Replies

Posting off topic sales figures on your part does not now, and never will translate into processing power on the part of Apple’s machines.

The topic was “high end”.

since Apple doesn’t do well in that respect you personally seem to want to redefine the thread title to “Best Selling” or perhaps “Popular with executives and artists - who are really cool dudes”

But in the view of those of us focused on raw processing power and speed, Apple has always been just a cute toy.

And it still is.

Contrary to your silly diatribe, I never said Apple didn’t sell. I said it wasn’t in the running to be considered “high end”. I can’t remember any articles about cutting edge CAD programs changing engineering or any similar topics mentioning Apple machines ever. They are not up to the task.

Posting off topic sales figures on your part does not now, and never will translate into processing power on the part of Apple’s machines. . .

The topic was “high end”.

Excuse me? "Off topic"? Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem or you're cross posting from some other thread or planet. The only one here who is "off topic" is YOU. Read the article, MrEdd. No, here, I will provide some salient quotations from the article that demonstrate exactly what the IS on topic in this thread:

"Apple's ability to reinvent markets leads to command of high-end, high-margin business."
"Apple plays almost exclusively in the high end of the handset and computer markets, which translates into mighty profits."
"So why is Apple successful on the high-end, high-margins of the market"

That makes it exceedingly clear that the topic, which I was addressing and you are obviously NOT, is about the commanding position Apple has in the market segment of personal computers that are priced over $1,000.

But in the view of those of us focused on raw processing power and speed, Apple has always been just a cute toy.

"Cute Toy." How dismissive and insulting to those of us who are professionals in computing that have chosen to use Macs. Just how much have you used, actually used, not just played around, a Mac?

We've already established that contrary to your mis-comprehension, this article IS about sales in the $1000 and up market share segment, the "high end," not about processing power or speed; however, Macs can also hold their own in processing power and speed as well.

Contrary to your silly diatribe, I never said Apple didn’t sell. I said it wasn’t in the running to be considered “high end”. I can’t remember any articles about cutting edge CAD programs changing engineering or any similar topics mentioning Apple machines ever.

"Silly diatribe." Ah, More ad hominem attacks against Mac users, this time me personally. Typical.

I assure you, it is YOUR trolling argument that is "silly" in light of it completely off topic claims about "speed" and "processing power."

MrEdd, as to what you don't know about... I can't be held responsible for your ignorance. However, some may believe your opinion so let me provide some facts. Even the article quotes an authoritative source:

"Its MacBook Pro line consistently ranks among the highest performing laptops, according to the InfoWorld Test Center

Another fact, PC World Magazine announced in October, 2007, that the fastest laptop computer they had tested running Vista was a MacBook Pro.

Let me quote your opinion again: "...Apple has always been just a cute toy."

So, in your opinion, is that why Virginia Tech chose the Apple Mac to make System X, the third fastest Supercomputer in the world, in 2003? And that's why they migrated the 1,100 Dual processor (2,200 processors) G5 PowerMac Towers to 1,150 dual processor (2300 processors) xServes in 2004? Because Macs are slow toys?

The original 2003 Terascale System X was running on OSX.2 Server... and produced just under 10.3 Teraflops continuous but peaked at over 14. The second fastest supercomputer in the world cost 20 times what Virginia Tech's Mac OSX cluster cost, and produced 15 TFlops peaking to 18, not a very good economic result for 20 times the cost. While the fastest supercomputer that year, the Japanese Earth Simulator which cost over $250 million—50 times the cost of the VT Mac cluster—produced 35.4T Flops and peaked to 39.

In 2004, Virginia Tech upgrade to a Mac xServe based System X, using OSX.3 Panther Server, which produced over 12.5 Teraflops peaking to 17, consumed less energy, and occupied 1/3 the space of the original System X.

The US Army contractor Colsa selected Macs to build another supercomputer called Mach 5. Consisting of 1,566 Dual Processor G5 PowerMacs, the Mach5 was designed to be used in designing aircraft wings by simulating airflows at multiple supersonic speeds. That's quite an engineering applications, wouldn't you say?

In November of 2008, Virginia Tech built another Mac based supercomputer with 324 eight-core, 2.8GHz Mac Pro towers—called System G because of the "green" toxin free build of the Mac Pro line—, produces a continuous 22.8 TFlops and can peak to 29 TFlops. It is the 65th fasted supercomputer in the world... but still one of the least expensive.

Right. Not powerful enough. A "toy." Sure.