Exactly. 90% of the iMac market doesn't even what the MacPro is.
This has to be the dumbest assertion from an "analyst" so far this year.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Analyst Speculates on iMac Delays: Quad vs Dual Core?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. 90% of the iMac market doesn't even what the MacPro is.
This has to be the dumbest assertion from an "analyst" so far this year.
I can't believe Apple is still "debating" between dual-core and quad-core. If that's true then the new systems are six months away, at least. Purchasing, production lines, test plans and schedules, marketing campaigns, all depend on that kind of decision - it has to be made early in the development cycle.
Of course Apple is NOT "debating" the issue; it's just Wu that made this crazy speculative assertion. So let's not try to believe him, please...it's plain BS.
unfortunately, i tend to take the view that whatever Mr Wu "analysis" comes up with is only good at predicting what is NOT going to happen
honestly, how do these people get a job? and i bet he gets paid tons too - i could do his job with a wall, a stack of post-it notes with random ideas written on and a dart
honestly, how do these people get a job? and i bet he gets paid tons too - i could do his job with a wall, a stack of post-it notes with random ideas written on and a dart
Wu's basic premises don't make too much sense:
How can an iMac be "almost ready for primetime", and yet be held up by "business reasons and a potential small technical hurdle." when that hurdle is Apple hasn't decided what CPU to put in? There'd be a big lag from production to shipping for a start...
it's like he's played buzzword bingo on the latest rumours. Which is should really be conducted in places like this, rather than purporting to be serious reporting...
How can an iMac be "almost ready for primetime", and yet be held up by "business reasons and a potential small technical hurdle." when that hurdle is Apple hasn't decided what CPU to put in? There'd be a big lag from production to shipping for a start...
it's like he's played buzzword bingo on the latest rumours. Which is should really be conducted in places like this, rather than purporting to be serious reporting...
Aren't the new iMac becoming the next Powerbook G5?
LOL.
No that would be the MacMini.
The only way I can see this [probably nonsense article] having any truth is if Apple had developed multiple designs of the next model of iMac PRIOR to the quad for chips being available for testing, and now that they have the chips they're making last minute decisions as to which design to go proceed with production for. At this late stage everything will be ready - design, prototypes etc, they just have to give the nod as to which model to go ahead with in production.
Impossibly unrealistic. The "chip" is not a last minute decision, its the foundation for how the product fits into the product line. Period.
Either the article is fantasy, or new iMacs are 6 mons out, minimum.
If that's the case, I guess I'll be building a Hackintosh. I can't survive 5 more months with the 2-gig RAM maximum of my original Intel iMac.
new iMac
Make it a QuadCore. A higher clock speed just means the processes gets to wait on memory latency more, spinning and doing nothing whereas more cores means more work can be done simultaneously. I typically run both XP and Solaris in a virtual machine, so the more cores the better. Most folks don't realize that the CPU clock speed doesn't mean anything, but its the bus speeds of everything else you're pushing data to/from.
Make it a QuadCore. A higher clock speed just means the processes gets to wait on memory latency more, spinning and doing nothing whereas more cores means more work can be done simultaneously. I typically run both XP and Solaris in a virtual machine, so the more cores the better. Most folks don't realize that the CPU clock speed doesn't mean anything, but its the bus speeds of everything else you're pushing data to/from.
I was hoping for a release on Saturday (felt this was unlikely) as it was the 25th aniversery. Now, I'm hoping for a new high impact commercial during the Super Bowl, ala 1984 (Woo [or Wu], let's start some new rumors).
Regardless, I'm holding on to my tax return money until it comes.
Regardless, I'm holding on to my tax return money until it comes.
What is the likelihood that there will be no more Mac Pros? What are us high-end editors going to do? We have HDV content that needs transcoding, we have applications like Maya needing to render complex 3D environments in HD, or how about the intense gamers needing their games to be playable at full resolution with details turned all the way? WHAT I ASK YOU!?!??!!?
I just want a new iMac,
hurry up Apple,
I'm with Drake. I've been waiting for a quad core iMac for months. Money set aside... Just waiting for the upgrade to emerge, and I'll pull the trigger.
iMac hopefully gets quad-core since the delay is likely due to the pending Snow Leopard release. The Mac Pros already trounce their desktop lines, and they have already been out for over a year. It's time for the quads.
I Lol'd.
So much for new iMacs...
Wouldn't a quad core be heat-intensive in a iMac enclosure?
I guess they want to test it for new generation of laptops..
A solid aluminum case makes for a very good heat sink. If the back of the case were aluminum and if the CPU were directly connected to the back of the case you've not even need a fan. Yes the case would be hot but you don't put an iMac on your lap.
I have an older stereo amp that puts out a LOT more heat then any Intel CPU and it is totally passive cooled, no fan. They did it using a pair of large aluminum heat sink
But, because OSX is only (supposed) to work on Apple Hardware, they really have no "true" competitors, since half of what they are marketing is not just their hardware (which has plenty of gaps and little SNAFU's), but mainly the fact that you can easily and legally run OSX. Apple hardware is the same or worse than most other HW on the market, in most cases.
Although not everyone is there yet, most people have started to get over the MHz Myth and are actually looking at more than just the clock speed. Granted, not everyone is, but, as I said before, when you only have 6 pieces of hardware to choose from for running OSX, you don't have much choice...
I always wonder which member of Macrumors Mr Wu is. Looking at his predictions he must be on here.
Hello Mr Wu
Hello
Makes sense, but this has been speculated for some time now.
The 65 W desktop quad-cores have similar clock speeds to similarly-priced mobile dual-cores. The 3.07 GHz dual-core doesn't have a quad-core equivalent (in GHz), but that's not a CPU a regular consumer would be looking at.
On cannibalization... there are a few points to keep in mind.
- The fastest quad-core iMac, 65 W desktop (2.83 GHz 1333 FSB) or 45 W mobile (2.53 GHz 1067 FSB), would still lag behind the slowest dual-core Mac Pro (2.8 GHz dual 1600 FSB)
- The Mac Pro is due for an update a few months after the iMac, with Nehalem CPUs that will increase the gap between it and the iMac
- The Mac Pro has many more advantages over the iMac that are not CPU-related
From reliability, I'd probably say Economic Daily News, from rumor dates I'd say analyst, from my signature I'd say analyst.AppleInsider said:
Hmmm...
If Apple originally decided to use dual-cores for a Q4 2008 release (AppleInsider rumor) and switched to quad-cores for a later release, then I'd say the switch would have happened anytime around or after the AppleInsider rumor to before Apple's note on no new products for 2008.