Apple dumps IBM/Does Apple have a secret plan?

[RobertS]

Good response Gary!

I will admit that the newer systems are less troublesome than say pre
2000. The PC systems we have used over the years are not generally in
the same price range as the Mac's - less pricey, less reliable.
System 9 (or earlier) rarely caused us any trouble - not often and
especially when compared to our Windows machines.

As far as updates ... not comparable. Macs are simpler/easier and do
what is necessary for the user without any difficulties. Windows
updates are numerous and 'not so simple' causing more service
calls. I wish it weren't so.

Basic training (say on Word for example) is not as difficult as it used
to be since most home users are familiar with Windows and the
common/more popular apps. That said however, most Windows apps are
still not as easy and require more time for installation (for example).
For the experienced user, not usually a problem, but for the average
less 'familiar' user, our experience was as I said. Perhaps too
many options/applications for the PC user, adding complications that
Macs (for the most part) avoid. And don't get me started on worms,
viruses, spyware, ...

I am not familiar enough with Linux to comment, except to say that
everyone I know who uses Linux loves it like the Mac users love OS X!
I personally use and love OS X, but I also use XP (right now actually)
- by far the best Windows system I have used, and I started using
Windows on Day 1.

Thank you for the comments.

Robert Sones

 

[YKhan]

What tells me this? More than 20 years working in a mixed PC/Mac
environment - using thousands of computers.

If it's 20 years of experience then that would mean you went through
the whole Windows 9x series of operating systems, and your experience
is tainted by that fact. Windows NT/200x/XP series is as different from
the Windows 9x series as Mac OS X is from pre-OS X.

Outside of the initial cost, Macs won on every front, virtually every
time: Hardware, software and training. When the cost of the hardware
and software were factored in with the maintenance and upkeep, Macs
were always less expensive - considerably less (ranging up from 20%
difference on good PC's (not often enough) to much, much more when we
used clones - big mistake).

Training-wise, the category of people who use a Mac vs. a PC are quite
different and might explain the difference in training requirements.
Mac users are typically brought in to do specific sorts of work for
which there is a Mac speciality (graphic designs, etc.), and these
people are already pre-trained in most cases since they are usually
hired on their experience in a specific field. PC users tend to be more
general-skills people, therefore training would be bigger issue with
them.

As for hardware, why would it be cheaper on a Mac? Anything that's
available for use on a Mac and a PC would be the same cost. And then
the PCs also have options to use really cheap stuff that doesn't even
support Macs. For example, I doubt that most PC mice would work with a
Mac, but if you ever need a mouse replacement (somebody spills a drink
into it and shorts it out), you can get really cheap generic ones for
less $20. On a Mac, I'll bet you have to buy it straight from Apple
again.

Maintenance costs? Wasn't there a recent scandal about a bunch of Mac
Powerbooks that seemed to be dying the day after their warranties
expired?

Software costs? Considering the high proportion of graphic artists that
use Macs, you'd think their budgets would be blown by a purchase of
Photoshop? This package is barely used among the general PC populace.


Yousuf Khan

 

[YKhan]

re: 1) The deal, in its present form, is really not big enough to get
too many businesses worried immediately, but the long-term implications
could be enormous. It has definitely got people thinking and talking
on all sides - Intel/AMD/PPC/x86/Mac/Linux/Windows ... As far as EPIC
is concerned I don't know enough to make an intelligent comment,
perhaps you could fill me in ... One of the long range possibilities
for Apple, if the Intel deal isn't quite as compatible as advertised,
is eventually to make a switch to AMD - provided AMD would be able to
handle Apple's demand. Once the switch to x86 goes through, the
switch from Intel to AMD or back again would be nothing. AMD lovers
hopes abound.

I'm absolutely certain that AMD could fulfill Apple's paltry current
needs (around 4 million processors/year). AMD produces between 30-50
million processors a year by itself. And its record of fulfilling
customer demand has been more steady than Intel's in the last five
years; although Intel has no problem producing a lot of processors,
it's in their newest speed grades where they typically had their
problems. But I don't really think AMD's manufacturing capacity was
ever really the issue here.

Right now, Apple needs lots of free money. Intel can give it to them,
AMD can't. AMD can give them discounts on processors, but Intel can
actually give them cash upfront. This upfront cash can be used to
convert all of their software over to x86.

I'm also certain that Jobs has the fact that there are multiple x86
vendors available to choose from, that he can switch over some models
at some point in the future.

Yousuf Khan

 

[George Macdonald]

George Macdonald: You are correct about speculation - it could go on
forever, from here to Mars and back. Some of the viable options are
interesting and more directly related to our school project. Thanks to
everyone.

re: 1) The deal, in its present form, is really not big enough to get
too many businesses worried immediately, but the long-term implications
could be enormous. It has definitely got people thinking and talking
on all sides - Intel/AMD/PPC/x86/Mac/Linux/Windows ... As far as EPIC
is concerned I don't know enough to make an intelligent comment,
perhaps you could fill me in ...

Since the "IBM PC" became a de facto standard and IBM basically lost
control of it, it has been Intel's ambition to make it an "Intel standard"
architecture. The most overt example of this was the Rambus fiasco but
there are other efforts based on patent enforcement, such as licensing by
clock speed for the FSB to chipset mfrs.

EPIC (explicitly parallel instruction code) is the instruction set
architecture for the Itanium processor. According to initial projected
road maps for it, it should now (2005) have migrated down to the desktop
level systems - obviously this hasn't happened and never will now. The
principal reason for Itanium/EPIC was to proprietarize the entire system
architecture, from the CPU instruction set down, so that only Intel owned
it: no AMD, Cyrix, VIA, Transmeta et.al. snapping at their heels.

Now that M$ has declared AMD64 the definitive x86-64 CPU, Intel is cornered
as far as adding new proprietary features to what they have traditionally
though of as "Intel's CPU". M$ might accept to adopt new stuff, say SSE4,
or they might not. The "speculation" here is that Intel sees the Apple
deal as a way to adopt/enforce new proprietary, architectural features to
an *Intel* CPU - IOW get Apple to show how wonderful Intel's "Velocity
Engine" equivalent is. The reference to "evolution to EPIC" I made was
just an (far fetched ?) example of possible strategy here.

One of the long range possibilities
for Apple, if the Intel deal isn't quite as compatible as advertised,
is eventually to make a switch to AMD - provided AMD would be able to
handle Apple's demand. Once the switch to x86 goes through, the
switch from Intel to AMD or back again would be nothing. AMD lovers
hopes abound.

Yes, that's true for the moment but again the speculation is that Intel
will try to guide Apple towards new Intel-only features - in that case look
for Intel to introduce some instruction set extensions which fit with
Apple's requirements. Now, Intel has a cross-license agreement with AMD on
x86 processors but if those extensions came from the EPIC project, AMD
might not be able to touch them. Of course M$ would then have to decide
whether to follow Apple.

re: 2) Yes it is possible, even probable that Apple was not pleasing
IBM. However, I have known for years, that IBM has had difficulty
(since the late 1990's) keeping up with Apple's needs/demands.
This has been a growing problem and frustration for Apple. Regarding
the "master plan", quite frankly it seems that Apple has been
hedging their bets all along. Good for them. I assume that this is
not the only "just in case" scenario they have been looking at.
Plan B, C, ...

One thing I don't understand here is that the main(?) complaint is that
Apple is stuck at 1.67GHz with its PowerBook while Intel-based notebooks
are way higher.... *but* that's not really true. The ~3GHz Intel notebooks
are obsolescent, clock-inflated, mobile P4-based and the mainstream
Pentium-M based notebooks have only recently exceeded that 1.67GHz... now
at 2GHz or so but the easily available ones are 1.7/1.8Ghz. Is there
something I'm missing here?... possibly its IBM's roadmap which is the
problem... or their focus on custom CPUs like Cell and Xbox-2 which is
distracting them from Apple's needs/desires? IOW Apple is just in a
huff?

 

[Wes Groleau]

yes this is true lol, but this may not hold true for the future... and
some people are stupid, they`ll pay an arm and a leg for anything as
long as a salesman suggests that it is good.

Yep--he paid $1200 for a Wintel box because the
salesman told them Macs are expensive. I told him
too late that I had found a new iMac for him for
$700.

 

[Robert Sones]

Thank you George. Plenty of helpful information and comments that
should help us in our presentation.

Robert Sones
Seydou Bangoura