Welcome Guest | Sign In
Salesforce Industries Summit
E-Commerce Times TechNewsWorld CRM Buyer LinuxInsider

MacNewsWorld Talkback

ECT News Community   »   MacNewsWorld Talkback   »   Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: Robyn Weisman 2004-05-07 07:58:34
See Full Story

Why does the Macintosh whip up such passion from both its adherents and detractors? How has Apple Computer, a company that produces just a miniscule percentage of the world's PCs, become such a cultural force? Why does the iPod Mini elicit the sorts of oohs, aahs and omigods customarily reserved for Brad Pitt and Jennifer Lopez? Those questions may not be answered for generations. Nonetheless, MacNewsWorld seeks to examine these Mac-centric phenomena through its new opinions column, "Mac Death Match."

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: SRHatfield 2004-05-08 20:19:15 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
The market share myth must be exposed yet again.
Enderle says "The company steadily has been dropping share -- granted more slowly recently -- for the last decade."
What this really means is "People hold onto their Macs longer than they do PCs."
Dell reports that "x number of PCs were shipped this quarter", and Apple says "y number of Macs were shipped this quarter". Does that indicate market share? No, it indicates how often people need to replace their PCs. (On average) PCs die much quicker than do Macs; therefore they need to be replaced more often. This gives artificial "fluffage" to the number of PC users there are compared to the number of Mac users. I'm not saying that there are an even number of PC and Mac users, I'm saying that you can't believe the numbers that sales give you.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: beefcake 2004-05-09 11:42:56 In reply to: SRHatfield
I know we love our Macs, and we should defend them, but I was hoping to see a more objective discussion from other readers.
So we have proven that Enderle misrepresented the Popular Mechanics article, and he didn't really do his homework when it came to his point about NeXT. Where does that leave us?
There is much more at stake here than representation of benchmarks and historical data. What about the larger issue? Could IBM give up on the PowerPC? Even though the chip is flat-out better, if the market is not there to support IBM's development and production of the PowerPC, would IBM pull the the plug on the PowerPC? Could Apple be up s--t creek if it doen't explore other avenues?
Let's defend our Macs, but let's be objective about it. Consider the whole arguement, and thus present a stronger defense of our platform.
Michael Opsteegh
Anaheim, CA

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: Raedkahaby 2004-05-09 17:29:07 In reply to: beefcake
To your first question "where does that lead us?" The obvious answer is focusing on a much more accurate assesment of the strengths and weaknesses of our platform. To your question regarding IBM giving up on the Power chip architecture, sure they could. "where does that leave us?..." The answer is switching to another chip. The point I made regarding the history of NeXT was that it wouldn't matter which CPU they used. The OS is highly portable and easily ported. I think IBMs chips will give a performance advantage for the immediate to intermediate future. From what I have seen Apples system, at least with the powermacs, are fantastic when you look at the bandwith it delivers, and I would guess that it would outperform its rivals even with a lesser chip.
The question that hasn't been answered is are the chips more or less expensive than the Intel chips? This goes directly to the financial viability of the company.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: Raedkahaby 2004-05-07 17:42:41 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
Firstly, is an Intel chip less expensive than either a G4 or a G5? I am not sure of the answer but I don't think that this very significant point can go by unquestioned.
Second Mr Enderle has an assesment of the situation at NeXT that is in error. The Computer company changed into a software company that shipped an Intel version. They also shipped for PA-RISC, SPARC, Motorola, as well. In addition they shipped frameworks that ran on top of Windows NT, and Sun, and almost every type of Server OS made. There was Never an Intel CPU chip in any NeXT machine.
Lastly Apple could ship an OS sitting on top of Windows XP withing 3 months if they wanted to. They did so when they were NeXT and the code was called Openstep and not Cocoa. The path they are pursuing is one that keeps them out of the commodity market and increases the computing experience (and keeps revenue up.)

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: Suspicious 2004-05-07 15:40:08 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
It seems pretty obvious that Mr. Enderle is in the business of spreading misinformation. His characterization of the Popular Mechanics articles was clearly slanted. His statement about the PowerPC-based CPU to be used in the future XBox as being x86 based is unsubstatiated at best and an outright lie at worst. As an earlier commenter pointed out, his implication that Steve Jobs initially chose an x86 processor for NeXT was completely wrong. The NeXT box never used an x86 processor, only the SW-based incarnation of NeXT as a company catered to x86-based OSes, but also to non-x86-based OSes.
It would be nice if the editors did a little fact-checking follow-up on their Death Match contestants to keep things a bit more fair.
With so many misleading statements from Mr. Enderle, his opponent should win by default.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: mbf666 2004-05-07 13:20:58 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
I want to focus my post at microprocessor perspective.
Totally wrong about MP report. Anyway for those who understood as Mr Enderle; Apple offer home user a machine with technology tipically found only on Datacenter Server!!!! RISC. x86 is CISC technology still. I always end up little mad when buyers/analyst/consultant, compare Intel MHz vs PowerPC MHz as a benefict to Intel x86 PC. PowerPC use less voltage/current/Mhz mean cooler microprocesor operation, Higher voltage/current/Mhz mean high hotter microprocessor operation like intel's.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: tciuro 2004-05-07 12:03:06 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
> When Steve Jobs made his own choice, at NeXT, he chose Intel
Sorry... no doughnut.
The original NeXT computer shipped with a 25MHz Motorola 68030 processor.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: RobEnderle 2004-05-10 08:52:13 In reply to: tciuro
NeXT shifted to Intel in 1992, and shipped on Intel in 1993. You are right the first chip was Motorola and that platform failed. They also signed a deal with IBM in 1989 with IBM to support NeXT it, apparently, never went anyplace.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: gankaku 2004-05-07 09:10:23 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
Just to clarify a point made Mr Enderle, who writes: "if third parties like Maximum PC and Popular Mechanics prove it (the G5) underperforms x86; and if the platform is due to be eclipsed by x86 in all related markets, then Apple has no choice but to make the move (to Intel/AMD chips)."
In fact, Popular Mechanics didn't prove Enderle's assertion. Quite the contray. The article suggests that Apple shouldn't be promoting its computers as the fastest based on misleading benchmarks, but then goes on to state that for three scientific programs that tax the CPU, Apple wipes the floor with Intel.
The relevant quote from PM: "The G5 was 59.5 percent faster than the HP ( (a dual 3.2 GHz Xeon) at processing 85 high-resolution color photographs totaling 684.6MB of data. In the HMMer tests (61.3MB of data), Apple was 67 percent faster than the PC and under BLAST (32.8MB), Apple was 85.9 percent faster."
Sounds as if Enderle didn't read the entire article.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: RobEnderle 2004-05-10 08:43:54 In reply to: gankaku
Actually I did and still have it here:
“When we attempted to run the same tests <as VeriTest>, serious problems developed. Everything ran fine on the HP and it scored well in the tests: 27.8 for the SPECint_rate 2000 and 16.3 for the SPECfp_rate 2000, which handily beat Apple’s published benchmarks. However, we could never get the tests to run on the Apple machine.”
They list a number of reasons and pointed out that both VeriTest and Apple refused to show how they got these tests to run when PM couldn’t. This is page 36 you may want to reread this yourself.
They also pointed out on page 38 that “the computer maker <Apple> no longer uses the “fastest computer” claim in its advertising. In fact, on Apple’s Web page detailing the performance of the G5 chip (www.apple.com/powermac/performance), the word “fastest” no longer appears.”

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: blech 2004-05-11 23:00:35 In reply to: RobEnderle
your response to gankaku completely fails to address the points brought up, and merely regurgitates the misrepresentation of the original PM article you presented in your column.
thanks for being less than informative.

Re: Mac Death Match, Round One: Chaffin vs. Enderle
Posted by: obackbarama 2004-05-07 08:51:00 In reply to: Robyn Weisman
This is a great idea and forum.
Let the games begin!
Jump to:
When considering a new smartwatch, which feature set is most important to you?
Alerts and Notifications
Calls and Messaging
Clock and Time Tracking
Contactless Payments and Banking
Design and Personalization
GPS and Maps
Health and Fitness
Music and Video