[gumby5647]

Lets have some fun shall we. Lets pretend that it was IBM that created the G4. Post what you think would have happened from its intro in 1999 all the way up to present day....

Here's mine:
(assuming it gets speed bumped about twice a year)

(1999)
We would have started out at 500Mhz. (and stayed there).

(2000)
Then around march or so we would have had a small bump to 550 or 600mhz.
Then it wouldn't have gotten updated until the later part of the year as Apple worked on its new Logic Board. (The current one we are using)
When that was ready we would have been speed bumped to 733Mhz.

(2001)
First half of 2001 would have seen us probably at 867Mhz or 933Mhz (depending on yeilds and cost)
Then probably at MWNY we would have seen the PowerMac break into GHz range (1Ghz or 1.13Ghz)

(2002)
Then we would go into a dry spell as Apple worked on its next Logic Board and IBM started tweaking the G4 (.18 to .13 ect.. an other improvements)
Then early in 2002 (feb or march) we would have seen the release of the 1.2Ghz PowerMac with DDR-RAM and other system improvements

then going into MWNY or so it would have been the 1.4Ghz or 1.5Ghz


The End....

(oh if only it were true )

Any body else wanna take a swing?


Edit: (spelling) Sorry, i know it seems like a dump post, but i was bored and got tired of sitting on my roof.

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: gumby5647 ]

[Justin W. Williams]

If only...

Motorola dropped the ball IMHO. We should be well ahead in the speeds, but they keep holding us back

[SkiBikeSki]

I think your right on track. It would be foolish to think that the G4 could keep up with MHz with a P4 or even an Athlon. Those chips do so little per cycle that its easy to do a lot of cycles. I could easily see IBM Moto Apple whoever producing 1.2Ghz G4's and using DDR. Right now I'm sure that Apple's want's to use DDR but doesn't see the profit margin holding it they use a more expensive motherboard. It'd really be nice if the ball wasn't dropped.

[vmarks]

IBM fabricates a large number of chips for companies that don't wish to fabricate on their own.

When IBM takes on fabrication, in some cases in the past, IBM has held off manufacturing the chip until the bugs are worked out of it. Example, say there was a modem chip, and it was buggy. IBM would ask the engineers to revisit their design and work with them until the bugs were eliminated. (I am not a Micro-electronics guy, there may be errors in this tale.)

I presume that if IBM had been fabricating the G4 for Motorola (fantasy land here) that the G4 would never have been stuck at 500mhz, period. I believe it would be past the 1.6 mark by now.

[Gerson]

Not to defend Motorola, but their main interest with the G4 is in embedded products. In that market, price, heat, and power consumption are the key factors above all else, and if clock speed doesn't ramp up very quickly, that won't really hurt their core market, I don't think.

The desktop version of the G4 is just an afterthought, sold to one vendor whose marketshare is steadily declining. I'm not saying that's fair or correct, but I think that's their attitude.

In short, some of the G4's performance problems can in fact be attributed to Motorola's manufacturing and design problems (like the 500 Mhz debacle) BUT to a large degree, they're succeeding in producing exactly what they want to produce: cheap, cool-running chips that require very little power. The fact that they're not very powerful doesn't really matter to the vast majority of Motorola's customers.

[gumby5647]

oh the irony here..

Well if Motorola hadn't dropped the ball, and we were at my timeline above, then PowerMac Sales would have never have fallen. (they might have even increased.)

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by Gerson:
<STRONG>
The desktop version of the G4 is just an afterthought, sold to one vendor whose marketshare is steadily declining. I'm not saying that's fair or correct, but I think that's their attitude.
</STRONG>

What makes you think Apple's marketshare is steadily declining? I bet we'll have some pretty decent looking marketshare numbers for the next few quarters due to iMac demand.

[juanvaldes]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
<STRONG>

What makes you think Apple's marketshare is steadily declining? I bet we'll have some pretty decent looking marketshare numbers for the next few quarters due to iMac demand.</STRONG>

sadly it is. Though it's not due to apple's market shrinking, but that the overall market is continuing to grow much faster then apple's share. I know ti's a bit outdated but a year or more ago I heard that only about 500 Million people use computers, that still leaves 5.5 billion.

[abrody]

500 million computer users? That's actually good news for Apple. 40 million of those are Mac users. Apple's total market share is 8%. Apple's market share can be measured as total number of computers sold, but it can also be measured as total number of users. Makes a huge difference since Macs last longer. Where did you see the total number of computer users listed? Apple's total was 40 million during its darkest days in 1997. It is higher now. How much is still uncertain.

[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: abrody ]

[wwworry]

Speaking of market share, I would rather be in Apple's shoes right now than Microsoft's. MS already controls 90% (approx.) of the market and there is not much they can do to grow marketshare. That's why they are pushing subscription licencing models. They will still make a ton of money but their earnings growth does not have near as much potential as Apple's.

Sell MS, buy AApl or APPL