Intel Mac Sales Below Expectations So Far

[zippyjuan]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20060131152341.html


Customers Reportedly Not Enthusiastic About x86-Based Macintoshes

Category: Other

by Anton Shilov

[ 01/31/2006 | 03:26 PM ]


Even though Apple Computer was ahead of the the schedule with introduction of Intel processors-based computers, consumers are not really as enthusiastic about the systems as Apple might have expected, some web-sites cite their sources as saying. The observers blame relatively low performance of Intel-based Macintosh computers when running applications developed for the PowerPC.

Sources of Think Secret web-site report that weeks following the announcement of Macintosh products powered by Intel chips sales of such systems were lower than Apple expected. Furthermore, sales of both PowerPC-based iMacs and PowerBooks have trailed off considerably even keeping in mind seasonally unfavourable period.

The reasons for slowed-down sales of Macintosh computers were predicted back last year: performance of software originally developed for PowerPC-based computers is not high on the new machines since the programs run using emulation software, but not a lot of consumers want to spend their money on the Mac G5 machines that are set to face end of life in several months time and and which are already slower in some applications.

Customers may have realised – based on third-party benchmark results – that even though iMac Core Duo is 20% to 40% faster than its G5 predecessor when performing native tasks (QuickTime conversion, iTunes CD ripping), it is anywhere from 10% to 50% slower when running non-native applications through Rosetta software.

Major developers of performance-critical software, such as Adobe or Microsoft, are not yet ready with their programs capable of running on both PowerPC and x86 architecture, which is likely to keep PowerMac computers away from introduction till the new software emerges. Still, Apple may continue transitioning lower-end product lines, such as Mac mini, to new chips by Intel Corp.

[eSDee]

I wanna say I told you so but I think I'll wait.

[LPMiller]

it'll pick back up eventually. Same thing happened when the powerPC came out.

[zero2dash]

They cost too f'n much. If they really want to pick up market share, they'll drop the elitist attitude and put up some competitive prices. Otherwise - good luck. I'd like to get a PowerMac but I'd rather pay half the price on a similar AMD A64 X2 and deal with all of Windows' "security issues" vs having a 'trouble free Mac' that cost me an arm, a leg, and a lung. :shrug:

[Grubbie]

They cost too f'n much. If they really want to pick up market share, they'll drop the elitist attitude and put up some competitive prices. Otherwise - good luck. I'd like to get a PowerMac but I'd rather pay half the price on a similar AMD A64 X2 and deal with all of Windows' "security issues" vs having a 'trouble free Mac' that cost me an arm, a leg, and a lung. :shrug:

and a kidney...

[Cubsfan]

They cost too f'n much. If they really want to pick up market share, they'll drop the elitist attitude and put up some competitive prices. Otherwise - good luck. I'd like to get a PowerMac but I'd rather pay half the price on a similar AMD A64 X2 and deal with all of Windows' "security issues" vs having a 'trouble free Mac' that cost me an arm, a leg, and a lung. :shrug:

Well, I think it's obvious then that you aren't their target market. There's many people who prefer to have one or more of the things that a Mac offers, such as a much better interface, better security features, sleek design, things that 'just work', etc... and are willing to pay for it.

[zero2dash]

Well, I think it's obvious then that you aren't their target market. There's many people who prefer to have one or more of the things that a Mac offers, such as a much better interface, better security features, sleek design, things that 'just work', etc... and are willing to pay for it.

I disagree. :)
Most design firms have this assumption that every other design firm uses a Mac and doesn't use PCs, and this is wholeheartedly incorrect. A lot of design firms also think that files are platform-dependent (meaning you can't open a Mac Photoshop file on anything but a Mac) but that's also incorrect.

I can't speak for every design firm, or even a dozen of them. But I can tell you that FedEx Kinkos (last I heard, before I quit in April 2005, 1 month before 5 years of employment) is no longer purchasing Apple hardware and has since switched to PCs entirely for everything (including graphic design). That's a whooooooooole lotta computers, company-wide, my friend. ;) At my current job at a print company, they bought a G5 because they previously had a G3. (If I would've been here before they upgraded, I would've told them to purchase a PC.)

As for the interface - there's two things that I use in OSX that I can't do in Windows. Open-Apple + N to create a new folder, and F9/F10/F11 to use Expose. Otherwise - I find no difference between the two, and actually prefer the Windows environment. I'm not saying that I dislike OSX, because it's equally efficient. But if I was given the chance at my job as a designer to move to a Windows environment and dump the Mac, I'd do it in a second. (I have a PC at home with every design app out there, practically, and I prefer it.)

Security - sure, OSX is secure out of the box since it's in a minimal market share therefore virus writers don't target it and spyware/adware doesn't work in OSX because OSX does not have ActiveX nor does it allow applications to be installed without Administrator "authentication". Windows can be equally secure with about a half hour's worth of time.

Sleek design - your choice. I think OSX looks neat, but beneath the surface (other than the two things that I mention that I use), there's little to no difference between OSX and Windows, in terms of basic interface and features. In terms of the physical computer - sure, Macs are purdy. But I'm not looking at the case while using the computer, am I? :)

Things that work - ok, OSX doesn't require drivers. But (being devil's advocate here) - has anyone realistically had a driver issue on a Windows machine ever since Windows 2000? I know I haven't. I had some driver issues with ME, but afterwards - none. Besides, a driver issue is easily solved.

I agree with the "willing to pay for it". I don't understand why people are willing to pay the premium for a Mac, but...:shrug: whatever floats your boat. In reality - the only companies who buy Macs because they have to are the studios that use FCP (Final Cut Pro) and that's merely because (at least from what I hear) Adobe Premiere Pro isn't as good. Otherwise, any company that does graphic design with the Adobe Creative Suite has no pros or cons over a PC by buying a Mac. But - still, there is the "myth". :heh:

I post this (in all sincerity) as an equal fan of both environments. I almost started putting money down (or, rather 'set aside') for an Intel PowerMac, but if the iMac and PowerBook are any indication of the Intel equipment prices - the prices will remain the same. And I'm not paying $3 grand for a PowerMac that offers similar specs of an AMD machine half that price. :disa:

[Cubsfan]

So just out of curiosity, what do you think the "Mac premium" is? I'm guessing it would be quite easy to price out an equvilant notebook to the Macbook Pro, although it would be a little bit harder to compare the iMac a PC, since the iMac uses a notebook processor.

But all in all, how much extra do you think that you pay to own a Mac?

(There's obviously some play here too. I'd say OSX compares to XP Pro, you probably could figure in the cost of AntiVirus for Windows, etc...)

[zero2dash]

So just out of curiosity, what do you think the "Mac premium" is? I'm guessing it would be quite easy to price out an equvilant notebook to the Macbook Pro, although it would be a little bit harder to compare the iMac a PC, since the iMac uses a notebook processor.

But all in all, how much extra do you think that you pay to own a Mac?

(There's obviously some play here too. I'd say OSX compares to XP Pro, you probably could figure in the cost of AntiVirus for Windows, etc...)

The most honest answer in price will be revealed soon, when PC manufacturers start shipping laptops with CoreDuo processors in them. :)

Off the top of my head though - IMHO you pay 1.5 - 2x for a Mac in terms of cost (for two systems that perform similar, one PC and one Mac). Granted, most of the lower end Mac systems are probably more 1.5x cost (iMacs, Minis, iBooks) whereas PowerBooks are 2x and PowerMacs are 2x if not more. Most of the iMac/Mini line starts around $600, iBooks probably $900, and PowerBook/PowerMacs are $1999. (PowerMac is a dual 2g G5, 512 ram, Superdrive, 160g hd.) Minor performance differences aside, you could probably build a high end Athlon64 x2 4800+ system with a gig of ram and similar hd for (probably) $1200 if not less. And that Athlon is most likely going to be comparable to (if not beat) the G5 in performance.

[I'm basing this off of core performance, not clock speed. The A64 X2 obviously has a higher clock speed. But with the A64 having the onboard memory controller, I don't see why it wouldn't outperform the G5 even at complex Photoshop filter work, which is where Apple claims its strongpoints are. Since Apple used to compare G5 tasks to Pentium 4 cpus, I'm wondering what'll happen now...I wonder if they'll start trying to compare the PPC to AMDs or the Intel Macs to AMDs, and if they compare anything to AMD and claim the Intel is faster, well, we'll all know they're full of BS because there's a million comparisons out there with real world benchmark performance that show that AMD systems are beating the pants off of Intel systems.]

I'd definitely agree with your mention of XP comparing to OSX in terms of overall performance; I still also stand by my (long thought) opinion that I wouldn't run either OS without a minimum 512 megs of ram. It can be done, but you're going to want to physically injure yourself over the slow speed. I'm still wondering what nut at Microsoft installed XP on a Pentium 133 with 64 megs of ram...I guarantee that they either killed themselves or killed the computer. :heh:

[Cubsfan]

Ok, I gave it a shot. Got the following from HPShopping:

dv1000t

Operating System Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Professional with SP2 edit
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) Duo processor T2300 (1.66 GHz) edit
Display 14.0" WXGA BrightView Widescreen (1280x768) edit
Graphics Card Intel(R) Graphics Media Accelerator 950 w/WebCam edit
Memory 512MB DDR2 SDRAM (2x256MB) edit
Hard Drive 80 GB 5400 RPM Serial ATA Hard Drive edit
Primary CD/DVD Drive DVD+/-RW/R & CD-RW Combo w/Double Layer Support edit
Networking Intel(R) PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection edit
Primary Battery 6 Cell Lithium Ion Battery edit
Productivity Software Microsoft(R) Works/Money edit

price $1,497.99

And the following from Amazon:
Apple MacBook Pro Notebook 15.4" MA090LL/A (1.67 GHz Intel Core Duo, 512 MB RAM, 80 GB Hard Drive, SuperDrive)

Price After Mail-In Rebate: $1,849.99

So, the MacBook has 1" more on the screen, and there's the software differences. The HP had a bunch of choices for the battery, but I didn't really know how to compare them, so I just kept the cheapest one.

Granted, this took me about 5 minutes, so I probably did something wrong (feel free to correct me), but at these prices, the premium is about 24%, or about $352. Now if you take into account the 1" difference, and perhaps some of the software differences, I don't know how they would work out.

Did I miss anything in this comparison?

[zero2dash]

Did I miss anything in this comparison?

Looks similar enough to me.
I did the same thing (probably at the same time) :) with a PowerMac.

(Dunno if the links will work or not, but here goes nothin'.)
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/7200906/wo/jC3G1l2VKufa2OBHsGG2gMOILYt/2.?p=0
2.3g Dual-core PowerPC G5
1GB 533 DDR2 Non ECC SDRAM - 2x512
250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT 256 MB SDRAM
16x SuperDrive DL (DVD+R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW)
Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse
Mac OS X
Total: $2,949.00

(NewEgg (http://www.newegg.com))
I saved this as a wish list but it hasn't come up on the 'shared' lists section yet.
Antec Performance I P180 Silver Steel ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail ($124)
ASUS A8N32-SLI Deluxe Socket 939 NVIDIA nForce4 SLI X16 ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail ($229)
BFG Tech BFGR78256GTOC GeForce 7800GT 256MB GDDR3 PCI Express x16 Video Card - Retail ($319)
Antec TruePower 2.0 TP2-550 EPS12V ATX12V 550W Power Supply - Retail ($99)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo 1GHz FSB Socket 939 Dual Core Processor Model ADA4800CDBOX - Retail ($635)
CORSAIR XMS 1GB (2 x 512MB) 184-Pin DDR SDRAM DDR400 (PC3200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit System Memory Model TWINX1024-3200C2PT - Retail ($99)
Western Digital Raptor WD1500ADFD 150GB 10,000 RPM Serial ATA150 Hard Drive - OEM ($286)
Logitech Cordless Desktop MX3100 967553-0403 2-Tone USB + PS/2 RF Wireless Standard Desktop Mouse Included - Retail ($64)
LITE-ON Black ATAPI/E-IDE DVD Burner Model SHW-160P6S - Retail ($41)
Microsoft Windows XP Professional X64 Edition 1 package - OEM ($142)
Total: $2,043.89

I guess in this case, the Mac is 1.5x more expensive but comparing some of the equipment - the PC is better. (namely the Raptor hd instead of a 7200rpm)

With the other $900 you could add another gig (or more) of ram and even add a second hard drive or upgrade the graphics card, or buy a monitor.

Out of the two...I'd take the PC. :)

****man i wish i had $3 g's to blow**** :drool: :heh:

[Cubsfan]

I didn't try to compare the powermac or even the iMac since it seemed a little inaccurate (i.e. PowerPC vs. other chip, iMac having a notebook processor makes it hard to compare against a desktop PC, at least price-wise).

However, you're also comparing a home-built PC against a manufacturer built-PC. Guess it depends on what we are comparing. It seems in general, that Apple's notebooks are more comperably priced than their desktop offerings.

[Grimm]

I think the comparisons on speed with software through Rosetta is disengenious on the reviewer's part.

Comparing software that runs through an emulator to native software is usualy no contest. Only being 10% to 50% slower is amazing.

More software will be ported to the Mac. The emulator will be needed less, and things will be faster. Really now, you buy a Mac for the things it does natively. The other stuff is nice to have and the fact that it runs a bit slower is not really a big deal.
Rejecting the Mac based on the speed of emulated software (which is still pretty fast) is like rejecting a sports car that is 10% better than all the others because it's rear window defogger is 20% less effective than the others sports cars.

I do not own a Mac, never have, and probably never will. But if you are going to discount it, use some real reasons.

[zero2dash]

Yeah but we can accurately say that (with a desktop) we're comparing 2 dual core chip systems to one another, with similar complimentary hardware (for the most part...except the hard drive, but if you get a 250g 7200 SATA hd for the PC, you're spending about $150-175 off the top of my head, so the PC price would be even lower).

In this instance, I'm talking about comparing hardware and only hardware...I've said that performance should be similar, but my whole point is that Apple charges more for their hardware than anyone else, and when you compare those bloated prices vs. retail on a PC with similar hardware, you can really see some differences. :shrug: Who's to say whether a PPC chip costs more to manufacture, or the mobo that G5s use costs more, etc. But even so, we're talking about a $900 difference here, and there's no bloody way that (for instance) the PPC cpu costs $900 more to manufacture than the AMD.

If I was going to buy a Mac, I'd get an Intel one, since when everything is recoded to run natively on the Intel architecture, it will be faster than the PPC ones. I'm not basing any performance comparisons on Intel Mac benchmarks either...I'm basing a PPC G5 running Adobe CS Suite to the benchmarks of an A64 X2 running Adobe CS Suite. (I've said before that my P4 3.0c, 1g DDR400 system runs CS Suite faster than the G5 1.8g, 1280mb DDR400 Mac I use at work.) But in my performance comparison here, I'm comparing the two high end systems. Well, sorta on the Mac side...it's not feasible to compare anything to a Quad G5 since there are (AFAIK) no quad Intel or AMD cpus on the market *thus far*.

But if someone said "here's three grand, you have to spend it on a computer", I'd go build the AMD.

[Cubsfan]

my whole point is that Apple charges more for their hardware than anyone else

I agree with you, but I think that the amount extra they charge is far less than you think.

For one, I still don't think it's fair to compare an Apple to a home-built PC, for purposes of comparing the price of the hardware. I think to accurately compare these, you need to compare the Apple to a PC from someplace like HP/Dell. There's certain things that these places provide that isn't being taken into account. Things like assembly and unified warranty and support.

Also, remember that in general, Apple is going to have to charge more for their OS than you have to pay for Windows. The cost to develop Windows is spread across 94% of the market, while the cost to develop OSX is only spready among 6% of the market (granted Windows probably costs most to develop, but I doubt it costs 15x as much).

So in general, you're absolutely right, you'll pay more for Apple. How much more definately depends. Sure, you can build your PC yourself, but then you aren't paying for warranty (at least not from one company) and assembly. But that's no different than if you compared an HP/Dell to a home built PC.

[ribitch]

i just scanned this thread, so i didnt read everything. I did se ethe hp vs macbook comparison. One big difference is the GPU. The MacBook Pro uses the x1600 while teh HP has a integrated intel GPU. Big difference in my opinion.

Additionally, the main story about lagging sales has also been said to be inaccurate. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1490

I personnally told seveeral of my clients to wait until key applcaitions are universal binaries. If you using apps like Adobe CS for your business, you do not want to have to run them in rosetta and have to potentially comprimise speed to be on the bleeding edge.

I would geta macbook, but I am waiting for a rev 2. I bought a rev 1 g5, and rev 2 was so much better. I still love my g5, but its best to wait, especially with a new architecture.

[Merlin]

As a potential consumer why should I care that the Mac now has an Intel chip? Someone sell me on what the benefit of this union is.

[zero2dash]

As a potential consumer why should I care that the Mac now has an Intel chip? Someone sell me on what the benefit of this union is.

Essentially, they can now attempt to justify the high prices with a "better performance" claim. :)

(Unfortunately, the attempt falls short IMO. :heh:)

[Memo]

Part Number: Z0CN
Product Name: MacBook Pro - 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
Options:
065-6107 2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
065-6106 100GB Serial ATA drive @ 7200 rpm
065-6096 SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
065-6121 ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 - 256MB GDDR3
065-6103 Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
065-6102 AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
Unit Price: $2,319.00
Quantity: 1
Net Price: $2,319.00
Estimated time to ship: February
:fro:

[shocky123]

If I was going to buy a Mac, I'd get an Intel one, since when everything is recoded to run natively on the Intel architecture, it will be faster than the PPC ones. I'm not basing any performance comparisons on Intel Mac benchmarks either...I'm basing a PPC G5 running Adobe CS Suite to the benchmarks of an A64 X2 running Adobe CS Suite. (I've said before that my P4 3.0c, 1g DDR400 system runs CS Suite faster than the G5 1.8g, 1280mb DDR400 Mac I use at work.) But in my performance comparison here, I'm comparing the two high end systems. Well, sorta on the Mac side...it's not feasible to compare anything to a Quad G5 since there are (AFAIK) no quad Intel or AMD cpus on the market *thus far*.

But if someone said "here's three grand, you have to spend it on a computer", I'd go build the AMD.

*coughs* Quad-core G5?
Maybe you're mistaken, they make Dual-processor, and dual-core chips. Or maybe you're thinking a quad-cpu box. AFAIK, IBM hasnt released the quad-core PPC based chip, and I do PPC research in my lab, we have several Dual-processor, Dual-core, Power5's, but no Quad-core processors yet, and I havent heard of them being released yet.
Not to butcher you on a typo or anything, but I have several SMP boxes with dual-core AMD chips in my lab (which are used for some research), as well as the Dual-G5 boxes (which we use as workstations, heh) .

But yes, there are no quad-core intel or amd chips out on the market *yet*. However, this will soon come. And I'll agree with you that the markup on the Apple boxes is pretty silly.

...My appologies if I totally missed the introduction of the Quad-core cpu....
In that case, ignore me lol.

~Kyle

[kimchicowboy]

Part Number: Z0CN
Product Name: MacBook Pro - 1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
Options:
065-6107 2GB 667 DDR2 - 2x1GB SO-DIMMs
065-6106 100GB Serial ATA drive @ 7200 rpm
065-6096 SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)
065-6121 ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 - 256MB GDDR3
065-6103 Backlit Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
065-6102 AirPort Extreme Card & Bluetooth
Unit Price: $2,319.00
Quantity: 1
Net Price: $2,319.00
Estimated time to ship: February
:fro:
how much was the 2x1GB ram?

[zero2dash]

*coughs* Quad-core G5?
Maybe you're mistaken, they make Dual-processor, and dual-core chips. Or maybe you're thinking a quad-cpu box. AFAIK, IBM hasnt released the quad-core PPC based chip, and I do PPC research in my lab, we have several Dual-processor, Dual-core, Power5's, but no Quad-core processors yet, and I havent heard of them being released yet.
Not to butcher you on a typo or anything, but I have several SMP boxes with dual-core AMD chips in my lab (which are used for some research), as well as the Dual-G5 boxes (which we use as workstations, heh) .

But yes, there are no quad-core intel or amd chips out on the market *yet*. However, this will soon come. And I'll agree with you that the markup on the Apple boxes is pretty silly.

...My appologies if I totally missed the introduction of the Quad-core cpu....
In that case, ignore me lol.

~Kyle

Quad G5 is a G5 with 2 dual core G5 cpus. (I didn't know if it was a single cpu with 4 cores, or 2 cpus with dual cores - so I didn't really mention which :) - but I looked at it just now and see that it's 2 dual cores.) I found out about it when I was looking at the Intel PB/iMac specs and prices last month; I started digging around hoping maybe I'd find a glimpse of pricing on Intel PowerMacs.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/

Quad-Core G5 Processing

With two dual-core processors, at speeds up to 2.5GHz per core, the Power Mac G5 Quad doubles the punch of its dual-processor predecessor. Do the math: Quad-core processing means four Velocity Engines and eight double-precision floating-point units for blistering performance of up to 76.6 gigaflops. That means you can manipulate mountains of images or miles of footage. Crunch enormous data sets. Encode HD video or high-bit-rate audio. All at speeds you never imagined possible.

Base price is $3,299
Two dual-core 2.5GHz PowerPC G5 processors
1.25GHz frontside bus per processor
1MB L2 cache per core
512MB of 533MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-4200)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
16x SuperDrive (double-layer)
Three open PCI-Express expansion slots
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 with 256MB GDDR SDRAM

[shocky123]

Coolness, thanks for clearing that up.

I personally find it funny that for $3300 they only throw in 512MB ram, but that's just me.


~Kyle

[zero2dash]

Coolness, thanks for clearing that up.

I personally find it funny that for $3300 they only throw in 512MB ram, but that's just me.


~Kyle

No prob -
:agree: wholeheartedly
I saw that myself and scratched my head.
All that cpu power...bottlenecked by a measly 512 megs of ram??? :confused: wtf lol

[Memo]

how much was the 2x1GB ram?

Hmm, my inbox invoice doesn't show the exact amount and I truthfully don't remember.

The reason mine was so cheap with the features is that I used my ADC (Apple Developer Connection) membership to get my one-time discount for student developers. If you're a student who does any sort of software development and join the ADC you get an amazing discount on both the base product and the accessories. You just have to prove a) you're a student b) taking courses in which you are a software engineer of some sort.