your mileage in dissing him to this degree?

By the way, flame all you like, being one of the oldest members here has given me the luxury of being gloriously indifferent to anything you infants can dish out.

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2002, 10:05 PM
Johnny7896:

Now I can see that you are in fact not a troll, so at least thats something. Ignorance is no crime, although...

[and let me say I'm tying this on my very own dual 800 G4]

...although this site's constant Mac-centric P4 bashing wears on my nerves. Face it, the P4 with it's 20 stages of pipe, massive transistor count, lame instruction set and quad-pumped 133mhz bus kicks the snot out of most any processor that exists today, including the G4. I don't want to hear any whining about it being a "unfair" victory, cause the point is to go fast, and that's exactly what it does. End of story.

The very-soon-to-be-realeased Itanium II, apparently also reviled here because it is made by Intel, appears to have by a large margin the best floating point performance ever seen on any processor, again including the G4, its nearest compeditor being the 1.3ghz Power4 from IBM. In fact it's integer performance (it's "weakness") appears to be only a little behind the fastest Athlon, and ahead of most processors, including the G4 (at the same clock speed, no less). I don't care if it is a low clock CPU, and I don't care if it has a zillion transistors and dissipates enough heat to cook with. It is possibly the fastest overall processor ever made, and thats the name of the game. End of story.

So here's the point: people can whine, people can cry, people can make crap up, people can spread misinformation, and people can tell themselves I'm wrong, but at the end of the day the P4 and the Itanium II are both very impressive processors, I'd say both are in the top 4 ever made. (Power4 and Alpha are also up there.)

[Edit: fixed some wierd line-wrapping.]
[Edit: went a little easier on John.]

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 10:16 PM
I understand it's a hard lump to swallow. I should have asked my teacher after class for the website or news article. I was just done for the day and happy to leave. My teachers knows his stuff. He explained it to me just like I told you. I'll get physical and documented truth to you all. This isn't court, but I'll prove it. Relax, I'm right on this and not misunderstood. Look back in computer/electronics history. Remember the error math bug inside the P1. The Dan-0411 bug, another math bug, in the P2 and P-Pro Who found it????? Not intel. Colleges and other sources. A company will not admit to error in production until it is verified by an outside source. Companies will mislead consumers on abilities of products and errors in production (Like windows also). It's a fact of life. It's called business. It's called profit. It continues until, someone sues in civil court, the government cracks down, or the company fixes the problems. Once again there is no legal definition on how to measure Hertz in electronics. You can slice and dice Hertz any way you see fit. You can add hertz together or split them up for a total. The individual companies dictate how to total the measurements. Things aren't always as they seem.

alex_ant
Jul 3, 2002, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Eliot


:Let's wait and see what the guy means .......if it's not going to stand up, it'll all be revealed by analysis, not by your half-a***d
posturing. Trolls are those whose opinions and methods are ugly,
but your post displays the kind of attitude I personally have no time for. Matey boy NEVER claimed to have done the research himself and was only quoting.......................
Maybe he's misunderstood, maybe he's wrong........what's your mileage in dissing him to this degree?

By the way, flame all you like, being one of the oldest members here has given me then luxury of being gloriously indifferent to anything you infants can dish out.
Well, hey mate, let me tell you a few things:

1) Cold fusion will become a viable energy source within the next two years. Don't believe me? I've got an article, and I'll link to it later. It was written by these two guys at a state university who are really smart. And because they're from a state university, they're obviously right. Fleischmann and Pons were full of it, but these researchers aren't - you'll see.

2) JFK was assassinated by separatist gypsies upset over American gruyere cheese tariffs. There was a huge long article I read about this in a magazine, and it was formatted into triple columns and was by a guy who had "Dr." in front of his name. Don't believe me? I've got proof, and I'll show it to you later. Monday.

3) I just caught wind of an amazing medical discovery - we've been waiting for the cure for AIDS and it looks like we finally have it! There's apparently this chemical called hydrocholoroisomethasupercalifragilisicexpialadocious-ene that has been proven by prestigious researchers from a state university to cure the AIDS virus, and also stop hair loss and grow the ***** (the male sexual organ so obscene that Macrumors automatically censors it) to 8"-10" as well. Everyone said it would be impossible, and I have no idea how it works, but I heard from this one guy that it does - he heard it from an important researcher in his email.

Knowledge is indeed contagious, but so is idiocy. If you don't want to get flamed, don't post ************. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it should be.

Alex

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2002, 10:27 PM
Johnny7896:

Yeah, I shouldn't have been so hard on you so quickly. But keep in mind: big claims need big proof.

alex_ant:

I vote for controlling the flamage now. :)

Eliot
Jul 3, 2002, 10:29 PM
Alex_Ant.............. And your point would be........?

D0ct0rteeth
Jul 3, 2002, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
There's apparently this chemical called hydrocholoroisomethasupercalifragilisicexpialadocious-ene that has been proven by prestigious researchers from a state university to... grow... the male sexual organ... to 8"-10" as well.

I've been taking it for years.. it works ;)

C-

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 10:41 PM
I agree the P4 is redesigned, true! I agree the P4 is fast, true! I don't see the P4 2.4 blowing away the Athlon at 1.7 Ghz, true. Something is wrong there. 2.4-1.7=700MHz Where's the big speed gain? Truth there is none over 1.7 Athlon. The P4 should slaughter the Athlon at +700 MHz. But they don't , what's wrong??? It's like I stated before the Hertz increase in the P4 are additive and not actual. I don't agree with misrepresenting a product in hertz.
If the G4 had a 700Mhz gain at MWNY, it would compare or beat both X86 products. The P4 true applied speed gains are minimal at best. That doesn't equate to a 700Mhz gain. That's my point, there's something wrong in the way Intel measures hertz. I want Mac users to better understand the real world speed gains provided by the PowerPC increases and over all bandwidth technologies. Which Intel doesn't provide, but advertises in theory.

I'm right on this...I do enjoy talking about this topic and other people's thoughts. It's just very apparent to me what is really going on.

alex_ant
Jul 3, 2002, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
My teachers knows his stuff. He explained it to me just like I told you.
Your teacher is either an idiot or you didn't understand him correctly.
I'll get physical and documented truth to you all. This isn't court, but I'll prove it. Relax, I'm right on this and not misunderstood.
Can I ask why you didn't just wait until Monday to drop such a bombshell with no shred of evidence to back yourself up?
Look back in computer/electronics history. Remember the error math bug inside the P1. The Dan-0411 bug, another math bug, in the P2 and P-Pro Who found it????? Not intel. Colleges and other sources.
So let me get this straight: "colleges and other sources" found bugs in the Pentium, Pentium Pro, and Pentium II, and therefore, the P4 is clocked at half its advertised speed.
[quote][b]A company will not admit to error in production until it is verified by an outside source. Companies will mislead consumers on abilities of products and errors in production (Like windows also). It's a fact of life. It's called business. It's called profit. It continues until, someone sues in civil court, the government cracks down, or the company fixes the problems.
I'll tell you what, I heard from this one guy (who really knows his stuff) that this one state researcher discovered that the P4's core is manufactured out of Play-Doh and evaporated pickle juice. Unfortunately, the reporting of materials used to manufacture processor cores is not legally regulated, so the processor companies can say whatever they want.

Once again there is no legal definition on how to measure Hertz in electronics. You can slice and dice Hertz any way you see fit. You can add hertz together or split them up for a total. The individual companies dictate how to total the measurements. Things aren't always as they seem.
This doesn't prove your point. On this (http://www.podmonkeyx.com/logicalfallacies.asp) list of logical fallacies, you are guilty of at least number 12, and possibly 13 as well.

Alex

alex_ant
Jul 3, 2002, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
I agree the P4 is redesigned, true! I agree the P4 is fast, true! I don't see the P4 2.4 blowing away the Athlon at 1.7 Ghz, true. Something is wrong there. 2.4-1.7=700MHz Where's the big speed gain? Truth there is none over 1.7 Athlon. The P4 should slaughter the Athlon at +700 MHz. But they don't , what's wrong???
What's wrong is that the P4's architecture is less efficient. It does less work per clock cycle and thus needs to be clocked higher than the Athlon to achieve the same performance. It would be possible to engineer a 10GHz processor that performs no better than a 66MHz 486. There is no megahertz conspiracy.
It's like I stated before the Hertz increase in the P4 are additive and not actual. I don't agree with misrepresenting a product in hertz.
No worries then, because there is none. Go take a CE class or something.

Eliot
Jul 3, 2002, 10:49 PM
You're a VERY angry little guy, aren't you?
You may be a very CORRECT angry little guy, but the size comment still applies:D :D :D :D

alex_ant
Jul 3, 2002, 10:54 PM
Knobbers who spout nonsense make me angry. And for the record I'm 5'9", which I think is pretty average.

Back on topic: Good to hear about the rising market share. :)

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2002, 11:00 PM
Johnny7896:

You need to do your processor homework; much of what you are saying is the same kind of silly fluff that's floating around pro-Mac sites all the time. It really doesn't hold all that much truth.

It is true that clock-for-clock a P4 is not usually as fast as an Athlon (1.8ghz), but it is also true that it runs at a higher clock speed (2.53ghz). This is a design tradeoff, the lower work-per-clock is in many ways *because* it is clocked higher. The Itanium II on the other hand has MASSIVE work-per-clock, and is clocked much lower (only 1.0ghz). I want to emphisize that these things are related! It is very very hard to design a processor that is high-clock and powerful-per-clock. Arguably, AMD has managed to do a better job of it than Intel with it's Athlon, but Intel also has a very high speed memory system (that 533mhz or 400mhz FSB) and very fast RAM (dual channel RDRAM or DDR-333). In the end, Intel's Pentium 4 is a faster processor than the Athlon, even if it took more clock cycles to make that happen! Like I say, the only thing that matters is what processor ends up the fastest.

"If the G4 had a 700Mhz gain at MWNY, it would compare or beat both X86 products."

Debateable. The G4 is a pretty good chip, it's real bonus is the AltiVec unit, but everything else in it is pretty marginal. Even with 700mhz more clock and DDR-266 like the Athlon has, I am confident that the Athlon would still be faster at many things, although slower at many as well.

"I'm right on this...I do enjoy talking about this topic and other people's thoughts. It's just very apparent to me what is really going on."

Sadly, I don't think you do. You need to read more PC technology reviews rather than these rumor forums. www.tech-report.com and www.anandtech.com are good PC sites I read often.

Eliot
Jul 3, 2002, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by alex_ant
Knobbers who spout nonsense make me angry. And for the record I'm 5'9", which I think is pretty average.

Actually, to my eternal embarrasment, we may be exactly the same height:o
My point was give the guy a chance to barbecue himself and he may not need your help.
On the other hand, he may have something, however badly or misleadingly stated and it'll all come clear in the morning.
Clarity is not always the fellow-traveller of revelation(or words to that effect- ask my wife, who is Russian).
Oh, yes and she's a Mac user too, so blame me for all this, not her.

eric_n_dfw
Jul 3, 2002, 11:05 PM
Somehow I think AMD would have figured this out and told someone in the press about it already.

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 11:06 PM
"It does less work per clock cycle and thus needs to be clocked higher than the Athlon to achieve the same performance." The P4 actual Herzt are over stated. That's the real reason for the lack of preformance gain.

Thanks for your input Alex

alex_ant
Jul 3, 2002, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
"It does less work per clock cycle and thus needs to be clocked higher than the Athlon to achieve the same performance." The P4 actual Herzt are over stated. That's the real reason for the lack of preformance gain.

Thanks for your input Alex
Why are you thanking me? Can't you see I'm trying to start a flame war? Come on, insult my mother. I'm waiting... God, Macrumors sucks sometimes. :(

ddtlm
Jul 3, 2002, 11:15 PM
Johnny7896:

"The P4 actual Herzt are over stated. That's the real reason for the lack of preformance gain."

Now you're just being thick-headed and annoying. Why in the world do you believe that? Why in the HELL do you think that a processor's performance is measured by clock speed? For crying out loud, even Apple insists that it is not so!

I cannot belive that you would dismiss Intel has liars on the possibly wrong or possibly misunderstood commentary of some professor. Yeah, he's right, the world is wrong. Yep.

And while we're at it, different ignorantly-named parts of Intel's 2.4ghz processor run at these various clock speeds from 1.4ghz to 1.0ghz, yet the chip is faster than almost anything else out there. Hmmm, maybe we should be even more impressed by the Pentium 4, since apparently even at such a low clock it is way faster than the G4! Sweet action!

Ugh. If you are this thick, it's not worth my time and I won't try to correct you further. Believe what you will.

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 11:29 PM
These stories usually don't get thrown into the competitors face. Remember, the P1 error Apple or AMD should have jumped on that. But they didn't. Why??? They all play in the same sandbox. Also, all companies produce errors and mistakes. That can be used against them at anytime. I know Apple has and look how long was the mac line stuck at 500 MHZ. Then turn around and give extra 50 MHz. Thanks Motorola.

Boy, I tried to share a little helpful Pro Mac news and everyone seems angry.
Even if what I share is true. Maybe I'm on a PC board.

Drink from my water and yea shall never thirst again.

Johnny7896
Jul 3, 2002, 11:50 PM
Like World com and Enron didn't over state their earnings. There was no way to prove that mathematically. Do you think Enron and World com turned themselves in?? Yeah...right. The P4 Hertz gain is not relative to the over all performance gain. I'm pointing this out. Your statements have no factual and measurable proof. Your going off of a stupid PC magazine review. Created from a writer that doesn't even know how to turn on a computer. I'm trying to give you that proof. Something that can be measured by people involved in the electronics industry.

Feel the love

beatle888
Jul 3, 2002, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by TeraRWM
Well Johnny7896 I certainly hope this is true, but wouldn't IBM and Moto do the same? If they didn't wouldn't they have already saturated the market with this information? Also in your story you said Intel added the two numbers (1.2Ghz clock speed and 1.0 Ghz co-processor) and said the two values together were 2.4Ghz.......how old are you?

Jeeze, who the hell cares if he made a simple math error? You made
an error yourself by coming across like an @sshole just 'cause of a
simple mistake. This is the exact kind of little bratty or old and angry
behavior I get tired of here on these boards. Go beat off @sshole.

alex_ant
Jul 4, 2002, 12:01 AM
If someone ever invents a device that allows a person to give someone else a massive wedgie via the Internet, knowing only their IP address, I promise I'll be first in line to buy one.

Johnny7896
Jul 4, 2002, 12:01 AM
Thanks beatle. I feel like a red headed step child.

I'll get bashed for a while. I feel it.

I can't wait to get the article.

beatle888
Jul 4, 2002, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by Johnny7896
I understand it's a hard lump to swallow..........Things aren't always as they seem.

GO JOHNNY, I"M ON YOUR SIDE.

Eliot
Jul 4, 2002, 12:19 AM
Me too. you may be wrong...gloriously, indescribably, ineffably and even irreduceably(?) wrong, but I will support your right to be so to the bitter end.
If, on the other hand, you're right I want everyone to know I was with you all the way........ahem, cough, cough.

LordRPI
Jul 4, 2002, 12:27 AM
Hehe, at least my TiBook 500 still smokes a P4 2.2 ghz at RC5 :-D

sjs
Jul 4, 2002, 12:29 AM
It's 1:30 am on the east coast and this thread has been the funniest part of this long day. You each played your parts well and the show has been a great success.

Good night now.

ddtlm
Jul 4, 2002, 12:48 AM
:rolleyes: Go Johny go...

Well, at least your comments are entertaining, in a way. I could have so much fun by submitting this thread to www.tech-report.com ... would you know that over there I am a Mac defender? (Under a different name.)

[Edit: I apparently cannot type correctly.]

TeraRWM
Jul 4, 2002, 12:48 AM
What I find the most amusing part about all this is Johnny7896 is going off what one professor and what one article says. And of course I and the rest of the Tech community are going off what we all know.

Johnny7896+1 professor+1 article vs. >20,000,000 (mostly educated, but none the less somehow intelligent) people.

Personally the odds of not knowing this throughout the >20,000,000 people tech community is pretty friggin' low.

I'm sorry but...no. Although I'm only a simple C++/Cocoa/HTML programmer I know that if Intel were making chips that were 1.0Ghz in speed and had 20 pipeline stages they wouldn't have over 80% of the home PC chip market.

BTW, If you look at the history of Intel's (I'm actually fighting for Intel?!? OMG the world is comming to an end!) microprocessor line you would see a logical progression to where they arrived today. THE END

(You know though I'm still hoping I'm wrong and Apple will saturate the market with this info as part of their new "switch" campaign. :) )

drastik
Jul 4, 2002, 01:34 AM
Originally posted by Eliot

being one of the oldest members here has given me the luxury of being gloriously indifferent to anything you infants can dish out.

I assume you mean oldest as in age and not as in poting the logngest, and either way, I agree, personal attacks have o place here (Although, I did erlier today call Beatle888 a snob, but frankly, he was being one, I shouldn't have reduced myself to such classlessness

porovaara
Jul 4, 2002, 01:56 AM
You are all being trolled. Even if it isn't intentional on the part of johnny873789134 it is quite obvious he has *no* idea he knows what he is talking about.

What's your profs name? What class does he teach? Why isn't this information being spread to the world? Why the conspiracy? Etc...

These are the questions *you* guys should be asking yourself if you even remotely believe this claim. Next thing you know some of you guys will go on about the accuracy of MOSRs rumors.

matze
Jul 4, 2002, 03:07 AM
ok. nice going so far. but what if i tell you that some unit within the p4 operate at no clock at all? this is not new ARM had a whole processor design called amulett (or so). and other parts (stages) of the pipeline within the p4 are what intel calls double pumped (means: 2.4 GHz x 2 = 4,8GHz). this is called "superscalar" (don't know the exact english spelling).

barkmonster
Jul 4, 2002, 03:08 AM
Here's (http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/september/010927_Pandering/010927_Pandering.htm) a link to a page that shows how badly a 2Ghz Pentium 4 does against a 1.2Ghz Pentium 3 to keep you amused while you wait.

It proves several things, one sisoft sandra has artificially higher MIPS scores than the original benchmarks the pentium 4 had, I remember reading that the original 1.4 Ghz Pentium 4 had an IPC of about 1.6, as soon as the sisoft sandra results started appearing on sites, the result went up to 1.8.

Even with this in mind, the Pentium 3 has got a higher IPC (0.5 extra) than the G4, runs on the same 133Mhz FSB and SDRAM and still manages to beat a pentium 4 with a higher clock speed running on a 100 Mhz FSB quad pumped to 400Mhz. I havn't seen any sites comparing the pentium 3 tulalin to the new pentium 4 chips with the larger L2 cache and 133Mhz FSB yet but you can bet it makes little difference.

Personally speaking I'm looking forward to monday, It could be a good read.

iwantanewmac
Jul 4, 2002, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by TeraRWM
Well Johnny7896 I certainly hope this is true, but wouldn't IBM and Moto do the same? If they didn't wouldn't they have already saturated the market with this information? Also in your story you said Intel added the two numbers (1.2Ghz clock speed and 1.0 Ghz co-processor) and said the two values together were 2.4Ghz.......how old are you?



I don't get it. He said: main cpu at 1.4 and co-processor at 1.0.
Add those 2 up and I see 2.4..............
And he admits he made a mistake? what mistake lol

MikeH
Jul 4, 2002, 04:46 AM
Isn't this thread supposed to be about Apple's increased market share?

matze
Jul 4, 2002, 04:56 AM
hey, yes that's right. nice that we are agrowing family. go apple go!

topicolo
Jul 4, 2002, 08:52 AM
Keep up the good work guys, I'm definately getting my daily jollies out of this thread :D

Tue12
Jul 4, 2002, 09:21 AM
:D

I'm trying to up Apple's market share myself. :)

Couple of friends are interested, since they saw my iBook. But that means little, actually. They just never seem to get around to actually buying a computer, let alone a Mac. One can only hope they follow through one day.

If they do, I'll up Apple's market share by anywhere from 1 to 5 people. Oddly enough, they all want LCD iMacs. :)

groovebuster
Jul 4, 2002, 11:43 AM
I always thought Apple had a market-share of 5% in the US... Well, then I don't wonder anymore, that they are desperate like hell to sell some more Macs! 3.5% is close to not counting anymore for a platform.

I am curious what the MW will bring us.

It was not 95 to go, it was 97 to go... that makes a difference of 40% ....

Oh, well...

groovebuster

Nebrie
Jul 4, 2002, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by groovebuster
I always thought Apple had a market-share of 5% in the US... Well, then I don't wonder anymore, that they are desperate like hell to sell some more Macs! 3.5% is close to not counting anymore for a platform.

I am curious what the MW will bring us.

It was not 95 to go, it was 97 to go... that makes a difference of 40% ....

Oh, well...

groovebuster

5% is based on the current installed base which is larger since Apple used to have a larger marketshare and the machines tend to stay in use longer.

groovebuster
Jul 4, 2002, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Nebrie


5% is based on the current installed base which is larger since Apple used to have a larger marketshare and the machines tend to stay in use longer.

And how do they know how many machines are still in use, no matter if it is Windows or Mac?

groovebuster

skunk
Jul 4, 2002, 07:22 PM
Au contraire, I think you will find that 5%, like the 10% before that, is ancient history. Apple's market share has not been 5% for some time.

cubist
Jul 4, 2002, 08:48 PM
I agree, the market share probably isn't what it was since the IIci days, but there is almost explosive interest out there in Mac OS X. All those folks who were struggling with Linux are seeing that we have plug-and-play installation, great games, and all the great bash and sed and perl goodies with Mac OS X, and mind share translates into market share. We are on the verge of a tornado, folks. Hold on to your firewire cable.

madamimadam
Jul 4, 2002, 08:59 PM
Firstly, to Johnny, I am with you and Eliot, I love you work. Johnny, you could be VERY wrong but you have the right to have your word and provide the evidence to do so without all the crap that has been thrown around.

ddtlm and people like you, you are a ****ing dipstick.... what ever made you king of the world. Why don't you shut the **** up and wait until this supposed evidence is produced. You obviously know **** all if you are trying to say that the P4 is one of the greatest processors of all time. If the P4 is the fastest on the 32-bit market, and this is hypotetical, it would still not be one of the greatest processors of all time because it is an ineffiencient as a scrawny b***h with a chainsaw. The reason for its success would be that 50 scrawny b***hs with chainsaws produce more work that 1 built up lumber jack but the lumber jack would be the best.

As for comparing the 64-bit Itanium to the 32-bit P4, Athlon and G4... not even get me started.

Also, time to come out of la-la land and wake up to all the processors out there that you have no real knowledge about. You were teeing off the Itanium with its closest competitor and with 32-bit processors but SGI has had 64-bit processors before Intel even thought about going into the area and a SGI system leaves Itanium systems for dead. Intel brags about the Itanium2s 3MB of L3 cache but the SGI R14000 comes with 8MB of L2 DDR full speed SD-RAM.

TeraRWM, you taked about how Johnny goes off what 1 professor and 1 article says over what >20 000 000 "know". Well, working with techs for years has taught me that they know jack **** in comparison to what they think they know. Also, even if those >20 000 000 were all somewhat intelligent, they are not a computer cluster, their minds to not work together and they are no where near comparable to the intelligence of the people working for the Unis and professors of sciences.

When was the last time any of you actually did any research to back up your immediate decision that it is not possible for the P4 to work at 1.2 and 1GHz?????

If the P4 is faster, hypothetical again, could it not be because it has 1.2GHz dedicated to one lot of tasks and 1GHz dedicated to any math related items????

If you have studied dual processors you would know that a dual 500 will out perform a single 1 GHz assuming same conditions. Therefore, is it not possible that the P4 could be faster because it has a co-processor instead of having 1 processor at 1.2GHz????

Before I finish, I will state again, I am not saying Johnny is right but I think he has the right to say what he has heard and also to be able to show us his evidence before he is flamed to death. If his evidence is poor then he is wrong and we will all move on with our lives. If he is right, though, you guys are going to look like total ****heads now... aren't you?!