Forums | MacLife

...I thought 2002 was supposed to be the big year with Jaguar and all... but we know how that turned out.

Right now people know that despite all of the recent upgrades, they are still far behind.  Only if the IBM 970 can be released soon, and if it is faster than the Athlon 64-bit or 4 GHz Pentium 4s, will Apple be able to save itself and *gasp* gain marketshare.  If the 970 comes out at 1.8GHz and still isn't the performance contender, no ammount of iApps and screen size options will help.

He's right, we need something BIG, and FAST.  If Mac could just get it together and come out with a 970 powermac by summer and a 970 powerbook by winter then mac could really have some bragging rights and start looking appealing to people.  Apple has gone through it's OS period where they mad Mac OS X and finalized it and all.  Jobs said after this it would be time to think about processors and the like.  I hope this is true and that this time is comming soon.

Well let's see... Safari should be final this year *heh*... iBooks should get an update... 15" Powerbook update... XServes should get an update... iPods will get an update... that's stuff im pretty sure of....

that's the problem.  the updates suck.

If it came down to it, what is preferable?*

Apple releasing a desktop with an IBM 970 that gets spanked by a Pentium when running 32 bit software but performs somewhat better running native 64 bit software, meaning another round of software updates across the board to really get the benefits, yet does retain compatibility with existing 32 bit software. The chips future may be brighter, but Apple is the only customer, so IBM's commitment is an open question.

Apple releasing a 32 bit-only desktop that totally and unambiguously spanks the Pentium, and even first generation 64 bit desktops, but leaves AMD and Intel and it's OEMs to introduce 32/64 bit to the consumer PC desktop market. Current PPC software is totally compatible. This 'chip X' has the potential to scale up well and is inexpensive. Though it puts Apple further back in the 64 bit future.

Apple releasing an 'alternate' 32/64 bit desktop that performs on par or better with the latest Pentiums in 32 bit performance, but sets a new high standard in 64 bit performance on the desktop, yet requires all new software. Software vendors allow cross-grading.


* By preferable, I mean what's best for Apple's continued success, and ability to attract new users and grow in the market.
For the sake of this comparison, I'm assuming the first generation IBM 970 is not the magical super-chip some would like it to be.

There is something seriously wrong with Apple's advertising.

Apple and Chiat-Day are held up as paragons of innovative and effective advertising, yet they can't seem to grow sales. Not only that, but a common complaint voiced by those who would like to see Apple do well is that people buy PC's because they just don't know enough about Macs.
How can Chiat-Day and Apple claim to have effective ads? Did I miss something? Is Chiat-Day coasting on that one Superbowl Ad from '84?

Ads are about brand awareness and selling stuff. It's not rocket science. They either work or they don't. Apple has been in the market from the very beginning (they helped create the market), and people haven't heard of them? What gives?

Now that Apple has a large retail presence, I'd like to see those full spread newsprint ads like the electronics chain stores have. Simple product descriptions and regular sales and discounts. It's not glamourous or fancy, but it gets people into the stores on weekends. Apple shouldn't be shy about moving downscale, after all, it's cut it's prices. Something has to compensate for that.

There is something seriously wrong with Apple's advertising.

Apple needs something...again. Like the iMac. It was easy to use, got you on the internet, but most of all, it was affordable. People who look at The New iMac always look at the price tag first. I think it's about time something extremely affordable (like iMac) to come along and blow people's minds.

it is quite refreshing to see macaddicts criticize apple without being flamed. there ARE those of us that although we love the platform, we hate to see apple with such a disadvantage in terms of processor speeds and marketing strategies. we can speak openly about it without some dork replying with a "well peecees suck and apple rules. who cares about speed?" or "Apple can do no wrong WHATSOEVER" or something of the sort.....

naa mean?

carry on.......

There is something seriously wrong with Apple's advertising.

Yes -- if the product is good, but not selling, then there is a problem.  The marketing  / finance department also contributes by the pricing schemes and what salespeople are allowed to say to customers.

I think the problem Apple faces in terms of marketing, whether or not their advertising is good or bad, is that is has to compete against the ad space of tons of PC companies (Dell, Compaq/HP, Gateway, etc.) who directly advertise the "starting at $349 (for a Celeron, 128 MB of RAM, onboard video, monitor not included, after $250 rebate for one year subscription with AOL/MSN)" bargain PCs they make.  Apple also has to fight against the mindshare and marketshare held by MS and PC makers-since they're "what everyone else uses" and are "cheaper" Apple is swimming against the current when it comes to marketing their fashionable, chic, stylish, designer computers and accessories.  More people want to buy what's cheap than want to buy what's cool and comfortable (albeit more expensive), even if the latter is the better product.

Apple will always sell less as long as they insist on being innovative and stylish.  Better hardware and better software will always help, and the PPC 970 will be a great replacement for the G4 if the rumors, speculation, and hopes of everyone come true (btw-Ribtorus, the 970 runs 32-bit PPC code natively with no speed difference, unlike Intel and AMD's 64-bit CPUs, so there will be no performance loss when running 32-bit apps on the 970).  But, Apple will always be behind in marketshare and mindshare of PCs because of the PC's dominance.  As long as Apple can sell products, make money, and come out with great hardware and software, does it really matter, though?

Good ideas.

I can't wait until later this year to see if Apple can live up to all the hype. Hopefully they will.

The IBM 970 rumours have screwed Apple.

No one is going to be happy if the 970 makes its way into a Mac desktop. IBM doesn't project that it will outperform similarly dated Pentiums.
IBM claims that with an OS that has had minor changes, 32 bit software will run "with the same level of performance". The quote is from IBM's literature. Does that mean that otherwise identical 32 bit and 64 bit applications will run with the same level of performance?  Why then bother with 64 bit on the desktop? Maybe it means that 32 bit software will run at the same level of performance in a similarly clocked 32 bit PPC chip. Which similarly clocked PPC chip? IBM's G3s? Motorola's G4s? Maybe IBM is comparing the 32 bit performance to their own 32 bit Intel products at comparable clock speeds. It's ambiguous. Either way, its 32 bit performance will not set any industry high marks. So that leaves its 64 bit performance.*

Nothing I have seen so far puts the IBM 970 at the head of the performance curve. IBM's predictions for the 970 at 1.8GHz integer and floating point performance place it alongside the Sparc IV and HP's PA-RISC, (not so good). AMD's X86-64 at 2.4GHz put it in league with the EV7 Alpha and Intel IA-64. (industry high end).

It's not the whole story by any means, but it does show where things may be headed.



* I hope whatever happens that 32 bit performance is significantly slower than 64 bit; if for no other reason than to justify the change. People will need a reason to buy a 64 bit desktop.

I'm just going by what IBM claims, and by established (undisputed) claims made by those whose job it is to guage chips and systems. I don't mean to knock the IBM 970, but the build-up it's getting 'on-line' in forums etc is placing it and Apple in a no-win situation. It can't possibly live up to the pentium-killer-save-Apple-be-all-things-to-all-software reputation.

"32 bit software will run "with the same level of performance".

what it means is it will run as well in 32 bit application as the power 970 would if it were a 32 bit chip only. 1.8 GHz is 1.8 GHz either way, its just how much is getting done in each cycle.

AMD and INTEL's 64 bit chips dont handle 32 Bit apps as well as a 32 bit processor would.

and AMD is bleeding money out of the hole in thier head that intel put there when they went nuts speeding up the P4.

i hope AMD lasts long enough to put a 64 bit crunch on intel...AMD might pull through, but theyve lost like 850 MILLION dollars this past year alone...and i dont think they have that much more left in the bank like apple does/did when they were hemmoraging money.

and everyone here should know its not about whose stuff is best. its about who has the latest and greatest and who can market it best. If windows moves 64 bit next year and AMD falls or gets bought out, whose gonna make x86 64 bit chips?

Intel doesnt own any 64 bit architechture design. theyve lost a few lawsuits that say the design theyve been using belongs to a company they worked with in the past (and stole it from, thinking they could get away with it cause they are intel), and that company is not interested in selling or leasing the design. Apple or IBM should buy out AMD if they get half a chance if for no otehr reason than to put a squeeze on intel. what 64 bit chips they do have are not for desktops, and not 32 bit compatable, or if they are, its a joke. and the p4 cant last forever, especially when "64 bit' is the new word around town.

i dont expect it to be a processor jesus, but something more along the lines of the right start.

its not just the 970, i expect the whole powermac line to be changed, followed soon by some of the other macs...i thin kwere gonna see a new era for the macs soon, like then the imac came out.