Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Marketshare on the Rise
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Re: Re: Only 3.5% ???
And how do they know how many machines are still in use, no matter if it is Windows or Mac?
groovebuster
And how do they know how many machines are still in use, no matter if it is Windows or Mac?
groovebuster
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.
market share is going to go up...
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.
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.
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?!
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?!
- Status