OSNews

Now that you have rehashed the obvious, whats your point? Apple's hardware doesn't compete with Intel's 3 ghz machines? Okay, got you, so?

Why author is making conclusion without bothering to supply any information to support it? He is saying that Apple with dual 1.4 Ghz Power4 has hard time to compete with P4 3.06 Ghz. Why not to post any benchmark to suport his point of view? I don't use Mac, so I'm not very sure how well it performs, but I suspect that this machine must be more or less equal to P4 one. If Power G4 1.4 Ghz is, say, equivalent to P4 2.2 Ghz, then dual-cpu one must be pretty fast.

A minor speed bump is nothing special, but Apple has been called dead for almost all of it's history and it's still here. Compared to it's resent history it's not doing to badly either. Especially considering we're in a major global recession at the moment.

It is very unwise to bet on its imminent demise. Especially considering that it can ride the coat tails of Linux to provide the one thing that has played against it most of the time, software choice. This is whilst providing a compelling product of it's own because of things like Cocoa, Quicktime, and Aqua. This is in addition to new hardware like the iPod, and Apple is a hardware company, that is proving very sucessfull.

Overall the future will not be global domination, but it is much brighter than a few years ago.

Apple?s is just not performing as well as expected. The fastest machine in Apple?s arsenal is a dual 1.42Ghz system. Intel has a 3.06Ghz Pentium 4 with hyperthreading enabled. AMD is going to release their 64bit solution, named Opteron in a few months? time. What does Apple have? A 64bit PowerPC 970 solution from IBM that may be introduced in Apple systems.

Yes, and it's a processor that performs twice as many operations per clock cycle (effectively) as the Pentium 4. The 1.8 GHz processors that Apple is expected to debut with will perform on par with a 3.6GHz Pentium 4. Down the line we'll see 2.5GHz versions which will be on par with a 5GHz P4. After that will come the Power5 derived line which will sport SMT and go up against Intel's Prescott and Tejas cores. Given current trends, and the fact that the Power5 executes approximately four times as many instructions per clock cycle as the Power4, the new line of PPCs from IBM will be very competative with x86 as far as performance goes.

But thats not all. Their new 'sunflower' iMac, with its hyped-up promotion and initial interest, is not generating the kind of sales the original iMac generated. And not everyone is interested in replacing their server farms with a XServ. It may seem compact and to a certain extent, cool, but it is produced by Apple, a company that just does not have the reputation that Dell and Sun enjoys in the server field.

Apple has gone from nothing as a server vendor to the fifth highest selling server vendor in the world: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/10/28.7.shtml

Furthermore, Apple's market for the Xserve is existing Mac networks. The Xserve has been a very successful product, and will only continue to grow in sales after the PPC970 has been released.

but please kill that policy of everything-costs-$459 if it's a non-warrantied problem.

Progressing graphomania.
I was desperately looking for something to write...
Doctor, doctor !

Someone said, "Apples place now is 'innovator', the world always needs an innovator"

You know Micro$oft can't think things up by themselves! :-)

--flame, flame--

I think Apple made mistake with moving OS to FreeBSD/Unix. Old MacOS was so much more user friendly and optimized.

Faster in general I think, but oh, so unstable... No memory protection...

I don't understand what the point of this article is.
The Apple wasn't the first personal computer by the way, there were gui desktop computers with keyboard, monitor and mouse before the Apple 1 was first assembled.
Apple's problems are such:
they cost a fortune for no good reason. In most countries an Apple computer costs roughly a full 3x or 4x what a PC with the same specs does. The importers Apple hands their operations over to charge such high markups that it can be cheaper to physically fly to the USA and bring one back than to buy from the local Apple importer. Apple computers are also physically hidious... how they look may be popular in places like the US and Japan, but there is no way any average person in almost all cultures would be caught dead with a computer that looks like those things do. If I was loaded$ enough and prepared to spend the 3,000$US that a basic Apple (with lower specs than my mildly upgraded 2yr old PC) costs here (20% of a typical yearly paypacket), I'd probably put it in a PC case because there is no way any I'm having something that looks like that in my house. I can't help but think Apple isn't very well managed. They need to realise that their operations outside the US are in a terrible state, their marketing is either nonexistant or downright unsuitable, their product design is culturally unsuitable for just about everywhere, and it's costing them. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more Amiga users in some countries than Mac users.
There is no way many people are buying a Mac until:
1) they cost less than the deposit on a house
2) they change their marketing so they're not portraying the Mac as some uppity computer for superior people
3) they give their computers real cases which non-Americans want instead of those neon art deco abomninations
4) they take note that their importers they've licenced regional operations to are doing a truly awful job, and quickly fix the problem
5) they supply their computers with real video cards instead of outdated poor-visual-quality Nvidia junk

PC user... :-P

Nice case, nice case...repeat ad infinitum

And I assume this comes from a person who has never contended with the hell that is known as MacOS 9.

MacOS X Server (1.0) when it was first released was fast, stable and reliable unfortunately the shit hit the fan when they bundled aqua and other crap with it. Postscript display did the job quite nicely and very efficiently and buggered if I know why they needed to fix something that worked quite nicely.

As for speed and price, the only people who complain about the price are Joe "I want to have a cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeap PeeeeeeeeeeCeeeeeeeeeeee that only costs $2 and has an uptime like a mainframe" bloggs. Yes, these are the same idiots why buy cheap computers, run Windows XP and wonders why it crashes. Apple on the other hand have their hardware and OS teams working together to ensure that both the hardware and software work together. That is what you may the extra for. I promise you that in 1 year time when 10.5 is released I will be able to run it on a Mac and have all my hardware supported vs. the hardware support hell that the PC world puts people through.

I personally don't care about how fast it is - well, to a point, but I am concerned about RAM and Mac OS X manages memory much better than Windows. With Windows ME, I have 384 MB RAM and if I have an application that takes 32 MB RAM open and one that takes 64 MB RAM at the same time, Windows says it ran out of memory. My mom's computer is an eMac and it has the same amount of RAM and it runs fine doing web, email, and wordprocessing at the same time. And that is for a UNIX which legitimately requires more memory as it is a real operating system.

//With Windows ME, I have 384 MB RAM //

So, you're using a four-year-old OS, with apps that take up a lot of RAM, and you're comparing it to OS X 10.2 on a new e-Mac?

No fscking sh$t, Sherlock! Of course the newer machine is gonna handle memory better.

Ever hear of Windows XP Professional?

DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH

Bascule if you believe the Mhz myth crap that Apple spewed all those years ago, then tell you what my friend I have 50 acres of swampland in Arizona that I will sell you for $1.00. The Mhz myth was thought up by Apple to sell boxes, everyone knows it is crap. No one can show me statistics or benchmarks besides Apples own or Apples funded benchmarks. Believe what you want, 95% of us know the truth.

start flames........NOW!!!

My Windows XP box does everything that my Mac can do, and it runs a lot more Apps and is easier to maintain.

Son, finetune your argument just a little bit more.

Good one, Vlad !

I was desperately looking for something to write about...

read no further...this first sentence about sums it up

First of all, this addressing the PPC970 specifically, not any existing PPC processors which don't sport the performance of the PPC970. Second, the clock speed to power comparisons come from SPEC [ http://www.spec.org/ ] scores:

1.8GHz PPC970

SPECfp - 1051
SPECint - 937

3.06GHz P4
SPECfp - 1077
SPECint - 1099

See:
http://macbuyersguide.com/editorials/editorial-ppc970.htm
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Dec/bch20021217017801.htm

http://www.vargr.com/pages/stories/editorial/980622.html

I do not believe news that is reported from IBM, the people that produce the chip, and I do not believe the Mac buyers guide, who are trying to push people to buy Apples, I guess we will have to wait until it is released and an unbiased person decides to run benchmarks. So like I said, believe what you want, 95% of us know the truth.

http://www.vargr.com/pages/stories/editorial/980622.html

Excellent Article, I liked it. This guy sounds like me. I bet Mac users dont hate him as much as they hate me tho
hehehehehehehehehehe

RJDohnert: Way to insult yourself... this guy took an entire page to say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If that's what you sound like, I feel sorry for you.

Why is this crap here? Didn't someone pre-check the article to at least make sure it said something before allowing it through? At the very least it could have expressed an opinion, but it just states useless obvious "facts" and rumors that have been passed around for months. What a waste of virtual space.

I remember when I went out to get a new PC, and I ended up at ComUSA and hooked around. I've played and played and played and...Zzz...played will all Apples (macs), than I could found.
Concluession: Aqua&Quartz are cool, the rest is crap. There are plentry of BSDs for x86 and Linuxes, rock sollid also. BTW, a combunation like a dual athlon on the desktop with a UNIX os isntalled beats anything. So why spend hard earned cash on Mac, just to be cool? Most people don't do anything special with their machines, don't spent tousands of $ for animation software to use it at home, Intel & AMD are No1 on the Bob Joe everyones consumer market and they increment and push new speeds and performances a couple of times a year. The PC is so easy to upgrade, why bother? What does the Max have so special? Can anyone give me some concludent example?

Hey Bascule,
Read the article that you post about server share before you start saying 5th in the world in server market share? The article specifically states in the U.S. Market. Hmm...U.S. isn't the world market. And if you look at the numbers, they only shipped 1500 of those racks. Compared to the 100,000's of servers that every other vendor shipped, the point is Apple's servers are in last place, that would be 5 out of 5, doesn't sound too impressive to me, And show me the numbers on how you figure that the G4's performance is equivlant to a P4 with hyper-threading? I don't see ANY evidence that's a scientific benchmark to prove any of that marketing crap that Apple puts out, they need to quit getting lessons from the Iraq Information Ministry.

I think Apple made mistake with moving OS to FreeBSD/Unix. Old MacOS was so much more user friendly and optimized.

You may be joking, but even if you are I have to say MacOS's interface simply sucked. The menus in MacOS were atrocious, cluttered, and just plain stupid. OS X is much cleaner and easier to use. Also, the edible buttons of OS X look a lot better than the lego buttons of old, and to me OS X appears to be much more powerful and stable. MacOS 9 crashed on me all the time.

Apple: the choice of leftists, homosexuals and feminists.

Even Al Gore sits on their board.

'nuff said

And what is wrong with that? So I am now deamed a lefty feminist homosexual, oh gee, I am sooooooo offended, oh well, off to the local disco to pick up some stud's.

* btw, if you're as thick as GWB, I was being sarcastic. Well of course, I am assume that you (Anonymous (IP: ---.slo-cres.charterpipeline.net) are nothing more than a card carrying, rabbid right wing republican with a christian fundamentalist slant.

See, that's the thing about the Mac pundets - the Mac platform has many strong points, but speed is not one of them (at least not at the moment), so why don't they just admit that it's slower and move on, instead of trying to convince the world that a 1.4ghz G4 is on par with a 3ghz Pentium 4? This is especially true when you throw OSX into the mix.

Unfair business practices, false advertising, over priced software... but you idiots just keep buying those PC's loaded with the worlds most bloated, unstable, insecure MS operating systems. Now I understand why people choose to kill themselves.

Who cares if a PC is 500MHZ faster? The CPU war is over, and has been over. Lets start talking about functionality, beauty and elegance. What good is a Pinto with a race engine? It still looks and drives like crap, oh but it's fast. Get a grip.

Go a couple of lines up and read my earlier comment! Macs are useless this days...sorry, but you look to me like a zealot...btw have you ever played starcraft? Just look @ the Zealots there...

Apple in the past was on top. Then it kinda went to the bottom. Now it is slowly making it's way around the world again. I can tell you that Apple will not go out. It maybe behind Linux (by some peoples views...not mine) and is always going to be behind Windows...But it will always be around. THey will always provide something that no one else has been able to do.
One thing. For all you dumb ass people who keep going on about how Apple cost so much....Maybe you should keep watching there prices. If you have been watching over the years then you will see they have droop in large numbers.
Dell and other companys may not cost as much sure but they sure do suck. Dell now has to provide a service were they will come and take away there old Dell computers because people are throwing so many out.
Therefor I can not say Dells are cheaper...With the rate you got to buy a new one at they will add up. One thing about the CPU the CPU was made to be equal with the intel P4
just because numbers are different does not mean speed is different. You do have to remember that Apple does not go by the book. There G4 CPU's can handle easly any thing a P4 could.
And besides the CPU is not what really matters. Things that really matter are buss flow...amd Ram and a HUGE HD...With out those the CPU is nothing. Also just top let you know...There is not application out there now that can even take 1/8 of the CPU usage. Therefor they made CPU's so powerful for what? app's that don't need it...
Apple will be releasing major updates...
There will also be many new products in the very near future...things such as Fast not needed CPU's and Tablets.
Talet are planed to be release very soon.
Back to a CPU yall do understand that a CPU can only go asd fast as the buss allows it to right?
I hope yall would do your homework next time befor yall go off making fools of your selves.
I am not trying to say i know all nor that Apple is the only computer for every one all i am saying is that people have been knone to be VERY wrong.
Besides...
Would you would rathwer beleave words that some one typed then find it all out for your self....
Good job.
Remember don't beleave any of it...Try not to even beleave what I am telling you...Just think about it and research on it befor you talk next time.

Speed? Benchmarks Smenchmarks.

Mac OS was cute. Brushed aluminum went out with the deLorean, and peeled off at that. The only people that buy Macs are dumb enough to think that shiny peices of metal are cool, and that Steven Jobs knows what they want.

They *have* to convert their whole like to Dual processors, otherwise then bench mark thing doesnt work. In practice it doesnt work anyway...

Apple is NOT new to the server market. Apple Work Group Servers and AppleShare IP serverss... Mac OS X servers...They have been at it a long time. Rank 5? Not by a Looooong shot. Sounds like a trick. Unisys/Compaq/IBM/Dell/HP. They would have to out sell anyone of those.

Anyone want to discuss drive bay 3 coodies?

Think. Write. Post. Dont just post....

When was this article written? - Summer or December 2002. This article misses everything a good article has to have: new facts, new news, new/or arguments. Sorry Tim, go back where you started.

Apple is doing just fine, thank you. They have their fingers in more and more areas all the time. If i were looking to do an article on whether some company will survive, Apple would not be my first choice. Why not do one on Gateway? Now there's a story.

Who cares what is better, really. Just use what you like and what you can afford. Personally, I think that just about ALL operating systems and hardware alike, ALL offer something unique that the other does not have. In the end, just choose the OS or hardware that best matches the strong points that most interest you. And don't forget NOT to push you viewpoints on other people.

If you find yourself at CompUSA and cannot make up your mind between a Compaq or P4, just flip a darn coin. It's all old technology in 2 years anyway.

Apple seems to be doing fine in a down economy. People should really worry about Gateway.

For a company its size it has plenty going for it. They make and control their own operating system and hardware so they are doing the work of a Dell and Microsoft. Apple has proven that they can produce top notch software that people want. Their product design is one of the best in the industry. They are also a technology company.

What really holds Apple back is their processors. The G4 in a dual processor configuration is no slouch but it is certainly not the fastest system out there. Apple needs to aggessively address the MHZ fallout because it does hurt perception and it is bad for performance, MHZ does matter.

For all those people that think Apple is going down without a fight, don't hold your breath...on second thought go ahead. Lets see who last longest.

Apple has no chance of surviving. Give it up already, sell your soul to Microsoft and name your kid Win Dow.

Before you read this, just remember that Mac hardware is designed from the ground up to "work together". It's not this months cheapest component purchased from god knows where to piece together something like a Dell. You are all placing way to much emphasis on one component (CPU) of a system which is comprised of many hundred which must work together to be entirely efficient. Yes, it's true that Mac is behind in regards to CPU speed vs Intel. But unless I am crazy I stare at a screen all day and consume about 10% of my CPU. With that point in mind, to my eyes, the Quartz interface is a technological breakthrough and I much prefer working with it rather than KDE, Gnome or any version of Windows.

Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:14:35 PM America/Chicago
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: tcp_output starving -- is due to mbuf get delay?

Jin> Some details was left behind -- The machine is 2 GHz Intel P4
Jin> with 1 GB memory, so the delay is not from either CPU or lack of
Jin> memory.

I just want to quickly jump in with the comment that our GigE tests of
routing through FreeBSD have exposed several-order-of-magnitude
differences by changing ram/motherboard/which-slot-the-card-is-in.

Do not assume that a fast CPU is the key. We went through 10
motherboards to commission the current routers ... and sometimes
faster cpus would route slower (in various combinations of
motherboards and RAM).

I run a Celeron 400Mhz with BeOS on it and I rarely consider it slow for my usage. Well, there is one thing, I do have problems using some realtime audio effects on it. But other than that it doesn't really bother me.
Sure I could go for a faster CPU, but it's not that important to me. Besides, the faster ones usually needs more cooling which means more noise (unless I use watercooling, which is messy) and I'd like to keep my computer as quiet as possible.

I doubt that Apple will go away anytime soon. But I think they will have to live without the glory.
Ferrari won't go away just because there are faster and cheaper cars out there.

I thought comparing FreeBSD to OS/X was futile but low and behold it does use mbuf as well.

Speaking of GiGE, since the "network is the computer" and PowerBooks come standard with GiGE, wouldn't that automatically make it faster than any standard PC? Food for thought.

netstat -m from Mac terminal:

70 mbufs in use:
67 mbufs allocated to data
2 mbufs allocated to socket names and addresses
1 mbufs allocated to Appletalk data blocks
80/254 mbuf clusters in use
525 Kbytes allocated to network (33% in use)
0 requests for memory denied
0 requests for memory delayed
0 calls to protocol drain routines

-m Show statistics recorded by the memory management routines (the
network manages a private pool of memory buffers).

Apple has gone from nothing as a server vendor to the fifth highest selling server vendor in the world: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/10/28.7.shtml

You say lookee here, but if you bother to read the article you link:


According to Dataquest, Apple is the number 5 server vendor in the US market, though Apple didn't register on the world market.

Whats that? in the US? Apple didnt register in the world market? That *contra*-dicts reality like the Fox News Channel's No Spin Zone.

Further more, as if to add insult to idiocy, you stake a claim that XServe doing fantastic, blah blah blah.

Look, According to that chart, they are in last place. What you have there are pretty much the server vendors that count. Even the no name OTHERS outsold Apple in 3rdQuarter.

5,700 servers in a Quarter doesnt represent a big win, or as to the upcoming importance of the platform. that number needs to grow, and sustain for it to matter. I doubt it will do either.

5,700 servers doesnt mean crap. 1.2 percent of the market dont mean shit.

Only in the minds of the Zealot, reality challenged Mac Fanbot multiverse.

Apple's forte has never been speed. OSX alone should alert people that speed is among the lowest priorities in Cupertino; the G4 serves to drive the point home. If speed were all that mattered, Apple wouldn't have lasted out the last decade. The new laptops would never leave the shelves.
Apple sells style, pure and simple. That's all they've got.

Style is what they're good at, and it's what the 3% of the population who want an Apple badly enough are willing to pay for.

I'm affraid to say this is a very lame article. What is the point of (re-)stating the very same old information about Apple and its hardware challenges?
People should select and use their computer based on their needs, not on fashion. So if I use 2 macs at home and one PC at work, it's because I have needs for both systems.

So, Mr. Jiaqi, go back to your keyboard and try to write something interesting and new for once...

Um, the benchmarks you supplied basically prove that your original statement was false. PPC 970 is equivilent to a P4 at a 60% higher clock speed. Hardly the 100% your original 1.8 to 3.6 and 2.5 to 5.0 comparison stated. Easily follows along with the fact that an Athlon XP is comparable to a P4 at a 40% greater clockspeed. That follows along with the fact that a PowerPC chip is traditionally about 20% faster than a normal (non-P4) x86 design. Now, I see great things in store for PPC970. Not because it'll be "faster than the fastest Pentium" regardless of the clock-speed (the Apple-version of the MHz Myth) but because I have a feeling that they'll ramp up clock-speeds more quickly than expected. The 1.8 GHz version of the PPC 970 seems way ahead of schedule, if the Mac Rumor sites are to be believed. If they can get a machine out by late summer, the fastest x86 chips will probably be the Opterons, which will be about the performance of a 3.6 GHz P4. If IBM can crack out a 2.5 GHz version by the beginning of next year, they'll have a very hot item on their hands. The 1.8 GHz sucks up around 45 watts of power. Once people realize that another 30 watts really doesn't matter, given the more than 100 watts the monitor they're sitting in front of is pumping into their heads, 2+ GHz should be easily possible from their .13um process (if AMD can do it, why not IBM?). If IBM can keep up with the x86 guys in terms of process technology, then the PPC guys are set.

PS> Of course, this is all a stupid discussion. If DEC hadn't dropped the ball, we'd all be running cheap .13um Alphas running at 3 GHz that performed like a 5GHz P4. You think PPC is efficient? Even an aging 1.2 GHz Alpha can keep up (in floating point) with a 2.2 GHz P4. This is that "faster than the fastest Pentium" performance delta that the PPC-heads keep making up, except it's actually real...

Since I am AppleTroll(tm), I have something to say with regards to your post.

Apple's forte has never been speed.

Nor has Apples forte been truth. Apples forte has not been to care about there customers either.

Apples forte is to create a religious group who will fork over huge amounts of cash for things that just do not make sense, and then blather on and on incessently about how great they are for doing it, and how peon like and stupid everyone else is.

People like that are just stupid I think. Or victims of a massive advertising campaign.

OK, I just finished reading the rambling "My Tech Support Experience with Apple" blurb, wondering why that was on OSNews/New Mobile Computing in the first place, and now I come to this. A poorly written, obvious, and non-informative article that has absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. So what is the author saying? Does Apple have a future or doesn't it? Which a dumb question anyway since of course Apple has a future. Duh. Are they bankrupt yet? Are they going out of business tomorrow? No? Then they have a future.

OSNews is great. I visit it all the time. It's become one of my #1 daily stops on the Web. But when I read drivel like this, it really gets my goat. Why publish stuff that's so blatenly amateur? Are you trying to compete with Slashdot on a bad day?

Jared

Rayiner Hashem, I agree with everyting you have ever thought or said in your life.

"Now, I see great things in store for PPC970"

Me too... Just not from Apple. IBM has been doing spectacular things with PPC, ever since a RS/6000 66Mhz basically beat a 8500/120 by a factor of 10 at least. ( They gave up on loading the RS/6000 down with web sessions after 5000 ).

Well thought and said.

It's here because OSNews has clearly decided that their forté is stoking the fires of the PC/Mac "war." This is an utterly pointless article except for its ability to get people throwing flames back and forth in the comment section--and increase OSNews' page counts.

I'd wanted to comment on the partisanship here, but it's not really worth the effort. Instead I'll comment on how sad this is. I've questioned Eugenia on occasionally showing an anti-Mac bias (in a "let me go out of my way to link to articles that question the Mac's worth" sense), but that's partially because I know she can do better than that--and generally does. She's the main reason I started reading OSNews again after its long hiatus.

But this isn't the mission of OSNews. It just isn't. Arguably, David Adams started this site specifically to report on everything except Windows--it was about alternative operating systems. Maybe "Exploring the Future of Computing" changes that focus, slightly--but only slightly. When Microsoft is reported on here, it should be because of innovations (setting aside all the arguments I know people will have with that word). But it doesn't matter if you put the word "future" in one more damn "let's get the Apple and PC partisans at each other's throats to bump up them there page counts, yee haw!" article, guys. It's not about the future of computing.

I know Eugenia doesn't have the reins any more, technically, although it's clear she's still driving a lot of content to the site. But whoever is letting through these kinds of opinions, just to get this kind of bile flung around: have you no shame?

There's still good work here (and again nearly all of it is Eugenia's). But I'm increasingly tempted to just wait for the interesting exclusives, liek interviews, to be linked from other news sites. If OSNews wants to return to exploring the future of computing, great. But if what we've been increasingly seeing lately is the future of OSNews, maybe it's better left unexplored.

I got a Mac I like my Mac, it work fine, has few bugs. Have and UNIX shell with all the GNU software I need. I have enough productive software too. A fantastic development enviroment and a very nice framework (Cocoa).

What more could I ask? A faster machine. For my needs my 733 Mhz monoproccesor machine is enough fast.

IMO to say than Apple have no future is a naive opinion from someone who have not a Mac.

P.S.: There are few Windows user who could say the same.

In the haste of trying to post quickly and repatedly, I managed to make quite a few mistakes in my post.

So, for the record:

Apple is the 5th leading server vendor in the U.S., not the world.

The 1.8GHz PPC970 is slightly slower than a 3.06GHz P4, not a 3.6GHz P4. (which is what I said in my second post anyway...)

But, despite this:

I'm the only one posting numbers here, and it's ridiculous to question SPEC numbers. Why would IBM lie about the SPEC scores? What would happen to IBM and PPC970 sales if someone came along later and could verify that IBM lied about their benchmark scores?

All I'm seeing in reply are people going overboard about the mistaken information in my post, and in turn replying ad hominem, calling me a "Mac fanboy." Is it truly that difficult to believe that a processor with an ISA other than x86 might demonstrate comparable processing power?

By the way, this post comes to you courtesy of my 2.4GHz Dell...

Andrew:If Power G4 1.4 Ghz is, say, equivalent to P4 2.2 Ghz, then dual-cpu one must be pretty fast.
For general performance, add about 30% to the G4 clock speed to get "P4 Mhz". A few things are massively faster because of Altivec, some stuff is slower because PCs have much faster busses & RAM. In general (and according to SPEC, which tends to be a good indicator) a G4 is about 30% faster at the same clock speed.
Bascule: The 1.8 GHz processors that Apple is expected to debut with will perform on par with a 3.6GHz Pentium 4
This is just outrageous, in any meaningful sense. At a very small number of largely irrelevant things, the G4 is twice as fast (if not faster) than a P4 at the same clock speed. At just about everything, it's about 30% faster at the same clock speed, though tends to lose out more because current G4s are bus-starved.
Rayiner: Even an aging 1.2 GHz Alpha can keep up (in floating point) with a 2.2 GHz P4.
FP performance is simply not important for most people. Int performance is far more indicative of general-purpose speed.

... behind PCs, running successively Windows 95, Windows 98, Slackware, RedHat, Suse, Debian, Mandrake, FreeBSD, BeOS, I have decided to buy a Mac this year.

Why?

I used one these last six months. I am hooked. And I have yet to see, here or elsewhere, a good argument against the Mac.

about the Macs is the damn flames you attract for using one. I've bought an ibook a few months ago and I'm extremely happy with it. I also use XP and debian. And to be honest, each system has its benefits and drawbacks. Do I start yapping to every person that doesn't use the OS I prefer? No, they call it personal preference. I like my ibook, i like my XP desktop, and I like my debian desktop and servers. If you like OS xyz or abc, great, I hope it improves your overal productivity. It's as useful as discussing the color of my livingroom walls, what do you care what my home looks like? I'm the one that has to live in it.

If were not for Apple, Xerox would have let the mouse, GUI interface, and networking die.
Because at the time it was not profitable.
MicroSoft would be selling DOS Ver.9 and we would all be using DOS or Unix withno GUI.
As for speed it is Apples VS Oranges (no pun intended).
Apple OS works with Apple hardware so it cost a little more.
And don't tell me that PC's are better as a blanket statment, because it is not true,
If MicroSoft made the hardware and the OS it would have more control over how stable it was,
There are many IBM PC clones out there and some are good and some are a pain in the butt, that is why there are no more Apple clones.
Apple has been on its death bed in the news for almost as long as the company has been in Business,and it still is here (where are Commadore,Texas Inst.,Atari all dead and some of these were good computers).
I say thank you Apple and thank you Xerox and thankyou Microsoft for giving me an easer way to compute.

If were not for Apple, Xerox would have let the mouse, GUI interface, and networking die.
Because at the time it was not profitable.
MicroSoft would be selling DOS Ver.9 and we would all be using DOS or Unix withno GUI.
As for speed it is Apples VS Oranges (no pun intended).
Apple OS works with Apple hardware so it cost a little more.
And don't tell me that PC's are better as a blanket statment, because it is not true,
If MicroSoft made the hardware and the OS it would have more control over how stable it was,
There are many IBM PC clones out there and some are good and some are a pain in the butt, that is why there are no more Apple clones.
Apple has been on its death bed in the news for almost as long as the company has been in Business,and it still is here (where are Commadore,Texas Inst.,Atari all dead and some of these were good computers).
I say thank you Apple and thank you Xerox and thankyou Microsoft for giving me an easer way to compute.

I have to agree that the quality of certain articles over the past month or two have been very poor, and seem to be posted to generate another batch of 70 comments concerning flaming.

Apple suffers from low market share which leads to lower market share. The problem is who wants to buy a computer that they can not get software for. I do - I bought two Macs in the last year. Apple is selling as many computers as they ever did. Their Market share will continue down, as their profits remain constant - Apple is not going anywhere.

For those of us who would like to see Apple be the market leader, we have to make a differance in the software market. I personally avoid new development that is not done in a cross platform tool. I use two of these:

CPLAT at http://www.ksoft.com/ (C++ framework for Mac, Win32 and Linux development)

REALBasic at http://www.realsoftware.com/ (BASIC RAD development tool for Mac and Windows)

As developers, if we choose to build our apps using tools such as theese, we can produce a market where we have choice. Something like 90% of the market uses Microsoft tools and generate Windows only code. Apple and Linux development tends to focus on system centric development platforms - If we instead move to cross-platform tools and insist on using them, then they will grow as will the market for all Non-microsoft OS's. If we continue in the direction we are going, Linux and Apple will retain niche status.

Currently Apple is the only real desktop alternative to Windows - it's not in danger of death, but the posibility for growth is more a matter of us than Apple - they have designed a good solid easily used OS.

"I doubt that Apple will go away anytime soon. But I think they will have to live without the glory.
Ferrari won't go away just because there are faster and cheaper cars out there."

In fact Ferrari went broke 35 years ago. General Motors attempted to buy Ferrari but was blocked by the Italian government. Ferrari has been a (minimally profitable) subsidiary of Fiat for three decades. Lamborghini is owned by Volksawgen and Lotus is owned by Malaysian car maker Proton.


Apple would be OK if it was a flagship of a massive corporation such as Samsung or IBM. Cars are different because they all run on the same roads and use the same fuel so market share isn't critical. Apple can't make much money because it spends a huge amount per unit shipped on R+D. Once market share falls below a certain level it becomes uneconomical to port products to the architecture.

When I see an Mac running a IBM 970 64 bit processor faster than an Intel machine I'll believe it.

Opteron processors and 64 bit Windows XP Pro will be available within weeks. There is no proof that Apple will ever ship a 64 bit machine.

The whole Macs have premium quality hardware argument is total nonsense. The current shipping Macs have components that are obsolete in the cheapest PCs. Dual channel RAM and GeForce Ti video cards are affordable mainstream technology in the PC world. High end hardware such as Matrox Parhelia video cards or RD1066 RDRAM are not available at any price in the Mac world.

To use a car analogy Macs are like Hyundai sports coupes - a stylish exterior covering rudimentary engineering.

I can't believe that anyone can be claiming that apple is going to die. In the last two years, they have introduced a new and more stable OS, a killer consumer electronics device (ipod), servers (that are selling well) and they continue with their foray into high-end creative workstations. On top of that we have news that IBM is building a closer relationship with apple and probably building apple a next gen 64 bit processor that sounds like it will put Intel to shame.

All this and people still claim apple is going to die. Are you blind? Yes market share has gone done and apple's GHz rating is not up to intel's propaganda. But that will change, apple is preparing for a major market share grab. They are already doing it in servers and consumer electronics, and creative work stations. The consumer desktop will be next. I have a lot more faith in apple's management then in the PC morning after quarterbacks on this board. Give it time and stop buying the PC company line. Independent thought is an invaluable asset.

Women:

Nag, slow,cost alot of money, have to keep them socially happy, when they are 30 start with the whole " my biological clock is ticking away " crap. sometimes affectionate.

PC:

Never nags, costs a one time fee, PCs generally like to stay home and dont bug you to go to the movies, whats a biological clock? never affectionate and the PC will work around the clock if I want it too.

Now, that is a stupid argument. A Mac vs. PC argument is just as stupid if not more than a Woman vs. PC argument. Sorry I dont care how much advantage a PC has over a woman I will not give up women for a PC or a Mac, grow up people. A computer is a computer, nothing special about either one. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. Use what works best for you, but do not try toshove your politics off on me or anyone else because I really dont care what anyone uses, I use my computers you use your.

Mac OS + Unix = Mac OS X

I had not figured that out, but now that the author kindly pointed it to us uninformed readers, I think it makes sense.

Thanks to OSnews, I now have something to ponder about for the rest of the week. Thank you Eugenia!

Ana O'Neemus
Technical Writer
The Garfield Group

" I can't believe that anyone can be claiming that apple is going to die. In the last two years, they have introduced a new and more stable OS, a killer consumer electronics device (ipod), servers (that are selling well) and they continue with their foray into high-end creative workstations. On top of that we have news that IBM is building a closer relationship with apple and probably building apple a next gen 64 bit processor that sounds like it will put Intel to shame. "

The world is not ready for 64 bit desktop systems yet, sorry. In the last two years Microsoft introduced a more stable OS and a Server Operating System that I heard puts UNIX to shame (That I will beleive when I see it) And the only way they managed to get any film studios to look at them is that they overpriced the version of Shake for Linux and they quit producing Shake for Windows. You wanna talk growth, lets look at Linux. Most Universities are running Linux in one way or another, almost all the film studios in hollywood have adopted Linux not only for their renderfarms but also for their artists desktops, Steve Jobs and his company Pixar chose Linux over his beloved Mac OS X and G4 hardware, and consumer desktop use of Linux is picking up, Microsoft Licensing out its Multimedia Codec for use on Linux will only help make Linux stronger and I think you will see a Quicktime for Linux from Apple very soon. By the time IBM releases the Power 5 there will be no speed advantage because AMDs 64 bit initiative already puts the Power 5 to sleep.

" Yes market share has gone done and apple's GHz rating is not up to intel's propaganda. But that will change, apple is preparing for a major market share grab. They are already doing it in servers and consumer electronics, and creative work stations."

Marketshare will continue togo down because Apples Ghz rating will NEVER be what Intels is today, the Power 5 Argument sounds alot like the G5 Argument I have heard for years. As for is Apple preparing for a major marketshare grab, I think Linux is becoming prepared for that more than Apple. The only people that are buying the Xserve are people who already own or use Macs publishing houses, graphic design houses and what schools Apple has left, considering they lost most of them with Dell. And for Creative workstations, I see Linux's growth there is phenominal and I see it being more widely used than the Macinstosh, Im just curious as to where you get your info? Apples press releases? Maybe?

//Can anyone give me some concludent example?//

Sure ... if you can explain what "concludent" means.

There aren't any "bad" operating systems out there now. I own a Mac and a PC running BeOS at home. At work I develop on Windows XP and HP Unix (and some VMS). They are all stable and do the job fairly well. I think it comes down to preference. I have been using (and have owned) a Mac since the mid-80's and will always own one. I enjoy them. I also LOVE BeOS (and have great hopes for Zeta just because it is so clean, simple and stable (and has a lot of apps ported to it).

As for the article. Seems kind of pointless. Nothing new there. Personally, I think Apple still has a chance to maintain its niche and I hope it walks its path carefully, without taking any mis-steps.

People here are basically rehashing everything they said to each other like last week on OSnews.

Apple's market share is always going to get worse unless they outsell all the PC manufacturers combined, even if they were selling, selling and selling, their output is still less than the other manufactures around the world so it will still be less than all the total units shipped in any quater and they are resigned to a low market share.

Just because they have a smaller market every year doesn't mean they are losing users either, their average goes down as the market gets bigger and bigger, some journalists don't always point this out.

In the 80's, Apple had 15% of the market but now they have 3 or 4%, but it doesn't mean there are less macs around, only the markets got bigger and alot more pc's are being sold than macs.

Also to add, Apple cannot be dying if their share of the server market has gone UP whatever the increase!
There reason for creating a server product was to stop the like of DELL and HP offering a product for X company who own macs and then would have to give up the macs for PC boxes because Apple didn't have a server product to sell.

Also anything a mac user says, is annouced as zealotry anyway and is thus ignored by the PC users of the world, so forget everything i have said, even though i use a PC as well.

Processors and huge numbers mean so much to PC users.
Style, efficientcy and design mean so much to Apple users.
Thats why we have this "group discussions".

I don't think i said this last week btw.

In the 80's, Apple had 15% of the market but now they have 3 or 4%, but it doesn't mean there are less macs around, only the markets got bigger and alot more pc's are being sold than macs, so the averages work out differently.

Notice the bit i have added.

"The world is not ready for 64 bit desktop systems yet, sorry"

My guess is that apple would use 64 bit capabilities to gain traction in high-end applications (servers, work stations, etc) as needed not for the general desktop market. 64 bit is a tool to get into new markets for apple and to build a new high margin market segment.

"you wanna talk growth, lets look at Linux."
I've actually supported linux growth in many of my previous posts. Regardless linux has an el cheapo strategy which is good enough for a lot of things. Apple can provide a low cost solution that is well integrated and which has support from developers (on-going) and the company. Apple is clearly trying to optimize the applications software for their platform, something that linux can't really claim. Regardless, My guess is you'll see both linux AND apple making inroads here not one or the other.

"marketshare"

Yep linux is grabbing market share. Again, i've said this in lots of previous posts but linux is not alone here. Apple will never gain market share because their GHz rating because it will always be below intel? Have you been watching the PC market lately. Shipments are down? yes? Why? because of a recession and the fact that the upgrade cycle is getting longer. Why? Because people have enough power. What does that mean? that your MHz argument means nothing. Its old hat. There is value beyond MHz.

Apple is losing share in the education market and what did they do? they are offering the emac for $700...not bad. Apple will respond to market share in general but they can't do it right away? Why? because they would die. If drop their prices on those powermacs then they will destroy their margins. Yes? So what does apple now do? A) destroy margins B) lose market share C) find margins elsewhere? Which one mate. if you've been paying attention then you'd notice that apple has been doing C) finding margins in new markets. Now what does that means. it means they are lowering their dependence on the margins from their "overpriced" powermacs. And what does that mean? it means they can lower those prices and start going for market share in time. it just won't happen right away. And yes the xserve is a niche product right now but doesn't that make sense. That is called a market entrance strategy. Start small and in a niche, gain a foothold, and then build outwards.

"where do i get my information"
obviously from a better source then you.

macintosh are too damn expensive for what it is and what it does, i can build my own computer for under 500 US dollars and install Linux and do just as much for a lot less expense...

ryan Independent thought is an invaluable asset.

Then how come Mac users just act like raging sheep and repeats Jobs selling-speaches like it was Gods truth?

Apple is losing share in the education market and what did they do? they are offering the emac for $700...not bad.

Since I spend my days using/admining computers (~30% is Macs) all I ahve to say is that anyone buying an eMac where I work should be fired. It has been terribly overpriced and you can get much more flexible hardware including an 15' LCD for the same money if you buy a PC. The eMac just plain sucks for the price you pay. Apple is getting slaughtered in the education market and this pricereduction will unfortunately not help.

Which one mate. if you've been paying attention then you'd notice that apple has been doing C) finding margins in new markets. Now what does that means. it means they are lowering their dependence on the margins from their "overpriced" powermacs.

Please stop this nonsense. You've used this argumetn before and it is still not true. Those "other" markets are so low volume compared to Apples computer sales number that you really have to be ignorant. How many copies do you think Apple sells of FCP for every 100 PowerMac that gets sold? I'd say 5 is counting way to high and I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower than 1 / 100 PowerMacs sold. How many XServers/100 PowerMacs?

Buying products like FCP, Shake etc is all about image. Why? To even more strongly pose the Mac as the creative platform and this is a good move by Apple. Y? Because it sells more computers, computers that will still be seen as overpriced in the coming years.

Do you really think IBM will let Apple make an impact in the server space by using the 970? IBM is not Apples lackey and IBM will do whatever IBM sees is best for IBM. IBM is much bigger than Apple on servers and makes a lot of money on consultation regarding servers. Now what company was gonna make the CPU that is going to save the Mac? Still 100% sure the Mac will get the 970? I still hope they will but I'm not convinced.

I currently have a PC computering machine for my computering purposes. I office, I game, I play, I play, and I record. My PC-based recording studio is perfect for me (though Macs ARE STILL recognized as THE solution for record studios). Maybe some day I'll make the "switch"? Not sure. I do know that Windows XP runs the software I need and the thing performs nicely most of the time... it doesn't crash often. Linux has a few nice proggies for digital studios too... and thier free. I'll probably switch to that eventually. Talk about an inexpensive solution for indy record artists! And I can pass the savings from my ugly-cheap studio to my clients (the ones who only care about the sound of the PERFORMANCE and not the glasses of champagne during recording sessions). Do I have a point or what?

Darius: "See, that's the thing about the Mac pundets - the Mac platform has many strong points, but speed is not one of them (at least not at the moment), so why don't they just admit that it's slower and move on, instead of trying to convince the world that a 1.4ghz G4 is on par with a 3ghz Pentium 4? This is especially true when you throw OSX into the mix."

we do admit they are slower. the problem is it's a one way street. we admit how PCs are better, but people won't admit in what ways macs are better

The whole Macs have premium quality hardware argument is total nonsense. The current shipping Macs have components that are obsolete in the cheapest PCs. Dual channel RAM and GeForce Ti video cards are affordable mainstream technology in the PC world. High end hardware such as Matrox Parhelia video cards or RD1066 RDRAM are not available at any price in the Mac world.

um, Apple is selling computers with 333DDR, which is pretty fast, admittedly, not as fast as PC1066 RDRAM, but with some creative bus work it can be very close. As far as video cards are concerned, Apple sells 4 video cards:
Geforce 4 MX
Radeon 9000 Pro
Geforce 4 Ti
Radeon 9700 Pro
The top two are budget cards, the bottom two are gamer cards (yes, the 9700 is quite a bit faster). The Matrox Parhelia came out months after the Geforce 4 Ti, and even after the Radeon 8500 (which seems to be something ATI is not incredibly proud of) and the Parhelia was inferior to the Radeon in many aspects. It wasn't even close to the Geforce 4 Ti.

In short Apple is not behind the times. They're updating their processors. Their RAM is at least fairly current (DDR400 really isn't any faster than DDR333). Their video cards are definitely current.

What's your point?

Doehnert keeps plugging this linux is overtaking the mac line. Problem is, as I've explained, linux succeeding only will help apple (because OS X interoperates with the open standards of linux and open source and will run linux apps with little modification). He just keeps ignoring this and sputtering the same old crap.

There's room for a niche product if it works with everything else

I don't get everybody's point here...macs just work fo me...if they don't ut it for you...who cares? My 1.42Ghz feels furiously fast...I don't care if there's a pc out there that's faster...i'm happy

Saying whether Apple will die or live is inherently speculative. Anyone saying they know for sure is dumb.

But whether Apple lives or dies in the long long term, here's my prediction:

The day of the PC as a forced DIY project - assembling hardware, OS and app software from 10 different companies and praying it all works together is GOING TO DIE.

Sure, the PC people that populate this site have no problem with this, but get a clue, YOU ARE NOT A NORMAL PERSON, who doesn't want, need or even have the ability to become like you.

These people want an appliance, from one company, that will do all the functions they want. This is where we are going. It may be 5 years from now or 15. That's where we are going.

Maybe one company won't write all the code, make all the pieces, but they will ASSEMBLE IT, SELL IT AND SERVICE IT. One company.

Hopefully, there will be many of these companies, competing against each other and using open standards.

Guess, what, that's where Linux and Apple is leading us.

A prediction, but

The thing i found odd about this article was that this person based the lack of software on Quark. There are lots and lots of software out there for Mac OS X because of the simple fact that Mac OS X Developer Tools are free. I develop for Windows & Mac and find in general Apples tools (from NeXT) are generally easier to use and more advanced. Visual Studio 6 was so incredibly lacking in that it needed a update and not everything worked well. Now im trying out Visual Studio .NET and while some things look better, Apples developer tools give developers more options for developing the interface and more options for developers give users more options. Personally I think Mac OS X has the perfect mix of Commercial apps and Open Source.

And don't give me this crap that Microsoft comes up with Ideas on their own. Internet Explorer is not Microsoft it's Mosaic (just look at the about box and actually read assuming you can.) DOS was bought for $50,000 from a Seattle Computer Company. Early versions of Windows were based on code stolen from Apple. Microsoft didn't think about Luna until Apple came out with Aqua. I have Red Hat Linux 8 and it's GUI under KDE looks better than Windows XP. You look at almost anything Microsoft and you can find some company they bought it from (cough Hotmail) or stole it from (cough Apple) Microsoft isn't an innovator they merely buy what they want try pathetically to enhance it and call it their own.

I love how they compare dual processor macs to single processor pc's.. I have to roll my eyes at that one.

Don't forget everyone, there ARE such things as Dual processor PC's and they cost far less than a dual processor mac.

someone said that a 1.4 mac processor was as good as a pentium 3ghz processor? thats almost twice as fast so i don't think so. i have a 1500 mhz athlon, and the school macs have 800 mhz power pc processors.. so by the twice as fast logic, those macs should be on par with my computer.. but NO they are twice as slow. Most image operations in photoshop take twice as long than they do on my pc.

" I can't believe that anyone can be claiming that apple is going to die. In the last two years, they have introduced a new and more stable OS, a killer consumer electronics device (ipod), servers (that are selling well) and they continue with their foray into high-end creative workstations. On top of that we have news that IBM is building a closer relationship with apple and probably building apple a next gen 64 bit processor that sounds like it will put Intel to shame."

Doesn't matter! Repeat after me: doesn't matter!

The only thing that determines Apple's survivability is their ability to make more than they spend. They have done badly at this particular task, and that is why their survivability is in doubt. No one is claiming that OS X sucks, or that the iPod sucks. They are saying that Apple the company is getting hammered when it comes to actually making money. It is - it lost 8 million in the last quarter of 2003, and it only sold about 1.5 billion dollars of stuff. Apple isn't going to die soon, but it certainly isn't a poster child of profitability.

Good companies that make good products die all the time. Remember Aureal? They made some of the best sound cards at the time, and they promptly self-destructed one day, with very little warning. Apple has the capacity to do the same. The difference is, I can swap out a sound card - it's much harder to swap out Apple hardware and put it in a PC .

-Erwos

Actually dude,
Microsoft had Luna out in 1998 back with the old, old Whistler Alphas, Apple didnt put out Aqua until 1999 with Mac OS X Developer Preview and then Public Beta, So in this case I think MS had the upper hand, Visual Studios .NET is actually quite good, Im not going to say Apples is better because while I have looked at the tools my tool of choice is QT and I never liked OpenStep, I mean Yellowbox, Darn it I mean cocoa.

" And don't give me this crap that Microsoft comes up with Ideas on their own. Internet Explorer is not Microsoft it's Mosaic (just look at the about box and actually read assuming you can.) DOS was bought for $50,000 from a Seattle Computer Company. Early versions of Windows were based on code stolen from Apple. Microsoft didn't think about Luna until Apple came out with Aqua. I have Red Hat Linux 8 and it's GUI under KDE looks better than Windows XP. You look at almost anything Microsoft and you can find some company they bought it from (cough Hotmail) or stole it from (cough Apple) Microsoft isn't an innovator they merely buy what they want try pathetically to enhance it and call it their own."

I hate to tell you this, but Apple's stealing of Xerox's PARC and their use of BSD does not exactly make me think they're much better than MS in the innovation sector. Apple is just as guilty as MS... well, maybe not, but they sure as hell ain't innocent.

-Erwos

Appleforever
History in the computer industry is littered with failures of niche markets, You want examples, here you go:

Commodore
Amiga
Atari
Digital Research
SGI
SUN
Apple
Be Inc.
Sinclair

Those are the most famous ones, there are more. It has been proven Niche markets dont work, Sun and SGI have crossed the river and started doing x86 hardware, lets face Intel is the industry standard, and you can sit there pull your hair and scream ' NO NO NO " and pull your hair and kick and pout but it is the standard.Apple is trying to icorporate Suns old strategy into their own, Proprietary Unix, Proprietary hardware. It doesnt work, Apple will go with the x86 processor. Now or later Apple will incorporate x86. And Im not saying Apple has to kill its PowerPC offerings, IBM doesnt and IBM does very well with its x86 offerings and its PowerPC offerings. And I do not believe for a second that Mac OS X would be to hard to port, they already have the major component done, the Darwin kernel. You can sit there and call me stupid, call me crazy, tell me I dont know what Im talking about. But, very soon you will be looking back using your Pentium based Apple computer and you will think how silly you were back in 2003 fighting on E-Forums. But it will be at that time. People like you never change you never think, you have one-sided thinking. You and other Apple zealots tend to try to look at this Apple situation from Apples point-of-view and not from a real world perspective. So with that said go ahead with your flames, I expect nothing less from you and all the other Mac cultists around.