How Important is the G5 to Apple's Perceived Competitiveness?

by Derrick Story

Regardless of how you feel about the testing methodology for Apple's new Power Mac G5, you have to admit that this machine appears to be an amazing hardware feat that can compete with Intel's best offerings.



One of the questions that I have, however, is "how important is the success of the G5 to the perception that Apple is a major player in the high end personal computer market?"



Apple is already running Unix under the hood with Mac OS X, and it has adopted acclaimed open source technologies such as the Apache web server. Arguably, Apple produces some of the best laptops in the universe, and its new Xserve product is turning many heads behind the firewall. Now they add the Power Mac G5 to the mix.



As an aside to this discussion, I'm working on a new publication that's a partnership between O'Reilly & Associates and Macworld Publishing. For its debut, I'd like to include a Feedback column. So I thought, what better place to get things rolling than right here with a weblog?



If you have a thoughtful comment about this G5 question, and are willing to let me publish it in a new journal that will debut in late September, then post a TalkBack here. (If you want to comment and don't want your words considered for the journal, then just say so at the end of your TalkBack, and I won't use it.)



I'll let everyone know when the new publication is available and how to get your hands on it.



So, until then, the question is, "How important is the success of the G5 to the perception that Apple is a major player in the high end personal computer market?"



Let me know what you think, and thanks for your thoughts...


30 Comments

anonymous2
2003-08-22 18:20:27
G5 Personal computer Products are good for the market
G5 Personal computer Products are good for the market, however how do you in this day and age
define Personal Computer, ill give you a hint,
its not just X86 wintel and G*whatever Mac.


heres an interesting option for the new home user
and infact the future STB/PVR/whatever-you-like
markets might like to take a open minded close
look at licencing from these people.
http://www.magneticsystemsnyc.com/Website/Magnetic00.html
http://www.morphos.net/morphos_features.php
and this stuffs still in beta for devs and geeks
its reported to boot from cold in as little as
10 seconds thats SECONDS people, mac and wintel
have some catching up in this regard.

anonymous2
2003-08-22 18:43:49
Why is this limited only to Apple?
PowerPC systems other than Apple do exist, ya know? Europe's Genesi, for example, has already discussed releasing a G5-based machine early next year. Frankly, a growing non-Intel based market sounds appealing to me. Apple surely will grow, but so will other companies quick at their heels, with leaner, faster and more innovative solutions ready to claim their piece of the high performance desktop market.
kollivier
2003-08-22 22:45:46
Not very important, as speed isn't everything
The G5 is an important step forward for the future of the platform, but in the end to be considered a "major player" in the personal computer market, Apple simply has to gain more market share. The problem is that many people see Apple primarily as an OS vendor, and thus compare Apple market share to Microsoft's, rather than to a hardware vendor such as Dell. Unfortunately, this means that many people will not consider Apple to be a 'major player' until it starts to seriously threaten Microsoft's market share, which may never happen.


But is that what Apple needs to be a major player? I don't think so. The funny part to me is that, by the numbers, on the hardware side Apple is already a major player. Not the biggest, but far from the smallest. They meet the needs of their target market and are slowly growing that target market to include IT and AV professionals. Not to mention, many of their software offerings are top-notch, come with the platform, and add significant value.


The one thing I think Apple could do to above and beyond its current strategy is make a $500 desktop, and/or maybe a $800 laptop. This will make it more compelling to the home user and educational markets, and just as importantly, will give the corporate market 'trial machines' that they can play with without too much investment. And some geeks may just find it close enough to a Linux box price to just purchase this and get OS X instead.


But all in all, Apple needs to fight it's way out of Microsoft's shadow to become 'perceived' as a major player. Combatting this Mac-phobia will take time, but I think it will slowly happen. The G5 in and of itself is not a huge factor in this effort, but when you combine it with the maturing of OS X, their awesome bundled applications, and the increasing interoperability of the platform, you start to see an overall strategy that can effectively combat this phobia. One person at a time. =)

jschweizer
2003-08-23 07:31:25
perceived power
The G5 cannot be overestimated. And the reason for this is not just raw processing power. As Mac users we know that apart from speed there are many other things that affect our productivity. The important point here not to miss is *perceived processing power*. This is a field where the G4 got increasingly embarrassing (the G4 is still excellent in terms of the speed/power consumption ratio, making it ideal for notebooks). But now, what is *perceived processing power*?. Often the reasoning goes as follows:


- if it is good for me, it is good (typical Mac user)
- if others say it is good, it is good for me (typical PC user)


The G5 is a direct offspring from the Power4+, which is used in IBM's supercomputers that consistently claim top spots in the worlds top 10 of super computers. IBM will use the 970 and/or its successors in other products as well (blade servers). So it must be good, since many (IBM's most demanding customers) say so. This is much easier to understand than system bandwith (one of the important reasons for the G5's excellent performance). Add to this the fact that IBM is aggressively pushing the development of its Power(4+x) architecture (quadruple the performance every two years) and is working towards replacing AMD'S Opteron with its own Power processors in its low end servers by 2005. This couldn't be more different to the embedded space where motorola is targeting the G4. The importance of the G5 lies in the renewed Apple/IBM alliance and not in its clock speed. This is the rebirth of the PowerPC platform for desktops, workstations, low end servers and hopefully soon also pro notebooks.


Best wishes Derrick,
Juergen

anonymous2
2003-08-23 16:29:05
Not at all - here's why
The G5 doesn't make any difference to Apple's perceived competitiveness. In theory it could have, by enabling latest performance-demandind applications such as games to be ported to OSX.


But Apple have now taken the approach of supplying the software themselves. So third party applications - while nice - are no longer vital.


Because of this decision, performance doesn't matter. Apple no longer needs to make hardware which runs bloated software such as Internet Explorer when it can write better software such as Safari, to fix performance issues.

danwillis
2003-08-23 16:34:04
Perception vs Reality
In computing, as in most of life, there is perception and their is reality. The unfortunate truth is that no amount of reality can overcome bad perception.


The fact of the matter is that 90% of today's computer users don't need even a fraction of what's under their computer's hood. For writing reports, surfing the web, and doing your taxes, computers from ten years ago work just fine. To counter this reality, computer manufacturers have hyped their machine's speed numbers in an effort to keep selling hardware. The result is that anyone buying a new computer is going to want the highest possible number he can get next to his chip type. It doesn't matter that the actual difference between a 2ghz Pentium 4 and a 1ghz Pentium 4 is unobservable when runing MS word, since 2 is bigger than 1, it must be better.


This perception amoungst the buying public has led Apple to an unfortunate conundrum. Never mind that their OS is years ahead of anything else, nevermind that thier free software apps are better than most profesional apps (for which, you must pay), nevermind that their machines are elegant, durable, and high quaily - all that matters is the number next to the chip. The reality is that Apple makes some of the best computers on the planet, and cheap when compared with comprably equiped Wintel systems, but reality can't beat the perception that Wintels are faster and chaper.


The G5 is a critical step for Apple. Not only is it as fast as the Intel stuff, it's got 64 bit arcatecture. Nevermind that nothing runs in 64 bit yet, perception is that 64 is bigger than 32, therefore it's better.


Apple has always been percieved as a niche player. The introduction of the Windows iPod and the forthcoming Windows version of the iTunes Music Store are begining to show the Wintel masses that Apple is a serious player. As they gain that perception, Apple's market share will go up because people won't be afraid of Apple any more.


For Apple to gain marketshare in reality, it must first ganin perceptional market share. Products like the iPod and the G5 are the vangard of that offensive.

anonymous2
2003-08-23 18:30:24
G5 Perception
Apple's perception was getting better by the day, and that was before the G5 debuted. Unix underneath, lack of viruses, peripherials working as they should due to built-in driver support in the OS (usually), superb graphical interface, bullet-proof wi-fi (and) networking, and a steady, growing stream of OSX native software.


Now comes the G5. Apple needs to pull those who do serious number crunching into the fold. The mathmeticians and geneticists are fawning all over this box. I can't say it will match an $80K SGI workstation, but it has to be close. Give it another year when the G5 goes to 3GHz. Still, $3000 for 64-bit processing, running all of your 32-bit apps? Once again, the Apple/IBM partnership does the miraculous. They did it before (along with Motorola) with the move from 68K to PowerPC. No loss of apps. Amazing.


Tight control over the OS and the hardware has its rewards. The naysayers said Apple didn't have the R&D budget to survive, yet Apple is doing it, with a hefty $4.5 billion still in the bank. Who else can say they make the entire package? Dell will always be a wanna be, in light of the fact that they only make the box. Ditto for Gateway, eMachines and the rest of them.


The problem now is, how do they spread the word? Well, Apple must be doing a very good job. I have PC customers dying to get their hands on a G5. Say what you will, but "64-bit" speaks volumes with anyone who knows the difference. Say we don't need this kind of speed? This could very well open up the next great killer app. And photorealistic gaming could be just around the corner. What a surprise that would be: the day the PC gamers are running to get a Mac.


In the end, the G5 is absolutely essential to grow Apple's trust with the rest of the PC community.

anonymous2
2003-08-24 03:46:36
IBM
The PC took off not because it was inherently better than other personal computers at the time, but because it was the IBM PC. IBM had, and has, an incredible reputation with business people. Although the PowerPC was always, in part, an IBM product, the G5 is perceived as almost pure IBM. Putting a cutting edge IBM processor at the heart of Apple's flagship line will certainly boost Apple's rep with mainstream business.
anonymous2
2003-08-24 11:18:11
G5 is important, but Apple needs better marketing
There is no doubt that the G5 is critical to the future of Apple and perhaps the computer industry. The 64-bit architecture is going to be a necessity in the next few years, not only for high performance computing but also for gamers and even consumers, Apple is well positioned to profit from the 64-bit desktop revolution.


But more importantly, Apple is in desperate need of better marketing, and the new G5 advert just doesn't cut it. Apple is the best at making great products, but Apple adverts are way too cool and too subtle for the masses and business people. When people buy computers, they look at the bare numbers, prices, speeds, sizes, pixels, bits and bytes, not movie stars or cool visual effects.


In contrast, Dell is no more than an average box maker, but very smart at marketing. The first few pages of every single computer magazine I have ever seen in the past few years are always Dell ads with nothing but plain and boring numbers, Dell is not cool, but Dell computers sell. Macs are better and often cheaper than Wintel PCs, unfortunately Apple hasn't been very good at telling the truth.


Fortunately the Mac community and many computer geeks are doing a great job educating the Wintel users. Take a look at Slashdot and Ars Technica, Apple is the most talked about computer makers in the universe - more than MS or IBM or HP or Sun, and definitely winning people's heart and mind. Nobody talks about Dell. Apparently, 50% laptops at the recent JavaOne and OSCon were PowerBooks or iBooks.


In the last year or so, I personally converted 2 long time Windows users and a computer novice to Mac lovers, and 2 others are seriously considering a Mac as their next computer.

anonymous2
2003-08-24 16:34:58
G5 Personal computer Products are good for the market
On-topic first, then off topic to respond to your comment.


On-topic, I believe the G5 may "accidently" strengthen the perception of Apple as being "exclusive & expensive", which won't help increase their market share. A pity really, as bangs-for-bucks I doubt it really is.


The G5 will make important in-roads into the university, biotechnology, technology (etc.) & perhaps higher-end creative design markets. In my case, I've been pushing for more RAM as this brings certain types of computation to the workstation market that previously required very expensive machines. This may appear very niche, but Apple should be pushing what is used in universities more. Professors & lecturers determine what machines that are used in universities, including in the teaching labs. These. in turn, are the machine that students learn to use. Students are then more likely to buy Apple if there is a reasonably-priced low-end machine available. (They simply can't afford the high-end Apples.) Students are also good marketters - most of their families will ask their "bright spark" for advice. Targetting a small number of people in positions of influence can affect a larger market base.


That still leaves the commercial and home markets... which is where the Microsoft vs. Apple comparison comes in as mentioned in other posts. Here I'm not sure the G5 will alter perceptions much except in the minds of the die-hard computer nut. I'd have thought low-end machines, software & lifestyle devices would alter perceptions more in this market than "64 bit". But then I'm not a marketting expert ;-)


Off-topic, but to counter the point you raised: if the OS can stably stay up for decent amounts time, the start-up/boot time is irrelevant. To be fair, perhaps you're referring to laptops as opposed to a desktop that's left running? (Unix, after all wasn't really designed with constant re-booting in mind.)


Having said that, I keep asking Apple to reduce the number of updates/etc. that require the system to be re-booted. It been months since I've re-booted due to system issues (leaving aside an annoying issue with the Dock), but every other software update from Apple requires a re-boot... forcing me to quit all my open apps and, in turn, defeating the point of a stable OS for my use.


Alternatively, it'd be great to see a way of recovering to the state you shut down in (admittedly not trivial). It'd be useful in laptops too.

anonymous2
2003-08-24 20:46:56
It's also important to IBM
Apple reportedly has 100,000 advance orders. That would put them at the top of the scale for UNIX workstation sales. If IBM is to be competitive in this market they need someone else to help amortize the costs of developing CPUs. See for more on this ...
derrick
2003-08-25 00:13:42
Just Want to Mention... Solid Comments Guys
I've really enjoyed reading the talkbacks this weekend and appreciate this high level of commentary. Kudos to all, and keep em coming.
anonymous2
2003-08-25 09:48:25
G5 = BMW M5
The G5 is key to Apple's new image as THE computing performance leader. To use the oft-cited BMW analogy, the G5 Macs are the M-cars in the BMW lineup, M3 and M5. 333 and 400 horsepower with 500 coming to the M5 in it's next revision. The Ford and Chevy guys can't outhandle the regular BMWs, and they can't out drag the M-cars in a straight line either. Total domination. Better still, in Apple's case the dual G5 Macs are cost competitive with the dual Xeon boxes. BMW performance and refinement at Ford pricing, and no virus worries as a major bonus. Apple's golden age is happening right now.


Lenn Hann

anonymous2
2003-08-25 10:11:47
Price perception -- and reality
Most folks here endlessly that Macs cost more. In certain spaces (low end) that's partly true. The new G5s, however, are pretty competive high-end boxes.


Still, Apple sends bad messages on many of its peripherals. $50 for a WIRED optical one-button mouse?


Apple also still lowballs the amount of base RAM in its machines -- and PC users see that in every add. Apple has gotten a little better on hard drive specs.


Graphic cards is a mixed bag. While a NVIDIA GeForce2 MX (or even 4MX) is a joke for a semi-serious gaming machine (and no possibility to upgrade on the consumer iMac), many of the truly cheap PC boxes have reality nasty "integrated" graphics with "shared" memory.


Apple has two routes they can go (and maybe they should pursue both):


* They can be TRULY competitive on the low-end, and match specs and dollars head-to-head with competitors.


* They can be TRULY the BMW of the high-end and build ultimate machines with the fastest specs of everything -- RAM, hard drives, graphics cards. So long as it IS the ultimate in specs, sell it at $5,000 or whatever and be BMW.

anonymous2
2003-08-25 11:51:14
xml, .plist, and OS X on a G5
One early complaint I heard was the OS X use of xml in the .plist files in that true databases were much more scalable. An example was the small upper limit on iPhoto libraries, suggesting a 650 MB library for speed, as well as the convenience of CDR backups.


If the G5 (and software tweaks) can make iPhoto capable of fast performance with a 4.7 GB library, then that would be all the evidence I need that there is an actual benefit for all users.

anonymous2
2003-08-25 16:28:07
G5 is good for the traditional Mac industry
The G5 has the potential of, at the very least, capturing that segment of the professional market that does publishing, video editing, 3D, sound etc. Quite a lot of people switched over to using Adobe and Macromedia products on PCs in the last few years because for a long while, Macs were simply slower in the processor department and the first two releases of Mac OSX were not very responsive.


Apple solved the responsiveness problem with OSX 10.2, and 10.3 is said to be even better, and looks like it will be able to regain lost ground with the G5 and it's successors. The wonderfully clean, qualitively high design of the G5 combined with it's high performance and Apple's traditional ease of use and manufacturing reliability should be compelling arguments to people who make money with their computers and don't need the hassles of viruses, strange crashes and hardware failures.

altjeringa
2003-08-26 10:58:29
64, 48, 32
Is the G5 important to Apple's percieved competitiveness, That's kinda a strange question. I have always been a big Apple fan but lets face it the G4 out lived it's usefulness in the high end by well over a year. The G5 isn't important it's an absolute neccesity. But there is more than that to be concerned about. A 64 bit chip is nice but it's only small part of the equation, where is the kernel and OS that support it. Panther from what I have been able to garner will be based on a 48 bit kernel and still be a 32 bit OS. While this gives us a boost in RAM it doesn't give us true 64 bit memory addressing. 4 GB of RAM per application is not 64 bit. It's little things like this that Apple doesn't tell us that make me leary.


On the positive side Apple's G5 is the first to (mass produced) market with alot of technologies such as Hypertransport, Serial IDE, etc. This being where the true speed gains in the G5 are coming from. Apple got alot of kudos for this.


Enterprise. None of Apple current offerings are enterprise quality, and the G5 won't do anything to change this until we see a server that's more serious than the xServe and a operating system that's barely begining to do (and poorly) what Solaris has been doing for at leat 6 years. Panther is giving me hope that Apple can seriously compete with NT. And the G5's scaleability gives me hope for a fast server. But redundancy and stability are still an issue.

anonymous2
2003-08-26 14:17:51
64, 48, 32
>> Other than MP support, how exactly is Solaris better than OS X? I have been programming on $15K Ultra SPARC machines for many years a, but definitely prefer Mac OS X on a PowerBook or even iBook. In my experiences, OS X not only has much better tools, but also more stable than Solaris.
altjeringa
2003-08-26 16:12:38
64, 48, 32
How exactly? As a programing platform I'd definately rate OSX above Solaris simply because it's prettier to look at, CDE has out lived it's usefullness by at least 4 years. But for executing Enterprise Apps or even as Directory, File, server in a large enterprise with 100+ users. Solaris just works. Also note that Jaguar/Panther will only allow an application to access 4GB of RAM. Not a big deal until you start modeling climates, doing realtime vizualization, or have a database that is handling the financial records for an organization with thousands of employees.


And better support for SMP isn't the small deal you make it out to be. 100+ simultanious users generate alot of threads and alot of proccesses, lots of processors means those threads are handled quickly. One needs to think about hardware redundancy, seen an xServe wtih dual power supplies? Or one where you can hot swap system boards? How long does it take to change the CPU in an xserve? Yes alot of this can be alleiviated by clustering and load balanceing but then your infrastructure costs and the hassle of dealing with multiple vendors exceed the cost of having one Sun Enterprise server.


Stability. ah well....
http://www.netcraft.com/


Anyway I'm not dising Apple just wish they'd become Enterprise before they start saying they're enterprise. Makes 'em look to much like Microsoft.

anonymous2
2003-08-26 19:52:16
G5 value
The G5 is very important. But not for me until it's available in a notebook or preferably a tablet/notebook version. I have a PowerBook G3 Pismo 500MHz and two iBooks in addition to one PowerMac G4 desktop machine. I don't plan to ever by a desktop machine again as I don't like the noise, power consumption, space consumption or lack of portability. I am planning to wait on buying new hardware until Apple comes out with top quality tablet computers. I want something tough that I can I can use in the real world, outdoors, in bed, at the kitchen table, on trips as well as with a keyboard at my desk. All the components of the technology are there but they need to come together. The G5 is a great advancement in speed, memory, etc but it is not enough by itself.


-Walter
in Vermont

anonymous2
2003-08-26 20:09:14
BMW or MS-BS-Tincan?
Apple should definitely stick with building the best computers they can. They do an excellent job with the Macintosh. If I wanted a low end piece of trash I would buy a cheap windoze machine. I don't. I want powerful high-end machines like I have and I'll keep buying Macs as long as Apple keeps making the best just as I have since the 128K.


Keep up the good work Apple and please deliver a high-end wireless tablet computer soon...


Cheers,


-Walter
in Vermont


(I have had and/or used CPM, PDPs, KIM, Altar, Exidy :) Sorcer, TRS-80, Time Share, DOS, Windows, Linux, Unix, Apple I, II, III, Lisa, Macs 128K->G4, and many others long forgotten so I've got a bit of experience over the last several decades...)

anonymous2
2003-08-27 04:45:55
Opinion from someone about to convert to Mac
I have read the comments others have made and would like to add my own (for what it's worth). I am currently typing away on a PentiumII computer which I bought new for $500USD (equivallent) a couple of years ago. At work we use MSOffice products and because I often work from home I need to have the same set up at home. So we can forget about a Mac.

A few years ago my brother (a photographer) bought an early version of the G4 (400 Mhz I think) for a lot more than $500USD (More like $3,000 maybe?). So he can keep that type of machine to himself.

Last weekend I needed to edit some MiniDV footage so I had to use my brothers machine for the first time - with some trepidation mind you. To cut a long story short, by Tuesday this week I had put down a deposit on a new eMac SuperDrive.

If I have a point it is this - Wintel users are scared of Macs and they used to cost too much for the casual user. For whatever reason my employers have also stayed with PC's.

Some of you hard core Mac addicts seem to think regular windows users are simple or something. The fact is, I don't owe Apple anything, so why should I look for an alternative to a $500USD solution that I know how to work? The only answer is that my existing computer wont to grunty video very well and I was forced with no other choice to use a Mac (and it's been freely available to me for years).

I am not a statistical error. I am the mean. For Macs to be used by the average person I think Apple need to do two things 1) Price the low end of their (high quality range) at no more than the mid range for PC's (The current price of the eMac seems about right); and 2) offer a high end product that PC gamers or whatever can't live without.

PS I am only posting as anonymous because I couldn't be bothered registering. My name is James

anonymous2
2003-08-27 04:51:02
Opinion from someone about to convert to Mac
Damned "

" markup didn't take.


Sorry about that...

chuckdude
2003-08-27 06:53:19
The G5 as a Necessity for Apple
Let's face it, the G4 has been pulling Apple along for a few years now, and they needed to go with a new processor. Motorola wasn't stepping up to the plate, and Apple made a wise decision to go with IBM's 970 chipset. Apple could see they were losing traction in the high-end space to Intel boxes, and only the diehard Mac-faithful were clutching on to their aging G4s in hope of a new high-end PowerMac. But they weren't going to hold out for long.


Another chink in the armor for Apple has been the reluctance, or the slug-like pace, of software makers to at least Carbonize their apps to run on Mac OS X. Let's see, the public beta for Mac OS X 10.0 came out in 2001, and we're just now seeing a version of Quark that runs on Mac OS X?! Since most designers and print shops rely on Quark, there was no incentive for them to upgrade their system or their aging PowerMacs. Now we have Quark, a new PowerMac, and a new version of Mac OS X is on the way. While it's not a safe bet, I'd still wager a box of Pop Tarts that Apple will get a lot of traction from the design market for new Pantherized-G5s in the coming year (and along with that, probably new displays, storage devices, etc.).


However, from a design perspective, the G5 isn't the prettiest girl on the block. I realize Apple's trying to "Go Metal" this year, but the G5 has to be one of the ugliest machines I've seen. Yes, I know, you're buying the G5 for its power not for its beauty, but it's not like the G4 (or the BW G3) where you didn't mind having it sit on your desk. A G5 (if I had one) would definitely go on the floor beneath my desk. But to give it credit, I really appreciate Apple's decision to place FireWire and USB ports on the front of the case. I've gotten really good at blindly reaching behind my G4 to plug in FireWire and USB devices, and I'm thankful that it will be a lost art in the years to come.


Regardless of what I think of the G5's design, I do think that the G5 is important to Apple's competitiveness. It might not win over Windows converts, but having a new PowerMac in the lineup will most likely keep Mac users from switching to Windows for what is perceived as better gear.


Chuck

DH_Ivory
2003-08-28 04:45:02
IBM
Very good point.


Perhaps Apple should put an "IBM Inside" sticker on the box....


I'm only half joking.... ;|

derrick
2003-08-28 16:10:13
Keep Discussion Going, but My Deadline for Comments Is Here
I've grabbed a number of these talkbacks for the forum article I'm working on, and I've submitted the piece to production. Will keep you informed about the title, pub date, etc.


Meanwhile, we can keep discussing this topic here as the comments have been very good reading.


Thanks to all who contributed.

anonymous2
2003-09-09 00:49:41
G5, the perception of success
As a home user I am totally sold on apple's hype. I have found mac much more friendly than PCs, but what clinches it is the sense of reliability. When faced with hundreds of different PC product combinations, many sold by companies who aim soley at the family internet and photography market, I feel safe in trusting to apple for one source of quality and integrity. If I was to shop around for a very powerful machine, my first thought would be the G5. It's neat and I trust it will be one of the best, if not the only one. If I start looking at PCs it's a much harder choice, and I will have a sense of possibly being duped by a company I have not really any idea of. Therefore I would say in my mind apple have secured themselves a place in my PERCEPTION as one of power computing's best.
anonymous2
2003-09-10 09:44:24
IBM

Interesting point. Also interesting to note that Apple makes desktops/laptops with "IBM Inside" while IBM only makes desktops/laptops (not including workstations and servers, of course) with "Intel Inside".


Back in the 80's, you either have an IBM-compatible or an Apple-compatible. What strange developments! :-)


anonymous2
2003-09-19 09:32:50
64, 48, 32
If you want real power you might want to look at clustering your machine.
Comparing Solaris (which cost much more than an XServer) is not appropriate unless you spend the exact same amount of money.
University of Virginia is building a 1000+ cluster to do simulations. Talking about serious power !


Apple is getting there slowly but surely.
They now have all the tools and hardware in place to be one of the best OS in years to come.



(http://www.thinksecret.com/news/virginiatech.html)
http://developer.apple.com/business/macmarket/nag.html

janneaho
2005-03-07 07:32:55
G5 Personal computer Products are good for the market
The new MorphOS website is located here: http://www.morphosppc.com
The MorphOS Developer Connection is here: http://developer.morphosppc.com/


Please update your links.



With best regards,


Genesi