Is Apple always behind in hardware?

apple doesn't use other people's boards and random parts off the shelve to make their machines. thus, there is more of a delay in the schedule. When manufacturers slap together a machine, they have several boards and components to choose from. different board manufactures carry one thing, when the other does not. Therefore, at least ONE of them is going to have the newest board features, when the other is designing a NEWER board than the other that just released that one, has.

Apple works with Intel to design the board, and looks closely at the quality. hence the reason why dells, eMachines, and the like, have component failures a lot. Apple last for a while, so they want to make sure something is stable before they release it.
As far as with PPC, there have been some limitations because only certain chipsets have been made, and there was not much invested in making constantly new ones. there was no need to, apple was the only ones requesting it. No competition = no innovation (no need to, no one is going to outpace you)

Apple will FINALLY be on top, not only with their concepts, but the actual Hardware that comes out, should not only be out for the Mac just about a month behind the pc, but it might actually be out AT the same time, or even before

I think the main problem is apple making their own hardware from scratch, rather than choosing someone else's chipsets and slapping them in a box with your logo on it. Hence, the reason why custom mades are more up to date than an OEM's system

When you have to do so much testing on a raw system, it takes time to do it, and means release cycles when you design the layout and everything. If apple was to choose an AMD CPU, with an AWARD BIOS on an NVIDIA chipset, and throw it in a box, apple would DEFINATELY be on top. But because of the design cycle, and needed to keep on priority of what they have to be Quality, they are going to be a bit behind. That doesn't mean apple is not on top, but they certain CAN be a bit ahead of their time (always has, right? )

Always, is a pretty strong word. And, "speed" depends on what we are measuring: raw hardware benchmarks vs. overall productivity

> haven't PC's always been ahead of Mac's in hardware performance?

I would say PC's have "almost" always been ahead of Mac's in terms of raw hardware speed, however I don't like all the compromises that come along with PC hardware:
- productivity time lost: to "configuring", by using DOS/Windows, often using poorly designed software
- higher numbers and quicker rate of equipment failure
- more risk of data loss
- inflexible and legacy designs
- high energy consumption
- large footprints
- little/no support, PC companies that are no longer in business

> Is this all a misperception on my part, or has Apple always been behind with hardware?

I think that Apple has had a lot of "firsts" in hardware, "speed" of hardware usually lags, but overall productivity and innovation has been a different story.

> And has it finally caught up with the Intel Macs?

I think raw hardware speed has caught up and is overtaking because at the moment, Apple has an "in" with the supplier Intel -- just as they had an "in" with the supplier for memory on the iPod. I think that the entire "traditional PC market" (including Macs) is falling behind in relation to smaller electronic devices: cel-phones, digital-cameras, mp3-players, pdas, game-consoles. I suspect that Apple makes more money from selling iPods and music downloads than they do from selling Macs.

One issue with new features, like DDR RAM, and even dual-channel DDR is that early on they are often "sticker upgrades", or upgrades that look good on the box but may not really help much. Early on, with the design of the memory controller for the P4, you could pump RAM speeds faster than the CPU could read it. Later, as the FSBs get faster, the difference is made up better. Many consider the design of the P4 memory controller a major design flaw as it had to e accessed through the Northbridge chip. AMD created a separate memory bus (Hyper Transport, IIRC) that helps alleviate this issue.

When Apple was living in PowerPC land it was inevitable that they would lag behind the leading edge of technology. Competition in the PC hardware world is cutthroat and bloody. New technologies and "bigger numbers" are the key to differentiating yourself from your competition in the computer world, so there's a *strong* motivation to develop and deploy them ASAP. And of course the PC is an "open platform" allowing companies to at least some extent to pick and choose the best bits from a slew of manufacturers all trying to outdo each other in technological bravado. You can see how impossible it would be in the long run for one company (Apple) which sells "unique" technology which is all either "homegrown" or supplied by a very short list of providers (who themselves had largely given up on competing in the PC industry) to stay on the bleeding edge, or anywhere close to it.

You can make a pretty good case that Apple was almost completely stagnent on the hardware front from the late nineties up until the introduction of the G5. Apple's CPUs, the G3 and G4, were all saddled with memory busses derived from the PowerPC 603, which basically puts them at about the Pentium Pro/II/III level of sophistication. Which was fine up until about 2001 or so, but between AMD and it's true DDR bus (note the even DDR-memory equipped G4 Macs are still only SDR on the CPU side of the memory controller) and Intel with its quad-pumped Pentium IV (Designed for Rambus, which flopped, but left Intel with something they could asyncronously bridge to DDR, DDR2, etc.) Apple's hardware was almost laughably obsolete by the time the neat-but-expensive-and-non-portable Hyperchannel G5 came out. Apple did *try* to keep up in other areas, tending to run only a little behind or almost even in places like peripheral busses. (Like USB, for instance, where the first iMac qualified as innovative. Although Apple was pretty late in introducing USB 2.0 support, so at best they come out even.) In video cards they were hamstrung by the slow development of their motherboard chipsets (They tended to run about two years behind the curve in AGP speeds) and the "attractiveness" of the platform. (It's a nontrivial amount of work to write OS X drivers and an Open Firmware BIOS, and the return isn't that great. Not many Mac users can even upgrade their video cards, so forget making your money selling upgrades.)

As for whether they can "keep up" today, well... let's be blunt. Apple's about selling pretty, designer computers. The Core Duo 2 iMac, for instance, is a *very* nice machine, but it's still based on the same motherboard chipset it was introduced with last year. Same video card, for that matter. (24 inch model excepted.) Any generic PC builder will be happy to pack a box with newer technology for you, and it *will* be faster. But will it be "nicer"? Well... Apple's betting the consumer will decide "no", and will be happy with Apple's model of product line upgrades, which makes every little bump in spec an "event" of some sort. Which for Apple it is, because for most of their machines it takes substantial engineering to cram new technology into their pretty plastic cases, while Dell just needs to screw a new motherboard into a box with plenty of room to spare.

Anyway. We'll see how well Apple's model works in the long run. As long as they make "packages" people want maybe the slightly stale specs won't matter. They have lost the alien allure of "PowerPC" to obfuscate lower benchmark results, though, so hopefully good looks alone will be able to carry them.

--Peace

A few quibbles with the above.

at least ONE of them is going to have the newest board features

Whether those new board features work as expected, or at all, with all the other grab-bag of parts in the box, or with an OS or OSes and drivers written by someone else, is another question. They don't call it the "bleeding edge" for nothing. Apple gets to test the whole box/OS/driver/software package.

As far as with PPC, there have been some limitations because only certain chipsets have been made, and there was not much invested in making constantly new ones. there was no need to, apple was the only ones requesting it.

If they'd been more flexible with IBM/Motorola, or adopted the mainstream IBM POWER line of CPUs, this arguably might not have been such a problem.

Poor Motorola, shuffled off to the embedded systems market - which is a couple of zeros bigger than the -entire- PC CPU industry. Boohoo.

but it might actually be out AT the same time, or even before

Well, we've already seen this with the Core CPUs. First to market. I understand one of the reasons Intel jumped at the chance to work with Apple was that they could deploy new tech with them which might not be so readily adopted by the legacy-hobbled PC industry.

I think the main problem is apple making their own hardware from scratch, rather than choosing someone else's chipsets and slapping them in a box with your logo on it.

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Intel designs (with Apple's input) and builds the entire motherboard and supplies is to Apple.

If apple was to choose an AMD CPU, with an AWARD BIOS on an NVIDIA chipset, and throw it in a box, apple would DEFINATELY be on top.

Maybe. At least by getting the whole logic from one mfr, they can be reasonably sure it's all been stress tested together before it leaves the factory door. And they get a huge price break. And they're not using BIOS at all.

> haven't PC's always been ahead of Mac's in hardware performance?
I would say PC's have "almost" always been ahead of Mac's in terms of raw hardware speed

There were several times when Apple was in front. Powerbook 3400, first 601 PPCs, first G4, Core spring to mind. At least for a few months, and depending whose benchmarks you believe.

I suspect that Apple makes more money from selling iPods and music downloads than they do from selling Macs.

I seem to recall that's a fact, at least profit wise.

only a little behind or almost even in places like peripheral busses. Like USB

With USB, Firewire, and Airport (WiFI) they were first to market, is my understanding. Firewire and WiFI they had a hand in developing.

so hopefully good looks alone will be able to carry them.

Come now. Looks, fast machines, brilliant peripheral device integration, and the best mainstream OS/UI on the planet.