PDA

View Full Version : First Intel Penryn Chips Due in 2007?




MacRumors
Aug 3, 2007, 12:06 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Despite original plans for a Q1 2008 launch (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/07/17/intels-upcoming-penryn-core-2-duo-processors/), Xbitlabs claims (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20070801221842.html) that Intel is anticipating an early launch for a least some of their next generation Penryn processors.
Initially it was projected that Intel’s new quad-core processors based on improved micro-architecture that is usually referred to as “Penryn” will be launched in the first quarter of 2008, but the company has changed its plans and now such chips will be available already in the fourth quarter of 2007, in time to compete against AMD Phenom processors based on the K10 micro-architecture.

Specifically, Xbitlabs believes that a 45nm Quad-Core processor topping out at 3.33GHz with a 1333MHz bus will be released in the 2007 timeframe, with the bulk of the Penryn chips still waiting until 2008.

Whether or not this will affect Apple's lineup remains to be seen. Apple currently uses Intel's Server class (Xeon) processors in the Mac Pro, while it uses Mobile class (Core 2 Duo) processors in the bulk of the remainder of its line (iMac, MacBook Pro, MacBook). The Mac mini continues to use the earlier Core Duo processor.

Apple does not yet use any of Intel's Desktop class processors (Core 2 Duo / Conroe) in any of their shipping models. Of note, Apple is widely expected to release new iMacs at next week's media event. The event will take place on August 7th, 2007 at 10AM Pacific. According to our Buyer's Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iMac) the iMac was last updated 331 days ago.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/03/first-intel-penryn-chips-due-in-2007/)



nebula
Aug 3, 2007, 12:11 PM
Certainly a new iMac will continue to use the mobile-class architecture instead of the desktop architecture.

... And Xeons - yes, they're server-class, but in the context of the Mac Pro they are workstation class. (Intel marketing speak)

verniesgarden
Aug 3, 2007, 12:11 PM
so when will apple desktops use desktop hardware?

nigletsyz
Aug 3, 2007, 12:12 PM
apple has been riding the gravy train on the iMacs for awhile now... time for something new already.

roland.g
Aug 3, 2007, 12:12 PM
It won't affect Apple as there won't be any updates to the new iMacs before MWSF and doubtful that a MBP revision will show up in early Nov. They tend not to update any later than that to solidify the lineup for the holiday season. This also makes no mention of Desktop vs. Mobile releases.

studiopix
Aug 3, 2007, 12:18 PM
Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.

EagerDragon
Aug 3, 2007, 12:19 PM
Ready for 45nm Quad Core MBP Summer 2008.

Spanky Deluxe
Aug 3, 2007, 12:21 PM
I'll eat my hat the day Apple uses desktop processors in any new iMacs (well for the next few years at least). It keeps costs low to use the same chipset and processor types across as many machines as possible, hence why iMacs and Mac Minis share most of their components with MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
This way they only need to deal with two product lines, mobile chip based machines and workstation chip based machines. The Mac Mini, MacBook, iMac and MacBook Pro are all essentially the same (apart from the new MBP) apart from different processors (which are all pin compatible with one another) and different graphics cards. This way Apple can also use some of the bucks they save by using only two hardware platforms to create sleeker and thinner consumer desktops (which require mobile components anyway because of thermal issues).
My guess is that the new iMacs will match the MBPs hardware wise with the exception of customisable GPUs in at least the top model. I'd put money on it.

pianoplayer1
Aug 3, 2007, 12:23 PM
I have an iMac G5 (iSight) now and I REALLY want an Intel.

I'd like these new iMacs to have a desktop conroe processor and an Nvidia 8800. :D

psingh01
Aug 3, 2007, 12:25 PM
Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.

Then there is the 3rd option of going with a Vista Workstation. One which I am increasingly looking towards because of the lack of upgrades or price drops on Macs....

williedigital
Aug 3, 2007, 12:33 PM
what's the real benefit of using a conroe over a merom? in the practical sense... Just the bus speed increase?

zero2dash
Aug 3, 2007, 12:35 PM
I'd like these new iMacs to have a desktop conroe processor and an Nvidia 8800. :D

I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen. :o

45nm Quad Extreme was already slated for Q4 2007...I think I'll still hold onto my $290 G0 Q6600 purchase plan though in a few months; QE will undoubtedly be a high dollar chip just like the rest of their Extreme processors.

johnee
Aug 3, 2007, 12:40 PM
I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen. :o



wo wo, what in the wide wide world of sports is goin' on around here....

there's a possible new design coming, so MAYBE there's a chance

(but i doubt it, the redesign will be 90% aesthetic, 10% engineering/functional, so you're probably still right).

yoman
Aug 3, 2007, 12:40 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C25 Safari/419.3)

I agree that is probably is unlikely that these processors will make into the new iMac. Its too late in the production process.

GFLPraxis
Aug 3, 2007, 12:42 PM
what's the real benefit of using a conroe over a merom? in the practical sense... Just the bus speed increase?

Faster at the same price.

A 2.4 GHz Conroe will run faster than a 2.4 GHz Merom due to the bus speed and probably cost a good $100 less or so.

I don't think seeing Conroe in the new iMac is out of the question. Apple has redesigned it...could it be for better cooling to support Conroe?

ImAlwaysRight
Aug 3, 2007, 12:45 PM
I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen. :o

How much hotter is the desktop Intel CPUs vs. the G5? I thought the G5 was a pretty hot chip, hench no Powerbook G5 released on a Tuesday (sorry to burst some of you people's bubbles). :D

But seriously, I have a 2.1GHz G5 almost 2 years old and the thing runs so quiet I cannot even hear it sitting at the keyboard. Is Conroe/Penryn that much hotter?

Also, since the new iMac design is suppose to be as thin or thinner than the current iMac, I imagine we will see the Merom chip in these babies. But it would suck if I buy Merom in August and Penryn gets put in the next update in Jan 08.

Penryn
Aug 3, 2007, 12:48 PM
Unlikely they'll use Conroes/Penryn, Meroms are a lot better suited to the type of machines Apple make ie the small thin iMac and then their mobile line.

I don't think Intel could've picked a better name for their new chips :rolleyes:
Though I would say that wouldn't I ;)

wizard
Aug 3, 2007, 12:48 PM
These processors do have potential for use in an iMac class machine. All you need to do is to choose the right clock speed and manage the resultant power. The other reality is that desktop processors give Apple more flexibility in support chips. I can see Apple going this way, the only issue being one of power management. Otherwise a 45 nm processor here could be a big win.

While the 45 nm size in and of itself is an advantage, a quad core iMac has its own attractiveness even on older generation hardware.

Dave

badcrumble
Aug 3, 2007, 12:54 PM
God, I know I'm going to end up replacing my 5-year-old 700 MHz G4 iMac next week, but I may want to replace the new one again if they get Penryn in them.

Eidorian
Aug 3, 2007, 01:00 PM
4 MHz away from 1337.

You can expect quad core iMacs from Penryn.

Multimedia
Aug 3, 2007, 01:01 PM
Core 2 Quad processors have been out long enough for Apple figure out how to keep them cool in a new iMac design. If Tuesday isn't launch day for Quad Core iMacs then I really don't understand Apple any more.4 MHz away from 1337. You can expect quad core iMacs from Penryn.Hey you stole my thunder!Certainly a new iMac will continue to use the mobile-class architecture instead of the desktop architecture.I see that as most uncertain.

Cloudsurfer
Aug 3, 2007, 01:03 PM
I don't think Apple will have C2Q's on Tuesday, but certainly down the road. RevB, perhaps?

Marx55
Aug 3, 2007, 01:07 PM
What about power consumption?

Could the Penryn be used for the new Mac mini in 2008 or so?

I want the performance of the Mac Pro and I would pay for it, but I use Mac mini because it is extremely quiet. My priorities are:

1. Quiet.
2. Performance.
3. Connectors (idealky eSATA II and FireWire 800).
5. Size.

Thanks.

suneohair
Aug 3, 2007, 01:16 PM
I'll eat my hat the day Apple uses desktop processors in any new iMacs (well for the next few years at least). It keeps costs low to use the same chipset and processor types across as many machines as possible, hence why iMacs and Mac Minis share most of their components with MacBooks and MacBook Pros.
This way they only need to deal with two product lines, mobile chip based machines and workstation chip based machines. The Mac Mini, MacBook, iMac and MacBook Pro are all essentially the same (apart from the new MBP) apart from different processors (which are all pin compatible with one another) and different graphics cards. This way Apple can also use some of the bucks they save by using only two hardware platforms to create sleeker and thinner consumer desktops (which require mobile components anyway because of thermal issues).
My guess is that the new iMacs will match the MBPs hardware wise with the exception of customisable GPUs in at least the top model. I'd put money on it.

I didn't check to see if anyone caught this already. But I want to point something out to you. While it may very keep chipset costs low the mobile CPUs are EXPENSIVE. Very EXPENSIVE. Granted I will be showcasing retail pricing, but it nonetheless demonstrates the difference.

3.0Ghz E6850 (recently released by Intel) costs $320 at newegg. With a known $266 price when buying 1000.

For around the same price sits the 2.0Ghz T7300 for $249 (lower price when buying 1000). What is Apple using these days, the 2.16 and 2.33 with a retail price of ~$430 and ~$645. So, for the same price and less you get faster chips.

One may say "but the heat!" Well, voltage wise the top end for the T7300 is 1.3v, and the E6850? 1.35v. TDP is 35w for the t7300 though. Very nice, the e6850 sits at 65w. But this isn't too different form the ancient G5 Apple was using in the previous iMac with similar design.

Price of the CPUs isn't the only reason however. Memory is cheaper when looking at cost vs. performance. The chipsets are in general cheaper as well and perform better.

There is no reason to cripple the iMac with mobile CPUs, memory, and chipsets. The cost would be virtually the same but performance would increase by at least 20%. They got around the G5, I am sure they can around the Conroes.

Will they do it? I don't know. But they can and they should. I won't hold my breath though.

ncbill
Aug 3, 2007, 01:28 PM
Didn't those G5 iMacs get hotter than blazes?

Wonder if that had anything to do with the rash of power supply failures on that model.

I think the other poster hit on it: much cheaper/easier for Apple to stick with the cooler mobile option across the consumer lineup, with only a couple of graphics options (apart from the integrated graphics)

They obviously aren't paying anything near list for the mobile CPUs. :)

Any rumor site going to post leaked specs before Tuesday?

One may say "but the heat!" Well, voltage wise the top end for the T7300 is 1.3v, and the E6850? 1.35v. TDP is 35w for the t7300 though. Very nice, the e6850 sits at 65w. But this isn't too different form the ancient G5 Apple was using in the previous iMac with similar design.

Shinjinho
Aug 3, 2007, 01:35 PM
I think these desktop processors are too hot for iMac. It's true, in past they used the 70-80W G5 processors, but they were not silent as actual 34W-Merom based iMacs.
They will discontinue 17" models, but new 20-24" are expected to be thinner so no room for use these desktop processors.

I think the TDP point (mantaining silence of actual models) for (desktop 8500-8600 gpu's based) iMacs is:

35-50W for 20" model.
50-80W for 24" model.
100W+ for (non-existent) 30" model.

So, the theoric best thing is: Merom (mobile 2-core 34W 1.8-2.4GHz) for 20" iMac, Conroe (desktop 2-core 65-75W 2.33-3.00GHz) for 24" and Kentsfield (desktop 4-core 95-120W 2.4-2.67GHz) for 30".
But I think they will use only one hardware platform for all (20 and 24") coming models. So Merom now, mobile Penryn in 2008.

There are howevere some 40-50W 4-core Penryn based Xeon processors coming in 2008, but these are expensive and require custom chipsets (no, there is no room for a FB-DIMM based iMac!!).

suneohair
Aug 3, 2007, 01:37 PM
Didn't those G5 iMacs get hotter than blazes?

Wonder if that had anything to do with the rash of power supply failures on that model.

I think the other poster hit on it: much cheaper/easier for Apple to stick with the cooler mobile option across the consumer lineup, with only a couple of graphics options (apart from the integrated graphics)

They obviously aren't paying anything near list for the mobile CPUs. :)

Any rumor site going to post leaked specs before Tuesday?

Regardless the Intels are cooler and continue to get cooler as the die shrinks to 45nm and beyond. Should Apple do it? I don't care. I don't buy iMacs for myself and never will. For most people they are fine though. I don't think heat and power should be a major concern with desktops though.

You say it is much cheaper, yet I just pointed out a number of cases where that isn't true. RAM, CPUs and chipsets are faster and cost less or about the same.

They are paying close to oem price (retail). Apple doesn't have the volume anywhere near that of Dell and others. Their prices aren't far off from 1000 chip purchases. They aren't getting those chips at 50% if that is what you are implying.

My point is that it is possible and it would iMacs stand out more in terms of performance and design. If you want to believe it comes out cheaper for Apple that is fine. But the iMac is being crippled with its mobile solutions.

Just of note to the above poster, the X3220 Kentsfield 2.4GHz would be a better choice for an iMac due to its single CPU only operation, making it cheaper than its Clovertown counterparts. Also, your scenarios would imply way more cost for Apple. 3 different chipsets on one model is murder.

danielwsmithee
Aug 3, 2007, 01:42 PM
There is no reason to cripple the iMac with mobile CPUs, memory, and chipsets. The cost would be virtually the same but performance would increase by at least 20%. They got around the G5, I am sure they can around the Conroes.
. The biggest complaint everyone had about the G5 iMac was the heat. You stick your hand above one of those and you can feel how hot the exhaust is. Leave it in a closed bedroom and that room is 5 deg hotter then the rest of the house.

The mobile quad-core processors are just around the corner, that is what will go into the iMac. I'm sure Apple gets much better prices then anything listed there. They are purchasing in the 100,000's instead of the 1000's.

flopticalcube
Aug 3, 2007, 01:46 PM
What about power consumption?

Could the Penryn be used for the new Mac mini in 2008 or so?

I want the performance of the Mac Pro and I would pay for it, but I use Mac mini because it is extremely quiet. My priorities are:

1. Quiet.
2. Performance.
3. Connectors (idealky eSATA II and FireWire 800).
5. Size.

Thanks.

The first and last of your requirements would make it difficult for desktop parts to be used. Heat requires fans and space to dissipate. Not likely to be used in a mini.

mashny
Aug 3, 2007, 01:48 PM
Anyone hear word on whether Apple will release a Penryn Mac Pro at MWSF? I was going to buy a new machine this summer, but figured I'd wait until Leopard comes out. Then I figured I may as well a few more months and wait to see what MWSF brings. I mean, by the time the convention rolls around, it will have been almost a year and a half since introducing the current Mac Pro.

I'm running an eight-year-old G4 400 system. It still runs great, but I do a lot of Photoshop work on large color files and the machine grinds to a crawl, often with a several-second delay for even the simplest things like cloning. When it comes to basic filters, it can take several minutes to finish the task, and so taxes the CPU that I can't do anything else while the filter is running.

Whatever Mac Pro is available in January, I'll most likely buy it, but the Penryn would be nice.

suneohair
Aug 3, 2007, 01:49 PM
The biggest complaint everyone had about the G5 iMac was the heat. You stick your hand above one of those and you can feel how hot the exhaust is. Leave it in a closed bedroom and that room is 5 deg hotter then the rest of the house.

The mobile quad-core processors are just around the corner, that is what will go into the iMac. I'm sure Apple gets much better prices then anything listed there. They are purchasing in the 100,000's instead of the 1000's.

All Intel CPUs (as far as I know) offer a speed step feature. Meaning voltage can vary just like mobile CPUs.

As far as price no one knows what Apple is paying. I still don't see the point in sicking mobile CPUs in them. Their flagship could be faster and designed better the competition. A Dell desktop would smoke an iMac at say the price of a 20" model. But meh.

I don't think they will change. I just think they could have more steam behind their flagship if they use desktop CPUs.

vendettabass
Aug 3, 2007, 01:54 PM
don't think the iMac's will 'go desktop' but if they do, I'd probably get one instead of a Mac Pro when I finish uni! Bring on that desktop RAM too!

skellener
Aug 3, 2007, 01:54 PM
Let's see a quad core 24" iMac! :)

tothecore
Aug 3, 2007, 02:03 PM
:eek: 3.33GHz..... That would make one heck of an iMac!!!

ncbill
Aug 3, 2007, 02:04 PM
That was the point.

It is cheaper and easier to stick with a single chipset for the consumer models for service and support (isn't that 7 years minimum by law?)

Your argument appears to be that Apple should stick the cutting edge into its models and pass the savings on to you.

Clearly, given Apple's history, that's never going to be the case.

iMac performance, based on mobile chips, is "good enough" for Apple.

Though I'm all for quad-core mobiles in next week's iMac lineup! :)

You could always build your own generic tower, running on desktop chips, and try to hack OS X to run on it.

3 different chipsets on one model is murder.

MacsRgr8
Aug 3, 2007, 02:04 PM
The whole world would welcome a redesign of the iMac to be able to use the Penryns.
Maybe even a non-mobile version of a good grfx card, and the iMac will finally be a superb desktop class über-multi purpose consumer Mac.

The iMac looks gr8 at the moment, but it was designed around the G5. I understand the fact Apple purposely not redesigning the iMac once the Intels were placed.
I just wonder if the G5-iMac-case was the reason for Apple having to put a laptop interior inside it. I hope so, because if it were the case, and now Apple can freely design a brand new iMac around a real desktop-class interior, we're in with a treat!

Of not: here we go again.... No desktop class Mac around... :rolleyes:

pcorajr
Aug 3, 2007, 02:05 PM
They are paying close to oem price (retail). Apple doesn't have the volume anywhere near that of Dell and others. Their prices aren't far off from 1000 chip purchases. They aren't getting those chips at 50% if that is what you are implying.



Please do not talk about things you otherwise would not know unless you worked for Apple or have a clear knowledge about manufacturing and logistics. The fact is that pricing on components is not only affected by the quantity purchased. This 1000 chip rule mainly applies to retailers like newegg and other computer part retailer.

Company's like Apple and Dell have contracts and other agreements that dictate what they pay per chip.

Eidorian
Aug 3, 2007, 02:08 PM
TDP discussion from many moons ago... (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=219310)

Heck you can even search for my Conroe/Merom debates from last year.

roland.g
Aug 3, 2007, 02:08 PM
We're not talking waiting game here. Yes I've been waiting since spring to get an iMac. Almost bought a 24" last year but my discount was taking too long so I got a 1.66 Mini refurb to hold me over. Been chomping at the bit for new iMacs and will order one next week. But here's the issue, if Apple doesn't go Quad-Core or Core 2 Duo Extreme 2.6/2.8, is the rev. A of the new iMac almost a waste considering the Penryn Jan-Mar update could be somewhat significant. I want a new iMac, but can still get by with my Mini another 6-8 months easily.

theheyes
Aug 3, 2007, 02:10 PM
Sigh.

Every day I edge closer and closer back to building my own because Apple doesn't offer the computer I want to buy.

I want my motherboards "desktop", my CPUs "fast" and I don't want style to sacrificially massacre performance anymore.

Nobody DARE point me in the direction of a Mac Pro! ;)

flopticalcube
Aug 3, 2007, 02:14 PM
Given the mediocre speed updates to Macs in general this year, I wouldn't expect much of a speed increase on Tuesday.

suneohair
Aug 3, 2007, 02:14 PM
That was the point.

It is cheaper and easier to stick with a single chipset for the consumer models for service and support (isn't that 7 years minimum by law?)

Your argument appears to be that Apple should stick the cutting edge into its models and pass the savings on to you.

Clearly, given Apple's history, that's never going to be the case.

iMac performance, based on mobile chips, is "good enough" for Apple.

Hey, I'm all for quad-core mobiles! :)

You could always build your own generic tower, running on desktop chips, and try to hack OS X to run on it.

I figured you one quote that one line and take it out of context. :rolleyes: The post was suggesting 3 different chipsets in the iMac line alone. Clearly that is foolish. However, sticking with one chipset be it mobile or desktop is cost effective.

My argument is that Apple provide desktops, not laptops with big screens, to compete in the desktop market. Their mobiles are clearly selling extremely well. Desktops, not quite so well. I am not going to turn this into the headless iMac thing, but I am sure you can see hints of that here. I don't care what they sell it at or whether or not they pass savings (you said "to you" but I don't buy iMacs). As I said, we aren't talking a lot cheaper in some ways, but for the same cost and a little more engineering Apple could have some very competitive desktops.

And please, don't insult me by suggesting I build a generic tower. As I said, I don't buy iMacs due to their limited ability and longevity for my needs. So I couldn't care less.

zero2dash
Aug 3, 2007, 02:22 PM
For the love of god can somebody please sticky a topic that says that 8800s will not work in a small enclosure, not now and not ever.

The cards are too long, double height, they require lots of power, and they run HOT.

Forget about the cpu heat for a minute.
45nm quad mobiles? Sure thing. It'll happen sooner than later. Intel recently started showing their upcoming quad mobile (65nm I believe), which will pave the way for the 45nm mobile quad [probably] Q2 2008.

8800 cards? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

You may.. MAY see 8600 get a mobile chipset. But no way on the 8800s.

An 8800 GTS will probably end up in a Mac Pro revision. (320 meg highly likely, with a 640 meg a good possibility)
8800 GTX is slim to none, 8800 Ultra is slimmer to none.

If you want an 8800 + quad cpu, go build a Windows box like I'm doing. ;)

metallicaisgood
Aug 3, 2007, 02:23 PM
Lets remember something here, top of the line desktop CPUs and GPUs have a lot of disadvantages for something like the iMac that is so compact.. Desktop parts run a lot hotter, they're a lot louder, they're bigger, and they take more power. Using desktop parts in the iMac is sort of pointless. A casual user isn't going to need the extra power anyways. And that's the market the iMac is pretty much aimed at. Casual computer users who don't really care about the best processor/graphics card..

Eidorian
Aug 3, 2007, 02:33 PM
For the love of god can somebody please sticky a topic that says that 8800s will not work in a small enclosure, not now and not ever.

The cards are too long, double height, they require lots of power, and they run HOT.

Forget about the cpu heat for a minute.
45nm quad mobiles? Sure thing. It'll happen sooner than later. Intel recently started showing their upcoming quad mobile (65nm I believe), which will pave the way for the 45nm mobile quad [probably] Q2 2008.

8800 cards? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

You may.. MAY see 8600 get a mobile chipset. But no way on the 8800s.

An 8800 GTS will probably end up in a Mac Pro revision. (320 meg highly likely, with a 640 meg a good possibility)
8800 GTX is slim to none, 8800 Ultra is slimmer to none.

If you want an 8800 + quad cpu, go build a Windows box like I'm doing. ;)What about the 8800M? :D

Shinjinho
Aug 3, 2007, 02:37 PM
What about the 8800M? :D

The 8600GTS performs better than a 8800M. Look at comparisions between new MacBookPro M8600GT and 24" iMac's 7600GT: the iMac's 7600 is faster in all tests... Desktop GPU's run better and have a lower price.

Eidorian
Aug 3, 2007, 02:41 PM
The 8600GTS performs better than a 8800M. Look at comparisions between new MacBookPro M8600GT and 24" iMac's 7600GT: the iMac's 7600 is faster in all tests... Desktop GPU's run better and have a lower price.Could you point me to the 8800M benchmarks?

Obviously, the desktop version would be a better value.

recordprod
Aug 3, 2007, 02:43 PM
I've only had my 24" iMac for a few weeks and love the way it looks. It works very well for me but if the new iMac is Quad Core I will upgrade in 6 months. I could go buy an 8 core Mac Pro and not even need to eat just beans for a month but I want a nice, compact and quiet machine that I can use for photography and light HD video editing. I just hope that if there is a new design that the Hard Drive is accessible so that it's more easilly replaced and that it can take more RAM etc.

ImAlwaysRight
Aug 3, 2007, 02:48 PM
Sigh.

Every day I edge closer and closer back to building my own because Apple doesn't offer the computer I want to buy.

I want my motherboards "desktop", my CPUs "fast" and I don't want style to sacrificially massacre performance anymore.

Nobody DARE point me in the direction of a Mac Pro! ;)
Phhsst. Who cares about speed? As long as I look good when using my Mac, that's all that makes me happy.

Signed,

Joe Consumer

:o

GFLPraxis
Aug 3, 2007, 02:54 PM
Your argument appears to be that Apple should stick the cutting edge into its models and pass the savings on to you.



Not necessarily. Don't reduce the price at all. Apple can buy Conroe chips that are $100 cheaper and are still a little faster than what is in the current machines. I'm happy because I get a faster machine at the same price, Apple's happy because they have a larger profit margin.

ncbill
Aug 3, 2007, 03:04 PM
I think we are talking about a LOT more engineering to deal with the extra heat.

Maybe even back to a "brick-on-a-rope" external power supply.

Obviously, Apple's decided one chipset for both mobile and desktop consumer models is their best option.

That decision was probably driven by both the heat issues with desktop CPUs and future support costs involved with multiple chipsets.

You're clearly in the Mac Pro demographic, which offers much better performance, for a significant price premium.

... but for the same cost and a little more engineering Apple could have some very competitive desktops.

danielwsmithee
Aug 3, 2007, 03:06 PM
They are paying close to oem price (retail). Apple doesn't have the volume anywhere near that of Dell and others. Their prices aren't far off from 1000 chip purchases. They aren't getting those chips at 50% if that is what you are implying. I disagree with this completely. Dell has about 4 times the volume as Apple over the entire market. However Dell is also shipping probably somewhere close to 12-15 different processor lines. Ranging from Xeon, Conroe, Merom, Yonah, Pentium D's still, Core 2 Quads etc. at every imaginable performance level. Apple on the other hand 80-90% of their business is likely in iMac, MacBook and MacBook Pros. Which all use the same processor line in speeds 1.83, 2, 2.2 and 2.4 Ghz (did I miss any?). Apple easily purchases as many or more of these Merom chips per quarter then Dell does.

tristan
Aug 3, 2007, 03:10 PM
Then there is the 3rd option of going with a Vista Workstation. One which I am increasingly looking towards because of the lack of upgrades or price drops on Macs....

Wait four days...

twoodcc
Aug 3, 2007, 03:13 PM
well now, this makes it possible for apple to get these processors early? (like the 8-core mac pro) and put them in an iMac. oh boy

Some_Big_Spoon
Aug 3, 2007, 03:19 PM
When the temperature generated by those chips goes way down? Apple desktops are really compact, and using a chip with lower power requirements makes that possible, in part.

so when will apple desktops use desktop hardware?

mathwhiz90601
Aug 3, 2007, 03:26 PM
what's the real benefit of using a conroe over a merom? in the practical sense... Just the bus speed increase?

Desktops chips are cheaper than laptop chips.

morespce54
Aug 3, 2007, 03:29 PM
...A casual user isn't going to need the extra power anyways. And that's the market the iMac is pretty much aimed at. Casual computer users who don't really care about the best processor/graphics card..

Actually, if you don't want to pay $3K for a desktop and don't need a laptop, the iMac is pretty much your only option...

...and forget about the mini...

zero2dash
Aug 3, 2007, 03:29 PM
What about the 8800M? :D

:eek:
Holy...

Guess they got on the 'shrink the 8800' job quicker than I thought they would.

After seeing your post and googling 8800m...

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=40032

Nvidia prepares 8800 for notebooks

Computex 007 Meet NB8E, new G80 chip in 22W+ envelope

By Theo Valich in Old Taipei: Sunday 03 June 2007, 19:03
WHILE THE ORIGINAL G80 chip was a monster and consumed over 100 watts of power, Nvidia decided to mark this summer with its NB8E chip, a re-spin of the original G80 that will address the enthusiast notebook segment.

In order to fit the power envelope, lots of changes have been made, from the way the chip is manufactured to the functional units themselves. Even though these cuts will decrease 3D performance when compared to the desktop, this will be a most powerful chip for notebook market. Currently in roadmaps we have seen somewhere between Croatia and Taiwan, NB8E should come to market as NB8E-GTX, NB8E-GT and NB8E-SE. These codenames will probably end as GeForce 8800M GTX, 8800M GT and 8800M GS.

For the end, here's a teaser. For dual-PCB 7950GX2, Nvidia used G71M, mobile version of its ultra-successful G71 (7900) chip. Guess what becomes a possibility if the G80 is packed in 22W+? µ

Ok. So I guess 8800 is feasible in the iMac...but yes, it would be one of the 8800M flavors. :o

Eidorian
Aug 3, 2007, 03:31 PM
:eek:
Holy...

Guess they got on the 'shrink the 8800' job quicker than I thought they would.

After seeing your post and googling 8800m...

http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=40032



Ok. So I guess 8800 is feasible in the iMac...but yes, it would be one of the 8800M flavors. :oI believe 22w TDP was being tossed around as well.

mathwhiz90601
Aug 3, 2007, 04:00 PM
why not a 45nm imac?

Whoa, that's skinny!

mathwhiz90601
Aug 3, 2007, 04:05 PM
What about power consumption?

Could the Penryn be used for the new Mac mini in 2008 or so?

I want the performance of the Mac Pro and I would pay for it, but I use Mac mini because it is extremely quiet. My priorities are:

1. Quiet.
2. Performance.
3. Connectors (idealky eSATA II and FireWire 800).
5. Size.

Thanks.

What's #4?

Anyway, I bet we're seeing a mini update Tuesday.

Oh, and I don't mind about size or quietness. I like the hum a computer gives off when running, and I should have enough space for anything non-tower and non-CRT.

mathwhiz90601
Aug 3, 2007, 04:15 PM
Given the mediocre speed updates to Macs in general this year, I wouldn't expect much of a speed increase on Tuesday.

Mediocre speed updates in macs this year... lets see, SR in MB and MBP, 8-core option in MP, and... and... that's it.

We're going to see GREAT speed increases. They've held back so they can develop that **** iPhone.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 3, 2007, 04:18 PM
Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.

I agree completley. Recenty I needed to buy a new computer for my office at work and I needed something with dual monitors. The only real option was the Mac Pro and i didnt need a $2500 computer. i settled for a $800 Dell that works great, but I would have prefered an Apple that I could Dual Boot

mahashel
Aug 3, 2007, 04:20 PM
I remain a vocal proponent for a true Apple desktop system.
However, adding the mobile nVidia G80 chip as a BTO option for the iMac will certainly be a step in the right direction. Especially as DirectX 10 games start trickling out, the systems with BootCamped Vista will be nice with that G80. (assuming the mobile G80 has enough dedicated RAM)

ChrisA
Aug 3, 2007, 04:22 PM
....A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro.....

I'm waiting until Leopard comes out then if Apple still does offer to sell a midrange desktop I'm going with Max OS X on generic PC hardware.

Apple used to sell a G4 PowerMac for about $1,500. They need something in that same shape, size and price. It's really odd that they don't because this is the "normal" kind of computer most people buy.

Maybe some one can make some money buy putting together a PC that can run the retail leopard OS.

mathwhiz90601
Aug 3, 2007, 04:35 PM
Lets remember something here, top of the line desktop CPUs and GPUs have a lot of disadvantages for something like the iMac that is so compact.. Desktop parts run a lot hotter, they're a lot louder, they're bigger, and they take more power. Using desktop parts in the iMac is sort of pointless. A casual user isn't going to need the extra power anyways. And that's the market the iMac is pretty much aimed at. Casual computer users who don't really care about the best processor/graphics card..

But they do care about the price drop. Put in a desktop processor at the same performance of a laptop processor, and the cost of the CPU goes down, what, like $2-300?

Schtumple
Aug 3, 2007, 04:39 PM
Maybe some one can make some money buy putting together a PC that can run the retail leopard OS.

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

InLikeALion
Aug 3, 2007, 05:07 PM
I'm waiting until Leopard comes out then if Apple still does offer to sell a midrange desktop I'm going with Max OS X on generic PC hardware.

Apple used to sell a G4 PowerMac for about $1,500. They need something in that same shape, size and price. It's really odd that they don't because this is the "normal" kind of computer most people buy.

Maybe some one can make some money buy putting together a PC that can run the retail leopard OS.

I hate it when people say this on apple boards. First, its not legal, so why go on about it. But secondly, and more importantly, OS X is going to work well on generic PCs. The reason you like your Mac experience is because its ease of use and consistency. Neither of these will be existent in an un-supported, highly hacked/patched OS X on a beige box. Just look to how poorly OS X has handled the new Nvidia GPUs that didn't have very good drivers. Now imagine that it is trying to work on all foreign hardware. I don't believe that would offer anything resembling the mac experience. Might as well skin windows xp to look like it if thats what you want.

InLikeALion
Aug 3, 2007, 05:19 PM
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

OK, i realize this front has been heavily worked on over the last few years, with the intel transition speeding things along quite a bit. But I still feel like tech geeks willing to hack systems and be a part of a community hacking and writing their own drivers is far cry from what the "we want Apple to license to Dell" camp is clamoring for. And even for those who venture into this, legalities aside, are you going to use these machines for a living? Are you willing to risk business flow on hacked machines?

I'm just afraid that Apple trying to work with diy system builders would corrode the OS... water it down. There is something to be said for controlling the software and the hardware it will run on.

All that to say, I'm not against there being more approved gpu upgrades, or the headless macintosh. In fact, i would have purchased one over my Powermac G5 if one were available 3 years ago. If i weren't in need of a mobile as my next machine, i would be wishing for one now.

reallynotnick
Aug 3, 2007, 05:34 PM
I really want a Mac Mini tower, something fast but cheap. Then just upgrade the iMac with whatever mobile stuff you want. Not that complicated.

I fear I am just going to have to switch to linux so I can build the machine I want.

shawmanus
Aug 3, 2007, 05:37 PM
Even the G0 revision of Q6600 has a tdp of 95w. i cant see apple using it in iMac. They need to intro a special headless mac to use desktop cpus.after all q6600 is only $266 and apple can make a quad core system for under $1000.

Intel is releasing harpertown (45nm server) with 3ghz quad core at 80w. So intel could potentially reduce tdp in desktop quad core to 80w(non extreme edition). Also intel has promised to release a extreme edition quad core mobile sometime in 2008. That should cost at least $851 as x7800.. At that point we should see quad core in iMac/macbook pro.

Zwhaler
Aug 3, 2007, 05:44 PM
This doesn't really mean anything in terms of Apples plan... unless of corse they plan to use the high end chip in the next Mac Pro (which I highly doubt).

gnasher729
Aug 3, 2007, 06:00 PM
I agree completley. Recenty I needed to buy a new computer for my office at work and I needed something with dual monitors. The only real option was the Mac Pro and i didnt need a $2500 computer. i settled for a $800 Dell that works great, but I would have prefered an Apple that I could Dual Boot

iMac with dual monitors works absolutely fine for me.

ChrisA
Aug 3, 2007, 06:05 PM
TDP is 35w for the t7300 though. Very nice, the e6850 sits at 65w.

You can't just look at the total wattage. The mobile chips have some power-save modes that save power. (I think they can shut down part of the cache and one CPU core .) Look at the total power used per month rather then the max amount it can draw.

I think the real reason Apple uses the mobile chips is to streamline their product line. The iMac is really just a MBP with a big screen and disk and no battery. This saves them some engineering cost as they get to re-use some of their work. iMac and MBP may not share a PCB layout but they might share common hardware schematic and software drivers. It may also boost the number of the same type chips Apple buys and get them a steeper quantity discount from Apple's suppliers.

gnasher729
Aug 3, 2007, 06:05 PM
Even the G0 revision of Q6600 has a tdp of 95w. i cant see apple using it in iMac. They need to intro a special headless mac to use desktop cpus.after all q6600 is only $266 and apple can make a quad core system for under $1000.

Intel is releasing harpertown (45nm server) with 3ghz quad core at 80w. So intel could potentially reduce tdp in desktop quad core to 80w(non extreme edition). Also intel has promised to release a extreme edition quad core mobile sometime in 2008. That should cost at least $851 as x7800.. At that point we should see quad core in iMac/macbook pro.

There is no need for 4 x 3.0GHz. If you use 4 x 2.0GHz or maybe a bit more, then power consumption goes down dramatically (power is proportional to frequency squared, so less than half the power), price goes down as well. To keep power consumption and heat down, Apple could use a slightly faster chip, run at say 2.66GHz if only two cores are active, and slow down to 2.00 GHz with four cores. Good speed for software that is not multi-core optimised, better speed for multi-core optimised software, and heat + fan noise would still be low.

Multimedia
Aug 3, 2007, 06:12 PM
iMac with dual monitors works absolutely fine for me.But if that external monitor port was Dual-Link DVI and you could drive a 30" external 2560 x 1600, that would be a much better solution than the current cap of 1920 x 1200.

ChrisA
Aug 3, 2007, 06:17 PM
I fear I am just going to have to switch to linux so I can build the machine I want.

With no "mainstream" computer to sell that's what Apple is forcing us to do. I have a G4 Powermac and two Linux machines one in the office and one at home. The home Linux machine is a P4 running 2.2Ghz and it absolutly runs circles around the G4. Yes even running the exact same software. At work I have a dual xeon machine here and it's a lot like a Mac Pro. I'll run Leopard inside a VM on these Linux machines unless Apple offers a better option. The G4 is getting old.

ChrisA
Aug 3, 2007, 06:30 PM
Dell has about 4 times the volume as Apple over the entire market. However Dell is also shipping probably somewhere close to 12-15 different processor lines.

Dell does not write any of the software that deals with all those different processor lines. Dell is basically just a marketing and shipping company. Everything they sell is made by some one else.

Where Apple saves money is in engineering costs. Remember how Apple did the switch to Intel. Apple designed the notebooks and the iMacs and let Intel design the Mac Pro. Apple saved on engineering time and cost by using basically only one design for the entire notebook and desktop line.

It takes a long time for an engineer to come up to speed on a new part. You have to pay him while he reads the specs and does some experiments in the lab and visits the manufacturer or goes to a training class. Have you ever seen the amount of technical docs you have to read before you can write, say, a driver for an Ethernet controller? Apple was smart to not use to many different kinds of hardware.

But still they could build a headless imac using the same mobile parts or a "one half Mac Pro" with one processor chip in a smaller box.

Sam0r
Aug 3, 2007, 06:41 PM
Not sure if this has already been said, but from my understanding, the main reason they're using mobile processors in the iMac and Mac Mini is because the Core Duo only came out in mobile form.

Apple then saved money by just putting in the new Core 2 Duo mobile processors when they became available instead of redesigning the board to accomodate the desktop version.

I'm 99% certain a redesign of the iMac and Mac Mini will bring us Socket 775 processors.

Just my 2c though.

jcrowe
Aug 3, 2007, 07:15 PM
I'd also like to see them put those components into an enclosure the size of the iMac and have it run for more than 2 minutes without overheating.

Not gonna happen. :o

I might suggest you go out to Intel's website and read the datasheets on their processors, all of them including the ones that currently appear in XServes. The challenge for Apple putting this type of processor in a future iMac is not technical...that's quite doable. The real question is what valid requirement other than bragging rights does this type of power address? I'm not denying that those of us who do amateur video could not use such power, and gamers might legitimately make use of the power, but perhaps the iMac is not the best choice of vehicle. Apple will balance price point issues with potential sales in a class of machine and make a decision based on facts, not speculation. In any case, check out the processor data sheets...they are pretty interesting.

imacdaddy
Aug 3, 2007, 07:21 PM
The biggest complaint everyone had about the G5 iMac was the heat. You stick your hand above one of those and you can feel how hot the exhaust is. Leave it in a closed bedroom and that room is 5 deg hotter then the rest of the house.

My G5 iMac is running at 67 degrees now. :eek:

flopticalcube
Aug 3, 2007, 08:32 PM
Mediocre speed updates in macs this year... lets see, SR in MB and MBP, 8-core option in MP, and... and... that's it.


Santa Rosa has not made it to the MacBooks yet. In the MBPs it yielded very little speed improvements (around 10% IIRC). The octo-core MP are great but not an update. They are a whole new (higher priced) option. The current MPs didn't even drop in price when the octo-core was introduced. So, yeah, so far speed increases have been mediocre at best.


We're going to see GREAT speed increases. They've held back so they can develop that **** iPhone.

I sure hope so but no one knows for sure.

AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 3, 2007, 10:06 PM
iMac with dual monitors works absolutely fine for me.

BUt if the monitors arent at exactly the same height and size it can get disorienting moving the mouse back and forth between screens.

lukechip
Aug 3, 2007, 10:20 PM
If Tuesday is iMac day (which I believe it is), then almost anything is possible. A complete redesign is exactly that - you go back to a blank sheet of paper, specify the requirements, and then design something that delivers on those requirements. So if Apple decided that the new iMacs would run on desktop CPUs, then the design would accomodate that.

Of course, if all they've done is polish up the current design, then things are more limited.

I'm hopeful for a major overhaul, but I'm holding out until Penryn regardless of what happens on Tuesday.

I just can't see Apple running an event, only to say "look at our great new computer. It runs virtually no faster than what we were selling yesterday, but doesn't it look great !!!". Then again, the Jobs reality distortion field might get engaged and the media will just lap it up.....

kenaustus
Aug 3, 2007, 11:09 PM
I think that if you look at the new form of the iMac (if it is introduced) you'll be able to see where it is going for the next 18 - 24 months.

When I first saw a PowerMac G5 (with a clear side to show the inside) in a store I felt that there was a lot of room to grow and we would be seeing that box for a long time.

The Apple introduced a slight revision of the G5 iMac a few months before the Intel version was introduced. That G5 iMac was probably designed for the Intel, with an early introduction to ease the production line with the switch to Intel.

So Apple shows off the new iMac form - look at it and see if you believe it will easily support a quad, more desktop parts, etc. It'll give you a good picture of where Apple is going with it.

ctango
Aug 3, 2007, 11:15 PM
I agree that is probably is unlikely that these processors will make into the new iMac. Its too late in the production process.


Unless Intel already had plans with Apple to release these chips on next Tuesday. A very short notice for a media event. An interesting time for releasing an "ahead of schedule" release by Intel.

It does make some sense that these chips could be rolling out on Tuesday. At least there is probably cause to believe so.

oduinnin
Aug 3, 2007, 11:39 PM
I base this on the Apple online store. Currently, only the 15" MBP shows a wait of 7 - 10 Days for base unit (no build to order options). All other computers including iMacs say they will ship in 24hrs. Based on prior updates, this seems to be a fair indicator.

I'm personally waiting for a new iMac after having been a tower user for the last 6 years. It would be really nice to get rid of the clutter. Current iMacs are fast enough for what I do, photo & home video editing, project management, tracking finances, entertainment.

blasius
Aug 4, 2007, 12:39 AM
the apple store here in cleveland just closed until august 11th for remodeling... would they really introduce the new imac with one of there stores being closed
p.s the store was basically new and gorgeous before

Bye Bye Baby
Aug 4, 2007, 01:34 AM
Apple really needs to address this important desktop class of processors in their lineup. A lot of people (including myself) have to decide between an all-in-one iMac or a full blown Xeon based MacPro. Something small, thin, competitively priced and with a choice of monitor size. Something that can kick butt in gaming as well as easily handle the daily 2D/3D design work.

I just wonder how many of us need the same kind computer- we should start a poll!!!

I really need the same thing! I don't want the xeon and the imac isn't enough. Come on Apple do something instead of money grubbing over the iphone!

LoganT
Aug 4, 2007, 01:40 AM
I base this on the Apple online store. Currently, only the 15" MBP shows a wait of 7 - 10 Days for base unit (no build to order options). All other computers including iMacs say they will ship in 24hrs. Based on prior updates, this seems to be a fair indicator.

I'm personally waiting for a new iMac after having been a tower user for the last 6 years. It would be really nice to get rid of the clutter. Current iMacs are fast enough for what I do, photo & home video editing, project management, tracking finances, entertainment.

They just updated the Macbook Pro's so I doubt that.

masse
Aug 4, 2007, 01:46 AM
August 11th you mean....


After reading every post here I thought I was posting in an imac rumor thread.

I'm personally waiting for Quadcore Penryn in a MBP. PB G4 until then. It's slow as hell but I make due.

blasius
Aug 4, 2007, 01:55 AM
yea i meant august 11... sorry it's alittle late ha

mavherzog
Aug 4, 2007, 02:23 AM
But if that external monitor port was Dual-Link DVI and you could drive a 30" external 2560 x 1600, that would be a much better solution than the current cap of 1920 x 1200.
And that would be AWESOME. (the existence of a dual-link DVI port on the iMac's, that is)

Right now, I want a desktop machine that can drive at least one 30" display. My only options are the MBP's or a MacPro (which is overkill). Being able to have a 24" iMac and span to a 30" would be most excellent.

mjonson
Aug 4, 2007, 02:27 AM
I base this on the Apple online store. Currently, only the 15" MBP shows a wait of 7 - 10 Days for base unit (no build to order options). All other computers including iMacs say they will ship in 24hrs. Based on prior updates, this seems to be a fair indicator.

I'm personally waiting for a new iMac after having been a tower user for the last 6 years. It would be really nice to get rid of the clutter. Current iMacs are fast enough for what I do, photo & home video editing, project management, tracking finances, entertainment.


I think the wait is due to shortage of LED ? could be wrong but theres almost a 0% chance of a MBP update. It's an iMac/mini event

LoganT
Aug 4, 2007, 02:51 AM
I just want to be able to play a PS3 or an Xbox 360 on the iMac in High Definition.

DVK916
Aug 4, 2007, 03:27 AM
FYI people Penryn is also a mobile processor. There will be a 3+ GHZ 1066MT/S FSB Mobile Penryn in Q2 of 08 using the new Montevina Platform. So apple might just move to this when it comes time to upgrade. Likely the Mac Mini will move to Merom, when apple shifts all of its processors to Penryn.

Apple won't adopt the Q1 Penryns as those will still have an 800MT/s FSB, why adopt those when better things will be out a quarter later.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 07:09 AM
Apple won't adopt the Q1 Penryns as those will still have an 800MT/s FSB, why adopt those when better things will be out a quarter later.

Because the Penryns will drop onto the existing Santa Rosa motherboards without a problem, and because HP/Dell/Lenovo/Acer/... will have the 3GHz laptops from day 1?

Intel will always have something better coming down the pipe, Apple will look foolish if they continually fall behind because they're waiting for something better.

gnasher729
Aug 4, 2007, 07:11 AM
BUt if the monitors arent at exactly the same height and size it can get disorienting moving the mouse back and forth between screens.

Yes, one of the monitors uses a considerable number of books to get it to exactly the right height :D And I would have suggested to Apple for some time to offer an external monitor in exactly the same size and shape as the iMacs.

k2k koos
Aug 4, 2007, 07:35 AM
As much as I loved the power PC architecture, I am quite happy that Apple made the switch and runs on Intel now. It has done the Mac platform many favors.
As far as the widely speculated next gen iMac release next Tuesday, I don't expect them to have this new CPU yet, but if Apple play their cards right (and I believe they will have done, since they had such an exclusive insight in Intel's roadmap) the new iMac may well be very easily upgraded to the new CPU's once they are available. If this is going to be user upgradable is doubtful though, Apple would rather sell a new machine, than users picking up CPU's at a 3rd party.

In any case, I'm in the market for a new iMac, or a next rev. Mac Mini (perhaps the Mini will be the famous 'one more thing' item )

maccompaq
Aug 4, 2007, 08:31 AM
I just wonder how many of us need the same kind computer- we should start a poll!!!

I really need the same thing! I don't want the xeon and the imac isn't enough. Come on Apple do something instead of money grubbing over the iphone!

As soon as Apple produces a power tower between the iMac and MacPro, I will buy it. I do not care for the slim iMac that retains too much heat that reduces life of components.

brianus
Aug 4, 2007, 08:58 AM
Because the Penryns will drop onto the existing Santa Rosa motherboards without a problem, and because HP/Dell/Lenovo/Acer/... will have the 3GHz laptops from day 1?

So you're basing this prediction on what every company besides Apple would do?

Intel will always have something better coming down the pipe, Apple will look foolish if they continually fall behind because they're waiting for something better.

That hasn't stopped them from doing precisely that so far with their current product lines. Come on dude! And all you 'mini-tower' types: examine Apple's history, realize it's blindingly obvious they're never going to behave like a 'normal' computer company, and either accept it or move on.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 09:37 AM
That hasn't stopped them from doing precisely that so far with their current product lines. Come on dude! And all you 'mini-tower' types: examine Apple's history, realize it's blindingly obvious they're never going to behave like a 'normal' computer company, and either accept it or move on.

If you're happy paying premium prices for older technology - fine with me.

guzhogi
Aug 4, 2007, 09:41 AM
BUt if the monitors arent at exactly the same height and size it can get disorienting moving the mouse back and forth between screens.

While you CAN go into System Prefs and change the arrangements of the 2 displays so the mouse stays @ the same position vertically when going in between the two monitors, you're right. It can be very disorienting.

I kinda wish Apple does put the desktop processor & dual-link DVI into the iMac & Mac Mini for that added oomph. I remember hearing rumors that Apple's discontinuing the Mac Mini. I sure hope not. It's a great product. It's great for the people who just surf the web, check e-mail & word process. Maybe combine that w/ an :apple:TV and add DVR/TiVo support, that would be a kick ass product! Another kick ass product, as many of you have stated, is a mid-tower. Powerful enough to get some serious stuff done, but not quite Mac Pro. Maybe 2 optical bays, 2 hard drives & 1 desktop proc. Maybe SLI/Crossfire support. The Mac Pro could probably add a few more optical bays and definitely SLI/Crossfire mode. But from what I've seen, fat chance. Apple would probably say that it either isn't doing well enough or doing too well and eating sales from the other products.

Another thing I'd love to do, but I know won't happen, is be able to build my own computer and run the full Mac OS on it w/o any hacks. I know, some of you will flame me saying "That'll never happen!" and whatever. But a guy can dream. Too bad I'm terrible at programming or else I'd make my own OS.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 11:04 AM
what's the real benefit of using a conroe over a merom? in the practical sense... Just the bus speed increase?

Practical benefit?

minitower - $1050 for 3 GiB RAM (up to 8GiB), 2.4 GHz quad core, 1066 MHz bus, 400GB, 16x DL lightscribe superdrive, 7.1 audio with digital audio in/out, 19" LCD, integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgrade, two open x1 PCIe slots, open 3.5" disk bay, open 5.25" DVD/disk bay, 2yr warranty ...

iMac - $1500 for 1 GiB RAM (up to 3GiB), 2.16 GHz dual core, 667 MHz bus, 250 GB, 8x DL superdrive, 20" LCD, ATI X1600 (not upgradeable), no expansion, 1yr warranty

This is more of a "why MiniTower instead of all-in-one" than a "why Conroe instead of Merom" answer....

BTW, if you'd stick an NTSC/ATSC tuner card in one of the empty PCIe slots, you'd have a Quad Kentsfield Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre-PC!

(full specs for HP A6152N) (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01083552&lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&product=3445434&lang=en) (link to full ad) (http://newspaperads.mercurynews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?adid=4857166&advid=32664&type=)

Multimedia
Aug 4, 2007, 11:30 AM
Practical benefit?

minitower - $1050 for 3 GiB RAM, 2.4 GHz quad core, 1066 MHz bus, 400GB, 16x DL lightscribe superdrive, 19" LCD, integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgrade, two open PCIe slots, open 3.5" disk bay, open 5.25" DVD/disk bay, 2yr warranty ...

iMac - $1500 for 1 GiB RAM, 2.16 GHz dual core, 667 MHz bus, 250 GB, 8x DL superdrive, 20" LCD, ATI X1600 (not upgradeable), no expansion, 1yr warranty

This is more of a "why MiniTower instead of all-in-one" than a "why Conroe instead of Merom" answer....

(full specs for HP A6152N) (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01083552&lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&product=3445434&lang=en) (link to full ad) (http://newspaperads.mercurynews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?adid=4857166&advid=32664&type=)This is exactly what I meant when I said if the new iMacs aren't Core 2 Quad I just don't understand Apple any more. Fact is they are cheating their customers out of a lot more power they could deliver for less money than what they offer now and it is a mystery to me why other than pure corporate GREED.

I'm seriously tempted to run over there and pick one of those up today.

By the time you lose the 1440 x 900 monitor which lists for $230 on eBay it's $770 for almost 10GHz of power. Screw it, I'm gonna go get one. JK. FYI as of 10am Campbell has 5 and San Jose has 10 left.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 11:46 AM
I'm seriously tempted to run over there and pick one of those up today.

Maybe I'll see you in line, I'm going to send one to my sister.


Now all we have to do is wait for the fanbois to respond with the usual...

"but that HP is *fugly*..."

By the way, my argument is to add a mini-tower to the lineup - not to drop the iMac all-in-one. Clearly there would be price/performance advantages to moving the iMac to the Conroe line of processors, but if people^H^H^H^H^H Jobs would rather have super-thin than higher performance at a lower price....

scrambledwonder
Aug 4, 2007, 12:50 PM
Whatever. I'm waiting until the next one.

maccompaq
Aug 4, 2007, 01:59 PM
Maybe I'll see you in line, I'm going to send one to my sister.


Now all we have to do is wait for the fanbois to respond with the usual...

"but that HP is *fugly*..."

By the way, my argument is to add a mini-tower to the lineup - not to drop the iMac all-in-one. Clearly there would be price/performance advantages to moving the iMac to the Conroe line of processors, but if people^H^H^H^H^H Jobs would rather have super-thin than higher performance at a lower price....

Vista, to my knowledge, has not been optimized for multiple processors like the Mac. Why spend $999 for a HP when you can get by with half the processors for half the price at HP?

I want a Mac tower placed in the lineup between Mac Mini and iMac. A Core2 will be alright. As long as I can get at the inards, I don't care what it looks like: Mac Cube, Power Mac G4, HP box, etc.

I already have a Compaq with an Athlon 64 at 2.41 Ghz. Now I want a Mac of like power at a reasonable price.

MacSA
Aug 4, 2007, 02:15 PM
Practical benefit?

minitower - $1050 for 3 GiB RAM (up to 8GiB), 2.4 GHz quad core, 1066 MHz bus, 400GB, 16x DL lightscribe superdrive, 7.1 audio with digital audio in/out, 19" LCD, integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgrade, two open x1 PCIe slots, open 3.5" disk bay, open 5.25" DVD/disk bay, 2yr warranty ...

iMac - $1500 for 1 GiB RAM (up to 3GiB), 2.16 GHz dual core, 667 MHz bus, 250 GB, 8x DL superdrive, 20" LCD, ATI X1600 (not upgradeable), no expansion, 1yr warranty

This is more of a "why MiniTower instead of all-in-one" than a "why Conroe instead of Merom" answer....

BTW, if you'd stick an NTSC/ATSC tuner card in one of the empty PCIe slots, you'd have a Quad Kentsfield Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre-PC!

(full specs for HP A6152N) (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01083552&lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&product=3445434&lang=en) (link to full ad) (http://newspaperads.mercurynews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?adid=4857166&advid=32664&type=)

And there in plain sight is the reason why Apple has just 2-3% market share.

Rustus Maximus
Aug 4, 2007, 05:51 PM
And there in plain sight is the reason why Apple has just 2-3% market share.

Actually they have around a 6% share now.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 09:36 PM
Actually they have around a 6% share now.

Mac Market Share Declines (http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/18/mac.market.share.declines/)

"Apple's Macintosh share of the (worldwide) PC market fell to 2.4 percent during the December quarter based on preliminary data from IDC,"

The most recent MR story about market share reports from IDC didn't break Apple out - Apple was in the "others" category below Acer at 4.something%...

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 09:44 PM
Maybe I'll see you in line, I'm going to send one to my sister...

Didn't see you in line - got one at the San Jose (Brokaw) store.

By the way, the normal price for the 2.4 GHz quad-core 3 GiB Mini-Tower at Fry's is $929.99!

The sale deal amounted to bundling the 19" wide-screen LCD for only $70 more than the system price.

The Brokaw store has 9 more, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto are out, the Campbell store has 2. If you call ahead and ask about stock - tell them to "split the PLU". It's a Fry's bundle, and the PLU in the ad will show up as stock=0. If they "split" it, they'll see the counts for the system and for the monitor.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 09:55 PM
Vista, to my knowledge, has not been optimized for multiple processors like the Mac.

Your knowledge is missing.

Vista is based on the Windows 2003 Server codebase that supports up to 64 CPU SMP machines (64 cores).

The XP and Vista systems are fine with quad and octo-core machines, unlike OSX 10.4.

Whether an individual application on any OS is multi-threaded to the point that it can scale beyond 2 to 4 to 8 or more cores is a completely separate question from whether the OS can support multiple cores.

I run an octo-core Vista x64 system with 16 GiB of RAM for my office desktop, and I often have 6 to 12 busy tasks or virtual machines running. To spread FUD based on ignorance about Windows is not the best thing to do when people are reading who can call you on it.


Why spend $999 for a HP when you can get by with half the processors for half the price at HP?

Good quip, but unfortunately based on pure fallacy.

Multimedia
Aug 4, 2007, 09:56 PM
Didn't see you in line - got one at the San Jose (Brokaw) store.

By the way, the normal price for the 2.4 GHz quad-core 3 GiB Mini-Tower at Fry's is $929.99!

The sale deal amounted to bundling the 19" wide-screen LCD for only $70 more than the system price.

The Brokaw store has 9 more, Sunnyvale and Palo Alto are out, the Campbell store has 2. If you call ahead and ask about stock - tell them to "split the PLU". It's a Fry's bundle, and the PLU in the ad will show up as stock=0. If they "split" it, they'll see the counts for the system and for the monitor.I went to Campbell and had everything loaded up in my cart for $1600 including an NVIDEA 8600 GTS for $150 & warranties. Then I chickened out and left the store with nothing. Couldn't do it Aiden.

I just got FCS2 and CS3 MC and I'm having enough problems installing CS3 MC to keep me busy until Tuesday.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 10:00 PM
I went to Campbell and had everything loaded up in my cart for $1600 including an NVIDEA 8600 GTS for $150 & warranties. Then I chickened out and left the store with nothing. Couldn't do it Aiden.

I just got FCS2 and CS3 MC and I'm having enough problems installing CS3 MC to keep me busy until Tuesday.

Can we change your handle to "Runaway Bride" ;)

Rustus Maximus
Aug 4, 2007, 10:03 PM
Mac Market Share Declines (http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/01/18/mac.market.share.declines/)

"Apple's Macintosh share of the (worldwide) PC market fell to 2.4 percent during the December quarter based on preliminary data from IDC,"

That report is from January 2007, the one I cited (http://www.macscoop.com/articles/2007/07/19/apple-u-s-market-share-during-q2-study) from July 2007, your data is old. Also, your figure is worldwide market share. In the US Apple commands nealry 6%. A figure which is continually rising at the expense of Gateway and Dell among others. I imagine that trend will continue with the ongoing iPod and now iPhone halo effects along with the fact that OS X is a superior product.

As for why Apple's worldwide market share is where it is, I am sure there are numerous factors, economics being chief among them. Most of the rest of the world has to pay much more for an Apple than we in the US do as they do with many tech goods. But, and take this as you will, like it or not, the US market is what matters most this moment. If Apple's market share is increasing here, and it is, then that bodes well for the future of Apple's sales in both the US and abroad.

AidenShaw
Aug 4, 2007, 10:32 PM
That report is from January 2007, the one I cited (http://www.macscoop.com/articles/2007/07/19/apple-u-s-market-share-during-q2-study) from July 2007, your data is old.

Didn't I say that, that in the current report Apple has dropped into the "others" category world-wide?


As for why Apple's worldwide market share is where it is, I am sure there are numerous factors, economics being chief among them.

And is it not an example of "economics" that the $1000 HP system has higher CPU and bus frequencies, twice the number of cores, three times the RAM, nearly twice the disk space... compared to the $1500 iMac?

It sounds like you're agreeing with us - that US share is around 6%, worldwide share around 3%, and that the iMac does not look like a good value on performance for the money.

Mozutaka
Aug 5, 2007, 03:00 AM
Yay? I don't doubt that Apple will pop these in quickly, but honestly, the Mac Pro has fallen notably far behind in other areas (namely price) and they're surely losing business between now and an update. Same goes for the supposed value-priced iMac.

Is it really too much to ask for even slightly competitive prices? With Vista floundering, you'd think Apple would be doing all it can to switch people this year instead of playing with a phone and "one more thing: Safari for Windows". Boo.

They lose another customer if my G4 iMac dies between now a completely up-to-date Mac Pro...and a 8800 GTS for $500 extra doesn't count.

maccompaq
Aug 5, 2007, 07:49 AM
Vista is based on the Windows 2003 Server codebase that supports up to 64 CPU SMP machines (64 cores).

The XP and Vista systems are fine with quad and octo-core machines, unlike OSX 10.4.


AidenShaw, thanks for the correction about Vista.

My Compaq with AMD Athlon 64 at 2.41 Ghz and my cable Internet of 12 mbps runs as fast as anything I could ever imagine needing. I run PhotoShop on my Mac, and PhotoShop Elements 5.0 on my Compaq only as a hobby and am much satisfied with their performance. I do not play games on the computers. An honest question: what can I benefit from a faster processor or multicore?

AidenShaw
Aug 5, 2007, 09:34 AM
I run PhotoShop on my Mac, and PhotoShop Elements 5.0 on my Compaq only as a hobby and am much satisfied with their performance. I do not play games on the computers. An honest question: what can I benefit from a faster processor or multicore?

If you're not waiting for your current computer to finish tasks, a faster one won't help.

If, however, someday your photo collection may grow to the point where things are a bit sluggish when bringing up the thumbnail pages. Or you'll upgrade to a 10 mega-pixel digital SLR and decide to switch to RAW images instead of JPEGs. Or you'll get into home video or transcoding videos for archiving.

When the day comes that you getting bored waiting for the computer to finish a task - then you'll benefit from a faster one.

Newer computers typically have other improvements as well - support for more total system RAM, faster disks, faster networking, ....

danielwsmithee
Aug 5, 2007, 10:52 AM
And is it not an example of "economics" that the $1000 HP system has higher CPU and bus frequencies, twice the number of cores, three times the RAM, nearly twice the disk space... compared to the $1500 iMac?This has always been the case with all Apple products when they get to the end of there refresh cycle. When they are first updated they are as good of deal or better then the competition by the end they are way overpriced. Currently the iMac is very stale! Hopefully the comparison after Tuesday will help the iMac a little more but I doubt the iMac will win if they stick with the mobile components.

When the iMac was last updated to the mobile Core Duo Yonah it made sense because the mobile Core Duo performed better then any available desktop chip from Intel (Pentium D). Then the Core 2 Duo Merom was a drop in replacement with no redesign. Hopefully now that they are redesigning they will be able to fit the desktop chips in.

Dual-Link DVI sounds great for the iMac but on the mini I would prefer to have two regular DVI ports then a single Dual Link DVI so you could drive 2 24" monitors.

AidenShaw
Aug 5, 2007, 11:50 AM
This has always been the case with all Apple products when they get to the end of there refresh cycle. When they are first updated they are as good of deal or better then the competition by the end they are way overpriced. Currently the iMac is very stale!

OK, except for the people who don't want an all-in-one in the first place.


Dual-Link DVI sounds great for the iMac but on the mini I would prefer to have two regular DVI ports then a single Dual Link DVI so you could drive 2 24" monitors.

Would you prefer a Mini over a much more capable, expandable, and cheaper mini-tower with a PCIe slot for BTO graphics?

AidenShaw
Aug 5, 2007, 11:59 AM
HP minitower - $1050 for 3 GiB RAM (up to 8GiB), 2.4 GHz quad core, 1066 MHz bus, 400GB, 16x DL lightscribe superdrive, 7.1 audio with digital audio in/out, 19" LCD, integrated graphics with open x16 PCIe slot for upgrade, two open x1 PCIe slots, open 3.5" disk bay, open 5.25" DVD/disk bay, 2yr warranty, 16.3x6.9x15.2 inches (1709 in³) ...

iMac - $1500 for 1 GiB RAM (up to 3GiB), 2.16 GHz dual core, 667 MHz bus, 250 GB, 8x DL superdrive, 20" LCD, ATI X1600 (not upgradeable), no expansion, 1yr warranty ($2299 with dual core 2.33 and 3 GiB)

MacPro - $2200 for 1 GiB RAM (up to 16Gib), 2.0 GHz quad core (dual dual), 1333 MHz bus, 250 GB, 16x DL superdrive, digital audio in/out, no LCD, 7300 GT 256 MiB, 3 open PCIe slots, 3 open 3.5" bays, 1 open 5.25" bay, 1 yr warranty, 20.1x8.1x18.7 inches (3045 in³), 42 lbs ($2999 with quad (dual-dual) 2.66 GHz and 3 GiB)

The second price on the Macs is when you add BTO options to come close to the CPU speed and memory of the $929 HP.

maccompaq
Aug 5, 2007, 02:10 PM
AidenShaw, you are one of the most informed people I have run into in a long time, so I have a question for you. I read somewhere that USB Flash Memory can be used with Vista as operating memory. I can see where it might be possible to use it as fast Virtual memory in place of the hard drive. But to use it as operating memory, I don't know. What do you know about it?

AidenShaw
Aug 5, 2007, 02:24 PM
AidenShaw, you are one of the most informed people I have run into in a long time, so I have a question for you. I read somewhere that USB Flash Memory can be used with Vista as operating memory. I can see where it might be possible to use it as fast Virtual memory in place of the hard drive. But to use it as operating memory, I don't know. What do you know about it?

You're right - the USB drive doesn't show up as more physical system RAM.

On Vista, a flash drive can be used as an additional layer of disk cache memory - the idea being that the flash can satisfy small random reads faster than the moving-head hard drive.

A common result of testing, though, is that the money is better spent on a bigger DIMM for the system RAM.

For more info, read this overview, and check out the links at the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost

Macinposh
Aug 5, 2007, 03:02 PM
AidenShaw, you are one of the most informed people I have run into in a long time.


Seconded,as usual.

But still,month after month we still have this heated debate about the elusive "Pizza Mac". It just shows how we different people have such a different views... :D
I personally would love a small form headless mac. I even might buy it, even it for 100% certainty would be outpriced compared to PC counterparts AND it would have a ****** gfx card.


But apple wont release it.



Imo, the reason is just in apples marketing strategy. The layering of the products atm, are simple and perfect.


Macmini = The gateway,the 3rd computer
iMac = The computer
Macpro = The workstation


What many people has missed,the computing has reached a intresting point in the last 1-2 years. The needs of the masses has been saturated.
The masses (say,95% of total computer users) can do all their taskes with present computers. Period.
Mail,voip,surfing,light retouching,filling up their iPods and occasional clip viewing. I would say there is no technologies/fads in sight (2-4years) that would require more horsepower for the masses.


For the rest of us,professionals and freaks, it is a different ballgame,obviously.


Those masses,they dont care what the specs are, they just want a positive and easy user experience. They go to the store and buy a Thing.
Some,a small minority,buy a thing that a friend/magazine has had a positive user experience off.
This is apples strenght : It has a reputation of providing a easy,positive user experience in a clean,identifiable package.

Introducing a Pizzamac would shake and ruin this holy alliance of three.


1.Pizza would be a better multimedia center than mini,for only few hundred bucks more. But if would be more unwieldy and blonkier than mini. But it still would cannibalize the sales.

2.Pizza would be more expandable than iMac, and few hundred cheaper. But it would be more unstylish/wieldy for certain enviroments (ad-agencies,hip offices,homes). And it would cannibalize the iMac sales.

3.Pizza would be cheaper than Macpro, with almost the same performance and expandability. With the current sad support for multithreading, a Quad kentsfield could almost smoke a Quad 3.0 xeon. For half the price.That would intrest about 50% of current pros that are looking for a rig,but just dont need the internal raid/multi pci-card support. That would cannibalize the MacPro sales.




So,for apple it would be a Loose-Loose-Loose situation, because the image degragation,lost revenue (the overheads in the pizzamac category are smaller due to hard competition) and lost sales on more profitable models.
And they would have to allocate extra resources to the engineering,buying,stocking,manufacturing etc..



My 1€.

Anyone want to disagree?
:D

maccompaq
Aug 5, 2007, 03:15 PM
You're right - the USB drive doesn't show up as more physical system RAM.

On Vista, a flash drive can be used as an additional layer of disk cache memory - the idea being that the flash can satisfy small random reads faster than the moving-head hard drive.

A common result of testing, though, is that the money is better spent on a bigger DIMM for the system RAM.

For more info, read this overview, and check out the links at the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyBoost
That was interesting info. I am still using XP. I hear many say that you must have a minimum of 2 GB of RAM to operate with Vista. True or no?

IEatApples
Aug 5, 2007, 03:27 PM
I think there will be an option for "quad" on the new iMacs!
I simply can't see the point of an "event" if the changes are purely/mostly external/aesthetics. :)

Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to have an aluminum iMac, but I must say that that wouldn't be enough to make me buy one if the rest was "old"!

And furthermore: Leopards need their quads! ;) :D :cool:

maccompaq
Aug 5, 2007, 03:51 PM
Macinposh, you have a very good theory. But if Apple used the Conroe desktop processor, that is $100 cheaper than the mobile unit and faster at the same Mhz rating, they could produce a "headless iMac" to sell for around $899 and still make a very good profit. This box would be user friendly in that you could do your own hard drive and optical drive swaps. That might bring more Windows users to Apple. They would not even need to buy a new monitor since the one they use with Windows will work with Mac.

With this computer, they could run OSX and XP or Vista.

Most of us do not need quad core processors.

Macinposh
Aug 5, 2007, 04:35 PM
But if Apple used the Conroe desktop processor, that is $100 cheaper than the mobile unit and faster at the same Mhz rating, they could produce a "headless iMac" to sell for around $899 and still make a very good profit.

Yes.They could make some profit,but at the expense of the other 3 linups loosing volume and profit. Who the hell would pay 3000bucks for a Macpro when they could get 90% of the performance with 899?




This box would be user friendly in that you could do your own hard drive and optical drive swaps.



Apple do not want customers to do that. They want customer to buy it from apple,and paying the 100-300% extra money for apple while doing that.


And 99% of buyers dont swap anything.Ever.


The plan is that users get 2 years of good using experience of using the product,then find out that their favourite youtube video is a bit slow on the old computer.
That makes them buy a New Apple computer. AND a new iPod for their daughter. AND new iSocks for the cat.





Most of us do not need quad core processors.

Most dont even need dual core processors.Heck, most customers would get by just with one core..:)

AidenShaw
Aug 5, 2007, 05:13 PM
That was interesting info. I am still using XP. I hear many say that you must have a minimum of 2 GB of RAM to operate with Vista. True or no?

It depends....

Personally, I find 2 GiB to be an inadequate minimum for XP ;) .

But, I often use virtual machines, tend to keep lots of application windows open across several monitors, and tend to bounce from window to window launching tasks and expecting them to run in parallel.

For Vista, I'd say that 1 GiB is the real minimum. While it may officially run with 512 MiB, it will be much "snappier" with 1 or 2 GiB.

My Vista laptop is a dual-core with 4 GiB, but:

Only 3.25 GiB is usable due to the pre-Santa Rosa chipset
I almost always have one or two virtual machines running
The company bought it for me

maccompaq
Aug 5, 2007, 05:19 PM
Yes.They could make some profit,but at the expense of the other 3 linups loosing volume and profit. Who the hell would pay 3000bucks for a Macpro when they could get 90% of the performance with 899?








Apple do not want customers to do that. They want customer to buy it from apple,and paying the 100-300% extra money for apple while doing that.


And 99% of buyers dont swap anything.Ever.


The plan is that users get 2 years of good using experience of using the product,then find out that their favourite youtube video is a bit slow on the old computer.
That makes them buy a New Apple computer. AND a new iPod for their daughter. AND new iSocks for the cat.







Most dont even need dual core processors.Heck, most customers would get by just with one core..:)

I think you are right in most of what you have said. Since Apple is looking to increase market share, the computer I described might help bring over some of the PC guys who do like to get inside their computer. I know a lot who are interested in getting a Mac but hold back for some reason. It would be a gamble, but it might do the job. The profit on the computer I described would be greater than that on a Mini or an iMac. You said it very well, most of us could get by just fine with a single core processor like my Athlon 64 2.41 Ghz.

AidenShaw
Aug 5, 2007, 07:13 PM
And 99% of buyers dont swap anything. Ever.

True - but 83.943% of those would appreciate the flexibility of BTO options.

"Expandability" means a lot more than after the purchase mods by the do-it-yourselfers.

It means ordering the memory, CPU, disk and graphics (and whether to buy a new LCD or use the good one that you already have) that you want when you buy - not deciding between one of the two choices that The Lord God Jobs has decided for you.

In addition to BTO options, expandability often means that the buyer has the seller or some other professional make some upgrades at the time of purchase. So even if 99% of users never open their machines, there's still a good argument for an expandable mini-tower or pizza-box.

gnasher729
Aug 6, 2007, 12:43 PM
In the US Apple commands nealry 6%. A figure which is continually rising at the expense of Gateway and Dell among others. I imagine that trend will continue with the ongoing iPod and now iPhone halo effects along with the fact that OS X is a superior product.

I would just say that I wouldn't attribute Dell's and Gateway's losses specifically to Apple. Apple takes market share very slowly from the PC market as a whole. Within the PC market, the fluctuations are much much bigger. I would actually expect Apple to drop from fourth place in the USA to fifth within the next months, when Toshiba and Acer overtake Apple and Gateway ends up sixth, because right now Toshiba and Acer grow faster than Apple.

But that doesn't matter much. At some point Dell will get their act together and take share back from HP, and someone else will rise and someone else will drop, while all the time Apple is increasing its share. These PC companies can easily increase their sales relative to other PC companies by dropping the price a bit, and that is mostly what they can do. Not good for their profits really. Apple is lucky that they don't have to play these games.

Kawasaki
Aug 8, 2007, 11:57 PM
There is no need for 4 x 3.0GHz. If you use 4 x 2.0GHz or maybe a bit more, then power consumption goes down dramatically (power is proportional to frequency squared, so less than half the power), price goes down as well. To keep power consumption and heat down, Apple could use a slightly faster chip, run at say 2.66GHz if only two cores are active, and slow down to 2.00 GHz with four cores. Good speed for software that is not multi-core optimised, better speed for multi-core optimised software, and heat + fan noise would still be low.

Ah...

Sam0r
Aug 9, 2007, 07:37 AM
Ah...

Yeah, apple did that with the G4 MDD's. Mine had 933mhz chips, but it ran at 867mhz. A quick trip with the sodlering iron got it running at 1ghz :)

macintel4me
Aug 9, 2007, 12:59 PM
It seems the earliest the Mac Pro will be upgraded realstically is Jan after the holiday season is over and the Penryn's are out. I have to say this is obviously really disappointing especially as the Mac Pro's are nowhere near competitively priced at this point. I plan to do a lot of of video encoding and 4-cores would be great. I already have a decent 23" LCD monitor. The Mac Pro is the perfect machine for me except the price and timing. :mad: