Slashdot Mirror

According to this website 53 millions of iPods were sold in 2008. 0.1% of this makes 53 000 people. 1% makes 530 000 people. How much people do read Slashdot ? Overestimation is a bad thing but so is underestimation.

The iPod was selling at a fairly normal pace until the middle of 2004 (iTMS was launched in 2003). iPod Sales Numbers

No. You have some problems with your argument there. If every machine sold since January 2004, a year before World of Warcraft shipped, were included in that tally, the total number of computers shipped doesn't even come close to 20 million. http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html This figure doesn't even break down non-pro mac books, mini's and older iMacs and Pro line hardware that can't cut it,. Machines still sold by Apple that represent large portions of Apples product line but do not run WoW "well" no matter how many features you disable. I don't mean to say Blizzard can't make money with it, but your suggestion that one of the best selling games/developers of all time is being driven by an audience with less than 2.5 percent of the global market share is absurd. Certainly publishers make good enough money porting to the Apple platform, but the vast majority of games that get the treatment are proven sellers that are basically guaranteed to be good enough to generate a fair return on the cost to port the code. These games aren't made successful by the macintosh version, that's just a little extra on the side. On a good day.

I think the market has improved since then, but that still doesn't mitigate the non-support on Apple's part.

The 1999 period was about the time Apple sales "crashed", just after the original iMac boom. It wasn't until a year or two ago that Mac sales recovered to a point that exceeded the "iMac boom".

I just found a couple charts, the first chart is of actual Mac sales, the second shows market share fraction:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

So I guess it would be a pretty tough thing unless TransGaming technology works well, which is really an encapsulization of the Windows binary.

First, it appears that the newspaper story is inaccurate--they have NOT sold 1 million Zunes yet; they actually said that they EXPECT to sell 1 million by the END of June:

http://blogs.business2.com/apple/2007/05/microsoft s_zune.html

"Bach didn't actually say that Microsoft had already sold a million Zunes. If you listen to the interview, which the Chronicle helpfully provides in a podcast, what Bach said was

Bach: WHEN WE FINISH OUR FISCAL YEAR IN JUNE we'll have sold a little over a million Zunes, so we feel very good about that. [emphasis added]

That's what we used to call an editing error, one that mistakes a projection with actual sales and adds about 15% to the time frame. Microsoft still has more than a month to sell its first million Zunes, which would put it on the schedule it set for itself, not ahead. "

Second, to answer how long it took Apple to sell 1 million iPods, look at their quarterly sales figures:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/ipod_sales.html

10/23/01: iPod introduced
06/30/03: 984,000 total iPods sold
09/30/03: 1,320,000 total iPods sold

Based on the 92 day difference, you can calculate that they sold the 1 millionth iPod around 7/5/03.

So, 10/23/01 - 7/5/03 = 620 days, or about 20.5 months to sell the first 1 million iPods, compared with Microsofts' prediction (based on the ACTUAL quote, not the inaccurate article) of 11/14/06 - 6/30/07, or 228 days (7.5 months).

While this sounds impressive, it should be noted that the iPod was MAC ONLY until 10/13/03 (ie, throughout the entire period during which it sold it's first 1 million iPods. Not only was it Mac-only (aside from 3rd-party hacks), but it was restricted to FIREWIRE-ENABLED Macs, which weren't even introduced until the end of 1999. Assuming about 4% of the market for the Mac, and assuming that perhaps half the Macs in use at the time included FireWire, that means only about 2% of the total computer market could even use the iPod.

In addition, even those third-party hacks for Windows compatibility (which mostly sucked, and which weren't available for the first year or so) *still* required the PC in question to include FireWire; at the time, I believe only a tiny fraction of Windows machines included it.

In other words, it took Apple 2.7 times as long to sell their first 1 million iPods, but they did so with 1/50th of the market available to the Zune!

In addition, at the time there was no iTunes store, not to mention that the original iPod cost (at the time) $399 for 5 GB, with no video, no photos, no games, no color screen, no podcasts, etc etc, vs. the (current) Zune's $249 for 30 GB with video, photos, etc etc, all of which makes the iPod's early sales rates even more impressive.

For Linux, its impossible to know, of course... but for mac: http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html.

From 800k to 1.6 million.

Are you high? From your link:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/laptop/20 06/1115_lt1100.html

The Dell has TWICE the RAM of the Apple laptop. I wouldn't want to use OS X or Windows with 512 MB of RAM, which is what the Macbook comes with. Oh yeah, the 60Gb hard drive in the Macbook is also pathetic. The Dell has twice that. As well as twice the number of USB ports (I routinely use all 4 of mine so that's a requirement) and a bigger screen. The flash memory slot is also very useful for anyone with a digicam.
All the other piddling differences are inconsequential. I don't give a crap about the webcam and the 6 pin firewire. The software differences that the author says are the Mac's advantage are a matter of preference. Although I'm not a Windows fan, you can't just declare a winner between the two OS's as easily as saying that a faster processor is better than a slower one.

So where is this premium you are talking about? http://www.systemshootouts.org/

1997 called, it wants it's meme back.

Saying "Macs are teh expensive LOLRZ!" is the quickest way to guarantee that everyone who has a clue will know you're a lying douche.

Example:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 006/0809_dt3200.html

Not only is the Mac cheaper--in the areas where they differ, it wins orders of magnitude more categories than the Dell.

AND it includes a display, the Dell doesn't.

The difference is even more obvious with high-end and budget laptops. Macs with better specs are up to a thousand dollars cheaper.

2. Accelerator keys that give a quick and simple way to stay off the mouse(non existant in a Mac, on par with linux in my opinion)
http://rixstep.com/2/20040510,00.shtml

4. Far cheaper(only compared against a mac, I build my own machines now and roll an old harddrive image over, so costs are level with linux)
http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 006/0809_dt3200.html

7. More natural methods of interfacing(especially when I am filling out forms online. a great example is the tab key. in windows, I can tab to check boxes, text boxes, or drop down boxes and then manipulate those. I have been searching and have yet to figure out a quick way to do this on a mac, just one example)
http://www.getfirefox.net/

Both are very severe problems in my opinion. But niether trump the lacking functionality of a mac (for me) or the lacking software apps in linux for which OSS implementations don't exist.

Now, what is that list of software that is only available for windows?

http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 006/0809_dt3200.html

Case in point - I just picked up Call of Duty 2 and Quake 4 for the Mac this week to run on my G5 (2x2.0, 2GB ram) and have run into several issues which are largely OS related. While I understand that I should be grateful that these titles were released at all for the Mac (and, ashamedly, I am grateful), I'm having a hard time getting over paying $50 a title for games that were ported over with little thought.

No, 2% doesn't buy a lot these days... :-(

however Dells are more expensive

http://www.systemshootouts.org/

Yes and no. According to the latest figures available (3rd Quarter 2005), Apple is currently the 6th largest computer maker (after Dell, HP, Lenovo/IBM, Acer, and Fujitsu-Siemens). However, they also do have only a 2.3% market share:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

(scroll down past the 2 charts at the top)

Now, when it comes to installed base, I believe Macs are much higher, something like 8-10% or so, though I don't have solid proof of this (I think PC Mag did a study a couple of years ago which determined that Macs usually average a 5-7 year 'usable life' as opposed to 3-5 years for PCs, which would explain the higher installed base numbers)

Try http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

You would be wrong.

Scroll down to the table that lists 2005 Q3 year over year growth.
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

All vendors - 17.1%
Apple - 47.8%

http://systemshootouts.org/itms_ipod_sales.html

This site gives a processor to processor performance chart. It hasn't been updated yet for the latest processors. Where you see Italic "Dual" just means the OS was on the other processor, giving the first processor slightly better performance in the chip to chip comparision. A Dual 2.5 G5 is equal to a Dual 3.8 P4.

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

i can't agree with you on that one. Do some comparisons of features on your own or check out the latest system shootouts. dollar for dollar the Apple is the better deal. http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 005/0503_dt1300.html/ but personally i think this item might be the portable video player for the iTunes/iFlicks video service. Think H.264 on this baby. mmmm.

System Shootouts does a more realistic comparison between processor lines.

Worth bookmarking.

Ironically, you say this and then use benchmarks that effectively measure megahertz to say the raw processing power is not keeping up.

Not true. I'm not basing their performance off their frequency, I'm basing their performance off their proven power in benchmarks. The AMD chips in these benchmarks also runs at a lower clock speed than the Intel chips, yet they are faster than both the P4 and G5.

Frankly, the reality is, for any kind of serious work, there are no machines out there that are as fast as the PowerPC G5 series.

The fastest Intel and AMD chips outperform the top of the line G5's. See how the G5 machines compare to the Intel and AMD machines: http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

Apple has been ahead in performance since moving to the PowerPC. But people are in denial of it because they have some sort of machismo wrapped up in thinking their machine is faster (And there's more non-powerpc users out there than powerpc users.)

Apple has *not* been ahead in performance since moving to the PowerPC. They weren't even close until the G5 came around. And even now, they're close but still not able to compete with the high end Athlon64's. No legitimate hardware tester would come to this conclusion, not even an Apple fan. Only the least technical and hardest-core Mac zealot would knowingly turn his head away from reality and keep on believing that his machine is faster when other chips have proven themselves to be faster.

Take a look at this link http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/31867.html

Since the time that this article was written, AMD and Intel have released multiple increased speed grades, while the G5 has only just now been able to increase in one small speed grade.

And please don't attempt to tell me that this is a Pro-AMD, anti-Mac website saying this, since the site is a Macintosh-fan site.

There are some objective Mac fans out there, but there are too many people who are so into it that it has become a religion for them, and trying to convince them that the G5 can't compete with a high-end Athlon64 is like trying to convince them that their God doesn't exist. As soon as you show them conclusive evidence shooting down their belief, they'll close their eyes and let blind faith take over... and at that point, there is no reasoning with them.

I would personally love to get a Mac, but they are super-expensive compared to what i can get an x86 one for.

You may be interested in this.

As for better elements that all depends on who you are buying your parts from. First of all a G5 outclasses a P4, it may not be as fast for 32-bit operations, but its only PC equivilent is an Opteron. And if you know anything about PC's an Opteron costs way more then a P4. This is also true for the mobo it requires. So your're not comparing equivilent systems. The iMacs components are closer to a workstation in some areas. Basically the Mac uses higher grade components which cost more. The G5 towers are true worksations, if you're wondering why their price is even higher.

This is plain FUD. First of all, I'm not an Intel fan but the G5 certainly does not outclass the P4. You will be hard pressed to find a G5 that can compete against the high-end P4's.

Second of all, the G5 does not have to compete against an Opteron. An Athlon 64 is more comparable and is much cheaper. It is also faster than anything Apple has, as you will not find a G5 that delivers the performance that the fastest Athlon64's will.

In the past when I've debated performance against Apple fans, the debate follows a predictable path. First they'll claim that their Mac can compete on a performance basis. Once I show them the benchmarks which clearly show that this isn't the case, they'll attempt to compare a dual-G5 to a single P4/Athlon. When I bring up the fact that they can buy a dual P4/Athlon for less money, they'll try to say that it's "apples/oranges". Why? I don't know, but it's probably because they've reached the end of their rational arguments.

I will even link to a Mac news page:

http://www.macnewsworld.com/story/31867.html

This is from a Mac news page. This isn't some anti-Mac Intel fanboy page.

Apple never actually held the crown for fastest processor. They tried claiming that their product was available while AMD's wasn't, but in reality AMD's product was available first. When companies called Apple on its bogus claim, they quickly backpeddled. Also, if you look at the date of the article, you'll see that some time has passed since then. AMD and Intel have ramped up their clock speed greatly, while the G5's have not been able to ramp up speed nearly as fast.

Here is a page with a rough speed comparison to P4's (compares A64,AXP,Opteron/G4/G5 to P4 speeds)
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

You'll notice that for single processors the G5 cannot match the top of the line Intel or AMD systems (since that article was made Apple has not been able to ramp up the speed of the G5, while Intel and AMD have released faster chips). If you want to compare dual systems, once again it cannot compete.

I have asked the same question numerous times...

I finally found a website, that while somewhat "mac-centric", does appear to be pretty fair and even when relating to CPU speeds across multiple platforms. Check here:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

Another site shows them like this:

http://www.michaelscomputers.com/cpuscores.htm

Perhaps this will give you some sort of indication of where exactly it fits on the scale of performance compared to your standard x86 cpus.

Since either way it's faster than the P3 I currently have, I'll probably get one.
I do like it's style, and I liked the Xserve G5 I demo'ed for work... Maybe I too can become a Mac Zeolot!

I went with a $600 shootout instead of $500 to make sure that some obvious add-ons were included with each model, but the new Mac mini holds up surprisingly well!!

$600 Desktop Apple/Dell System Shootout

(This is a repeat of my post from the original story, but then again, so is this story, so there ya go!!)

I went with a $600 shootout instead of $500 to make sure that some obvious add-ons were included with each model, but the new Mac mini holds up surprisingly well!!

$600 Desktop Apple/Dell System Shootout

Well, let's see here, just for the heck of it I re-checked my configuration and saved the results as a PDF just for you; you can find it here:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_config. pdf

Wow, imagine that, bare bones model, no monitor, piddly 90 day warranty, no free RAM, $395.10.

As for shipping, sorry again:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_ship.gi f

$99 tacked on; total price: $494.10.

Oh, and here's where you made your mistake on shipping--it's only free if the system itself costs more than $599 to begin with:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_ship_ca veat.gif

Bzzzzzt!! Sorry, next contestant??

Well, let's see here, just for the heck of it I re-checked my configuration and saved the results as a PDF just for you; you can find it here:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_config. pdf

Wow, imagine that, bare bones model, no monitor, piddly 90 day warranty, no free RAM, $395.10.

As for shipping, sorry again:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_ship.gi f

$99 tacked on; total price: $494.10.

Oh, and here's where you made your mistake on shipping--it's only free if the system itself costs more than $599 to begin with:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_ship_ca veat.gif

Bzzzzzt!! Sorry, next contestant??

Well, let's see here, just for the heck of it I re-checked my configuration and saved the results as a PDF just for you; you can find it here:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_config. pdf

Wow, imagine that, bare bones model, no monitor, piddly 90 day warranty, no free RAM, $395.10.

As for shipping, sorry again:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_ship.gi f

$99 tacked on; total price: $494.10.

Oh, and here's where you made your mistake on shipping--it's only free if the system itself costs more than $599 to begin with:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/images/dell_ship_ca veat.gif

Bzzzzzt!! Sorry, next contestant??

Dunno if this is considered spam or flooding, but I posted this link earlier--it compares the *theoretical* specs for this *rumored* bare-bones Mac against Dell's low-end *actual* offering of today:

http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 004/1229_dt500.html

(Oh, and it's rumored to run $500, not $600 FWIW).

Note that $500 for a Dell system gets you:
--crappy-ass integrated graphics w/shared memory
--a 512 MB RAM limit (!)
--no CD-RW
--no DVD-ROM

Now, of course there's no way of knowing whether this rumored "miniMac" is real--at $500--or not, but even if it isn't, the Dell configged at the link above is pretty pathetic, no?

OK, I know this is *incredibly* premature and *highly* speculative, but I was curious about just how this theoretical new "headless eMac" unit might stack up against one of Dell's bottom-of-the-barrel desktop system.

http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 004/1229_dt500.html

It's important to note that all of the Dell Dimension 2400 specs are ACTUAL specs, taken just this morning.

For the rumored Apple bottom-feeder CPU, I'm assuming that the hardware specs will be what ThinkSecret claims, that the graphics card will be a GeForce FX5200, and a few other items. I'm also assuming that the software will include Panther, an updated (finally!) version of AppleWorks (just for the heck of it), iLife (minus iDVD), and the other Apple-produced software which normally comes with eMacs/iMacs/iBooks. The major distinction software-wise is that, to keep costs down to a bare minimum, there would be NO third-party software included (ie, no Quicken, WorldBook, or 3rd-party games bundled).

The thing which blew me away was this: The Dell machine--without a monitor--starts at $395. However, this is with a CD-ROM ONLY, and a 90-day warranty only! Adding a CD-RW, DVD, and 1-yr warranty tacks on another $88...except that the standard ground shipping is $99, even without a monitor!! Since $500 is the cut-off, and the system *has* to be shipped one way or another, that means I had to give up the CD-RW and DVD drive and *still* came in $11 over the mark.

I was also surprised to find out the following about the Dell Dimension 2400:
--It has a sucky, NON upgradable, integrated graphics card (though you could use a PCI graphics card instead, I suppose)
--It maxes out at 512 MB RAM!

In short, if TS is right about the specs and pricing, this could definitely stir things up!

You are ignoring the most important part of the computer: the software. There are people who buy Macs solely because of Mac OS X. Battery life is also a huge plus for iBooks (I always get at the very least 4 hours and can push that up to 5.5 hours if I have to).

But in terms of hardware, System Shootout lists a 1.33GHz G4 as the same 1.5Ghz Pentium-M. They're two different architectures, so as always take any such comparisons with a grain a salt.

compare a machine to a Dell, just for fun. In fact, there's a website that does just that.

So let's look at the bottom of the barrel: a $650 computer.

Obviously, the eMac sucks at some things, but has benefits in others. And it's all of a dollar or two more expensive than the equivalent Dell, and lord knows an order of magnitude more attractive.

For what you get, Apple computers are competitively priced. You can argue little crappy pinheaded arguments over the details, but all things considered, they're not so bad.

From my experience, the SOFTWARE is what's expensive. Fuck - for the price of Photoshop and AVID DV Express, I can buy one helluva nice computer on EITHER platform.

The cost of hardware is comparatively incidental anymore.

Of course, Linux this and Linux that, Free here, Free There - been there, done that, and frankly spent WAY too much time dicking around with my computer to get a proper workflow going, and on top of it, most of the Linux software *just isn't up to snuff*. A lot of it has to do with patents (which is why GIMP can't do anything interesting in CMYK space, for example) and really lame ass UI design (which is why GIMP is such a pain in the arse to use, for example).

I still don't know of a decent NLE video system on Linux that does what FCP can do on the mac or AVID on Windows.

So - sure - save $200 on a Linux box - and GET NOTHING DONE.

At the same time: I FERVENTLY hope and pray that this will change - soon. I am NOT a bigot against Linus, by any stretch. At the same time, I won't get rid of my Mac - but I'll cheerfully stop using Windows as soon as Linux is easier and better and HAS THE SOFTWARE I NEED TO GET MY WORK DONE.

RS