Yeah, I did a check too of both Dell (dual Xeon) and BoxxTech (dual 2.4 opteron) and the dual 2.5GHzPM is about $2000 less than the Dell and $1800 less than the Boxx. Apple's really running away from the pack. And pricewise they can't be beat. For the extra money, you probably can get a 9800XT and still have more than enough for the X800 when it is eventually releases for the Mac, add to that maxing out your RAM.
Apple can't lose. Either way you will buy an iPod. The excuse to not buy one in favor of a smaller flash player has been eliminated.
If you buy a mini because you were originally going to buy a $200 high-end flash player, then Apple wins. If you decide then to buy a higher margin iPod 15GB, guess what Apple still wins.
Carbon is a procedural API, Cocoa is OO. There is room for both and we should expect both to continue evolving together for the next 5 years. Carbon isn't going anywhere.
"majority of software." That is such a general statement that it always fails. Consider this, you can run the majority of XP, x86, software on a Mac through VirtualPC, you can run almost all the Opensource software on a Mac, you can run almost all the OS 9 and previous software on a Mac and you can run all the OS X software on a Mac.
So which system runs the majority of software? The Mac. I am running Win2KPro and VS.NET 2003 at the same time I am typing this on Safari and running 5 other OS X Apps (Mail, Calendar, iChat AV, Konfabulator, iTunes) and have three Finder windows (Panther) open all at the same time. I'm doing it all on a 500MHz PM G4 with 512MB of RAM, ATI8500 and my system isn't skipping a beat. It's pretty snappy actually. If I add another 512MB, my VPC will double in speed (I already tested it).
Marketshare is not what it used to be as an indicator of influence. Type of user may be more important as far as influencing technology. A lot of the exciting stuff is happening in the Multimedia and OpenSource world. In both these worlds Apple has gained a huge mindshare and marketshare. Go to any technology conference and half the people are walking around with Powerbooks.
Look at these threads, you would get the impression that more than half the users on Slashdot owned a Mac.
I agree on OS/2 Warp. It was an awesome OS. Too bad IBM had their hands tied by the antitrust restrictions imposed on them in the late 70s and 80s. Kind of funny that without Steve Jobs at Apple, the only other force that could have counteracted Microsofts illegal distribution tactics had their own hands tied by the very same antitrust laws that they needed to protect the industry.
Cheaper? You can get a powerful eMac g4 with a 17" flat display and combo-drive unit not to mention a Radeon AGP card, Firewire, USB2, Bluetooth and Wireless ready, etc for as low as 749. And, an uncrippled, well integrated OS X with a slew of OpenSource Apps built in not to mention the proprietary and awesome iLife and as well as Appleworks. A cheaper PC isn't less expensive, it is just cheaper components and cheaper quality wise with crippled software.
That's not true, though I currently prefer the PPC 970, Intel has done on amazing job keeping such an old technology running as fast as it is. They implemented a new math unit, SSE2 (which by the way can SIMD of 2 double precision FP data, something not possible on the PPC SIMD till the 970's FP2 unit which can not only operate on two double precision data items but also perform multiple operations in one instruction cycle.) They also doubled the core speed of the integer unit (a 3GHz P4 actually has a 6GHz integer unit).
Still the 970 is a new generation design while Intel has been wrestling with the legacy beast for some time. This year Intel started losing the battle, IMO, and I hope they have some surprise in their pipeline. Itanium 2 just "aint" cutting it.
The heat is addressed not only with the 90NM process but with the new PowerTune technology which scales the voltage along with the frequency providing a quadratic decrease in power and heat whereas frequency only scaling only provides a linear decrease. Too, if IBM is including their "voltage island" techniques under the PowerTune umbrella, then IBM can use lower voltage components for none core processor sections. Too the efuse technology can dynamically switch and turn off redundant components that may become defective improving the life of the processor and of course more importantly the yield.
Well, when you own 95%+ of the 64-bit desktop market and are the largest Fishkill production customer for IBM, I imagine you get treated pretty well. How many Itanium 2's were sold 2003, maybe 10,000 and 20,000 Opterons. Apple has sold over 500,000 processors (two per dual mac) in a 5 months. We are not talking the cheap low margin stuff, these are prime sales for Apple and IBM. Volume isn't everything when you have such a huge margin.
Apple and AMD are both founding members of hypertransport. Intel, Motorola and IBM are each promoting different bus technologies. IBM was modest enough to allow Apple to not only specify the bus architecture (non-coherent interconnects) but to also develop the coherent interconnects (which was, at least at the time, not part of the hypertransport spec) which allow for SMP configuration up to 8-way, so I understand.
Apple had a lot to do with the 970 design. If you loot at the design, Apple's fingerprints are all over it. The used the ALU and the FP2 unit from the Power4, then they specified the SIMD unit, they specified new PowerPC 32-bit to 64 bit protected instructions to allow for their OS X 32bit VM to work in native 64-bit mode. Apple developed the proprietary hyper-transport derived "coherent interconnects" (3 in all that would allow for 8-way systems and cache sharing when more than one processor is present, similar to Opteron.) and of course the non-coherent hyper-transport connectivity for all other bus interfacing. IBM was not previously a hyper-transport proponent.
In addition, Apple developed a unique 130NM ASIC controller that is described as more complex than the 970 itself. This ASIC is just as important as the 970 in the G5 computer, if not arguably more important as it enables the fastest and widest FSB among mass produced computers.
As far as volume, in this price range, I bet Apple is one of the volume leaders right now. It would be nice if the analyst would segment their market share numbers better. Who cares how many $400 PCs are sold. (At least I don't, IMO they are throw away computers with very short desk life.)
Because iTunes has nothing to do with Artist compensation. That's between the Artists and their record labels. Hello. Trying to blame Apple because Artists don't understand the concept of union, is misdirection. Do you think if an artist was popular enough, they wouldn't have a better deal? Mariah Carey, Madonna, etc are pretty happy with their deals. Or, maybe if Artists were united enough to leverage each other in order to put pressure on the Labels.
Artists are making plenty of money, they just want more. But, of course, they don't want to pay anybody else any money. Not the record labels who got them a career and out of the projects and continue to spend money to promote them nor the the Online retail music stores which are trying to save them from that long dark night of P2P sharing.
More to the point, since when do we trust Computer Magz who are seeking the advertising revenue of the companies they review. I wonder how PC World's review of Panther will read? What do you think? LOL
I think Newspapers have a different advertizer base and are probably less partial.
Good to know, it shows Apple is making a good margin. The iPod is a runaway success and every one of its competitors have not been ale to slow down its sales. And, Apple is getting a premium, time to load up on their stock!
It's semantics. In this case the disposable part is the iPod. The funny thing is most large hardware integrators make more money selling drives than computers. IBM's DASD business carried them for four decades.
You probably will never delete your purchased tracks, but go through a few iPod's in a decade. As a larger percentage of your music library becomes.M4p, Apple will have you as a iPod customer for life. Or so the master plan goes. Moo Ha ha ha ha or however the Matrix Agent laughs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I did a check too of both Dell (dual Xeon) and BoxxTech (dual 2.4 opteron) and the dual 2.5GHzPM is about $2000 less than the Dell and $1800 less than the Boxx. Apple's really running away from the pack. And pricewise they can't be beat. For the extra money, you probably can get a 9800XT and still have more than enough for the X800 when it is eventually releases for the Mac, add to that maxing out your RAM.
Apple can't lose. Either way you will buy an iPod. The excuse to not buy one in favor of a smaller flash player has been eliminated.
If you buy a mini because you were originally going to buy a $200 high-end flash player, then Apple wins. If you decide then to buy a higher margin iPod 15GB, guess what Apple still wins.
Genius.
To be more specific the Motorola processors have always had a 36-bit address space and are able to address 64GB.
Carbon is a procedural API, Cocoa is OO. There is room for both and we should expect both to continue evolving together for the next 5 years. Carbon isn't going anywhere.
"majority of software." That is such a general statement that it always fails. Consider this, you can run the majority of XP, x86, software on a Mac through VirtualPC, you can run almost all the Opensource software on a Mac, you can run almost all the OS 9 and previous software on a Mac and you can run all the OS X software on a Mac.
So which system runs the majority of software? The Mac. I am running Win2KPro and VS.NET 2003 at the same time I am typing this on Safari and running 5 other OS X Apps (Mail, Calendar, iChat AV, Konfabulator, iTunes) and have three Finder windows (Panther) open all at the same time. I'm doing it all on a 500MHz PM G4 with 512MB of RAM, ATI8500 and my system isn't skipping a beat. It's pretty snappy actually. If I add another 512MB, my VPC will double in speed (I already tested it).
Pretty awesome for a 4 and 1/2 year old computer.
Marketshare is not what it used to be as an indicator of influence. Type of user may be more important as far as influencing technology. A lot of the exciting stuff is happening in the Multimedia and OpenSource world. In both these worlds Apple has gained a huge mindshare and marketshare. Go to any technology conference and half the people are walking around with Powerbooks. Look at these threads, you would get the impression that more than half the users on Slashdot owned a Mac.
I agree on OS/2 Warp. It was an awesome OS. Too bad IBM had their hands tied by the antitrust restrictions imposed on them in the late 70s and 80s. Kind of funny that without Steve Jobs at Apple, the only other force that could have counteracted Microsofts illegal distribution tactics had their own hands tied by the very same antitrust laws that they needed to protect the industry.
Cheaper? You can get a powerful eMac g4 with a 17" flat display and combo-drive unit not to mention a Radeon AGP card, Firewire, USB2, Bluetooth and Wireless ready, etc for as low as 749. And, an uncrippled, well integrated OS X with a slew of OpenSource Apps built in not to mention the proprietary and awesome iLife and as well as Appleworks. A cheaper PC isn't less expensive, it is just cheaper components and cheaper quality wise with crippled software.
That's not true, though I currently prefer the PPC 970, Intel has done on amazing job keeping such an old technology running as fast as it is. They implemented a new math unit, SSE2 (which by the way can SIMD of 2 double precision FP data, something not possible on the PPC SIMD till the 970's FP2 unit which can not only operate on two double precision data items but also perform multiple operations in one instruction cycle.) They also doubled the core speed of the integer unit (a 3GHz P4 actually has a 6GHz integer unit). Still the 970 is a new generation design while Intel has been wrestling with the legacy beast for some time. This year Intel started losing the battle, IMO, and I hope they have some surprise in their pipeline. Itanium 2 just "aint" cutting it.
The heat is addressed not only with the 90NM process but with the new PowerTune technology which scales the voltage along with the frequency providing a quadratic decrease in power and heat whereas frequency only scaling only provides a linear decrease. Too, if IBM is including their "voltage island" techniques under the PowerTune umbrella, then IBM can use lower voltage components for none core processor sections. Too the efuse technology can dynamically switch and turn off redundant components that may become defective improving the life of the processor and of course more importantly the yield.
Well, when you own 95%+ of the 64-bit desktop market and are the largest Fishkill production customer for IBM, I imagine you get treated pretty well. How many Itanium 2's were sold 2003, maybe 10,000 and 20,000 Opterons. Apple has sold over 500,000 processors (two per dual mac) in a 5 months. We are not talking the cheap low margin stuff, these are prime sales for Apple and IBM. Volume isn't everything when you have such a huge margin.
Apple and AMD are both founding members of hypertransport. Intel, Motorola and IBM are each promoting different bus technologies. IBM was modest enough to allow Apple to not only specify the bus architecture (non-coherent interconnects) but to also develop the coherent interconnects (which was, at least at the time, not part of the hypertransport spec) which allow for SMP configuration up to 8-way, so I understand.
Apple had a lot to do with the 970 design. If you loot at the design, Apple's fingerprints are all over it. The used the ALU and the FP2 unit from the Power4, then they specified the SIMD unit, they specified new PowerPC 32-bit to 64 bit protected instructions to allow for their OS X 32bit VM to work in native 64-bit mode. Apple developed the proprietary hyper-transport derived "coherent interconnects" (3 in all that would allow for 8-way systems and cache sharing when more than one processor is present, similar to Opteron.) and of course the non-coherent hyper-transport connectivity for all other bus interfacing. IBM was not previously a hyper-transport proponent. In addition, Apple developed a unique 130NM ASIC controller that is described as more complex than the 970 itself. This ASIC is just as important as the 970 in the G5 computer, if not arguably more important as it enables the fastest and widest FSB among mass produced computers. As far as volume, in this price range, I bet Apple is one of the volume leaders right now. It would be nice if the analyst would segment their market share numbers better. Who cares how many $400 PCs are sold. (At least I don't, IMO they are throw away computers with very short desk life.)
By the way, my iPod battery has been working over 2 years now.
From the Apple xCode Forum:
"Due to a server-side glitch, we had to pull the update. We are working on the problem and I'll post when it is available again."
From Apple's xCode Discussion thread:
"Due to a server-side glitch, we had to pull the update. We are working on the problem and I'll post when it is available again.
Scott"
If you bought a G5, you would be able to get Panther at a significantly reduced price. Stop trolling.
Because iTunes has nothing to do with Artist compensation. That's between the Artists and their record labels. Hello. Trying to blame Apple because Artists don't understand the concept of union, is misdirection. Do you think if an artist was popular enough, they wouldn't have a better deal? Mariah Carey, Madonna, etc are pretty happy with their deals. Or, maybe if Artists were united enough to leverage each other in order to put pressure on the Labels. Artists are making plenty of money, they just want more. But, of course, they don't want to pay anybody else any money. Not the record labels who got them a career and out of the projects and continue to spend money to promote them nor the the Online retail music stores which are trying to save them from that long dark night of P2P sharing.
If you format it as FAT32 you can use it on both as OS X supports FAT32.
I'd cry.
You should ask your friends about your hair. ;)
More to the point, since when do we trust Computer Magz who are seeking the advertising revenue of the companies they review. I wonder how PC World's review of Panther will read? What do you think? LOL I think Newspapers have a different advertizer base and are probably less partial.
Good to know, it shows Apple is making a good margin. The iPod is a runaway success and every one of its competitors have not been ale to slow down its sales. And, Apple is getting a premium, time to load up on their stock!
It's semantics. In this case the disposable part is the iPod. The funny thing is most large hardware integrators make more money selling drives than computers. IBM's DASD business carried them for four decades. You probably will never delete your purchased tracks, but go through a few iPod's in a decade. As a larger percentage of your music library becomes .M4p, Apple will have you as a iPod customer for life. Or so the master plan goes. Moo Ha ha ha ha or however the Matrix Agent laughs.
You can write your own: http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn2002/tn2098 .html