“I just love my new apple!”
Even though we’re in the middle of iPhone madness, Apple has some good news coming out of its Mac department: market share went up last month.
According to NPD, Mac market share increased from 11.6 percent of the market in April to 13 percent of the market in May. Note that NPD tracks only the U.S. retail industry; those numbers include PC sales at places like Best Buy and Circuit City, but they don’t include direct sales, meaning that Dell’s totals are excluded.
Still, better to be going up than going down. Apple’s notebook share is now 14.3 percent, up from 12.5 percent of the market in April. Desktop share was only up a fraction, to 10.4 percent from 10.2 percent in April.
I couldn’t decide which picture to post, so I decided to post both. I doubt if I’ll have any complaints.
#39 GregA
Not sure if I agree with U. First of all the 68K architecture was very ahead of its time when Apple created the Lisa and Ultimately the Mac. Motorola was a household name in the business while Intel was an upstart. I still remember my MacFX days when the FX was the fastest thing on a desktop. Of course as soon as Intel brought out the 486, the playing field was never the same. And the Pentium, flimsy as it was, put the screws on them: Apple had to change their architecture. They went Power PC (again choosing IBM’s respectability instead of Intel’s). That proved to be a blunder. The other partners of the alliance wanted something much different than desktop supremacy. Had Apple stayed with the 68K family things could be much different today (for one Amigas might still be in existence…)
As of Microsofts’s Innovation track record, although they have top notch programmers, they are a business oriented company, much more interested into buying solutions or crushing competition than to innovate. If they had more balls, and integrity, we wouldn’t be having Apple wars today because Apple would be extinct…
#41,
Look at the date of the Apple turn around. Look at the date of the first netscape settlement.
EOM
SN – That girl’s eating a peach.
Apple people – I would hate having to use a one button mouse.
hhopper
You’re right – that’s why i have a 7 button mouse
love
applepeople
43. “That girl’s eating a peach.”
1. It looks like an apple to me.
2. I found it on a google image search for teen apple.
3. The website which originally posted the pictures claims that Denisa is eating an apple.
4. Who gives a flying frick, she’s hot!
#45,
I have to agree, it may be a granny smith apple she is eating, but it does look like a peach. Are you sure you were not searching for pie?
#41,
Wow, i Posted EOM, and I should have posted QED. The wiki article on the 68k CONFIRMS IT!!! the 68K is a printer cpu.
I also have to admit. I am just a litte bit bitter right now as I am a victim of my own success… Right now everyone in the office is off to market having fun, etc etc… and I am here because I can remote access into the field computers with pervasive interet….
Someone slap me on the back of the head…
#47 GregA
a link perhaps…
#43 and all the rest:
That girls is definitely not eating a peach…
She’s licking an Apple…
Where’s your libido folks? Do you prefer bites ???
#49
On the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_68000
scroll down to applications and read the third paragraph.
50. “That girls is definitely not eating a peach… She’s licking an Apple…”
If we’re talking about our libidos, can’t we compromise and say she’s licking a peach?!
4. Who gives a flying frick, she’s hot!
You are correct, sir!
The 680×0 line had humble beginnings, sure – but the lineage of the x86 line goes back all the 4004 industrial microcontroller.
At any given point in time there, Apple’s top CPU, beit the 6809, the 68000, the 68030 – was ahead of Intel’s best…
Joao, you’re right as far as that goes, but the reason they didn’t proceed onward with the CISC 68040, 68060, &c, was choosing to get the jump on IBM-compats by adopting RISC, which a lot of people at the time thought would soon render CISC obsolete.
Intel, as I recall (I’m not checking Wikipedia on this, just memory) had their own RISC chip, the i860, which no commerical computer manufacturer seemed to get very excited over…
Even now, many serious designers feel the PowerPC is a superior architecture to the Intel, but there’s just that power-dissipation / speed brick wall in the way.
(Notice that the current recordholding supercomputers – IBM Blue Gene series – are PowerPC-based…)
Or maybe I’m thinking of something else…?
#54,
Bluegene is Cell based, which is even more superscalar than x86.
Risc is dead… I couldn’t find the confirmation, but google reveals that HP released the last risc based processor about three years ago.
Ummm, excuse me…
“Each Compute or IO node is a single ASIC with associated DRAM memory chips. The ASIC integrates two 700 MHz PowerPC 440 embedded processors, each with a double-pipeline-double-precision Floating Point Unit (FPU), a cache sub-system with built-in DRAM controller and the logic to support multiple communication sub-systems. The dual FPUs give each BlueGene/L node a theoretical peak performance of 5.6 GFLOPS. Node CPUs are not cache coherent with one another.”
I’m sorry, you were saying…?
#52 Ditto… Loicking peach does fine for me…
#54 Lauren. Just some “fine tunnings”
68K didn’t had “humble beginnings”…It was a major microprocessor advance from Motorola. That’s why Apple picked it up. The processor of the Apple I and II wasn’t the 6809 but the 6509. Not 68K family.
Also Apple did used 68040 (remember the Quadra line of Macs…) But never used 68060.
Newer blue gene IBM computers use Power architecture, and the newest uses a dual processor per node with power architecture and a Cell (wich also has a powerPC core)
Please, someone check this baloney I’m venting, this is straight from memory and I’m afraid some bits may not check out…
Back to you Lauren and Greg…
Loicking????
Licking !
Joao -
Ya, I should’ve better said ‘relatively’ humble beginnings; the designers originally had (such is my understanding / recollection) more mundane goals in mind for their work, as microcontrollers and such, albeit advanced ones.
Of course, Macs had ’040s, how quickly we forget… or at least me.
But I stand by my earlier statement, which no one has seen fit to take issue with, that Macs were always a step or two ahead of the PC world – processorwise and otherwise.
Where you say the Mac “over time and gradually adopted Industry standards from the PC,” you’re right, but there’s more to it than that, it also goes the other direction, maybe moreso. Mac firsts, besides the obvious – bitmapped display, windowed GUI, mouse – include the 3.5″ microfloppy, developed by Sony at Apple’s request – and Apple was the first to drop the inclusion of floppy drives; IEEE1394, FireWire, an Apple invention; first with USB and multiple-monitor support; first laser printer, first with PostScript – it’s forgotten now, but the entire concept of ‘desktop publishing’ was built around the Mac –
it’s too easy to give the impression that it’s been a one-way street instead of cross-fertilization…
Loicking??
Loicking is priceless…