Im looking to buy a few macs. a desktop, and a MacBook Pro(hopefully 17") I really want a Mac Pro, and i was planning on getting the 2.93 dual Quads. with 16GB/Ram this is probably confusing. especially if your not a computer nerd but i tried to convey my question best i could. Well i was reading the May issue of MacWorld, i was reading their review of the new Mac Pro, and the review disappointed me. heres why: For starters, they compared a 2.66 quad, vs the 2.26 octo setup.(the two bare models) why they didnt compare the best set ups (2.93 quad vs. 2.93 octo) is beyond me. They ran some everyday tasks on both machines. they said with photoshop, iTunes, Imovie, compressor, and safari(?) the quad core machine was faster in using these normal apps based on the fact that: 1. most applications have enough trouble using 4 cores efficiently, let alone 8. 2. the cores in the octo set up are running slower than the four core setup (duh) i would say that if they tested the 2.93 Quad Mac pro vs. the 2.93 Octo Mac Pro, their test results would be a tad different, because their second reason(cores running slower) is no longer applicable based on the fact all the processors have the same clock speeds. not to mention, Snow Leopard show make a big step in multi-core efficiency across applications. right? ----My Question to all you Mac Pro users is this: What would you say about this? anyone here that uses a 2.93 octo setup see slow speeds in "everyday" apps? or did MacWorld Magazine do a half-assed attempt to review these machines? thanks for the help!