Mac Pro and Woodcrest: Confirmed?

[Silentwave]

and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.

 

[Evangelion]

So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.

What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:

a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom

b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe

And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.

 

[sbarton]

Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie

Fine. tell me where we can get everything but the processor for $200 and we have a deal. Conroe doesn't have anything above 2.66 that isn't an extreme edition. So your next stop is the X6800 2.93GHz Extreme Edition- $999 per chip.

Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.

I'm a staunch Apple fan. I've been a Mac user for 15 Years. But if they didn't wan't to have to compete against PC's from the likes of Dell, HP, and Gateway, then they shouldn't have started building PC's....

Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.

 

[milo]

Lame poll choices.

Most likely is BOTH woodcrest and conroe in different models. Woodcrest is necessary for quad, but using it in a single chip configuration is a waste of money.

Apple needs to deliver both maximum performance and reasonably fast performance at a reasonable price.

 

[jiggie2g]

Originally Posted by sbarton
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
250GB SATA 3.0 HD
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM

I want it at or less than $1199.00

Now gimmie




Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.

I'm a staunch Apple fan. I've been a Mac user for 15 Years. But if they didn't wan't to have to compete against PC's from the likes of Dell, HP, and Gateway, then they shouldn't have started building PC's....

Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.

Actually the E6600 is 2.4ghz for $316 and the E6700 is 2.67 for $530. Apple will never sell a fully fucntional tower for under $1999 , maybe a crippled one for $1499.

 

[Evangelion]

Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.

930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.

 

[sbarton]

930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.

Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.

Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?

 

[AidenShaw]

Do you understand the difference between marketing and engineering?

Nope, it doesn't. Besides, I already told you in another thread that Intel agrees with my intrepetation on this matter. The see dual-dual systems as 2-way systems, whereas according to you, they are 4-way systems. Are you saying that Intel does not know what they are doing?

Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU. This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.

The CPU makers wouldn't sell as many multi-core chips if the systems were much more expensive (in TCO) than single-core chips. Therefore they pretend that a "processor" is what can be plugged into a socket. The software sees that there are "physical processors" (a package with pins) and "logical processors" (the CPU that we've been familiar with for decades, which requires SMP hardware capabilities to be useful with 2 or more).

They say that software licensing should consider the *physical* processor count for licensing terms. (For example, XP Home will run SMP on a dual-core, but not on a dual-socket. XP Pro will run 4-way SMP on a dual-socket quad-core, but not on a quad-socket quad-core. Microsoft licensing looks at the number of physical processors, while of course the software runs according to the number of logical processors.)

So, Intel/AMD/MS have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.
___________________________________

And, if you're so hung up on the hardware distinctions, consider:

• Older Xeon: One CPU/core/processor in one chip, with SMP support in the bus interface and northbridge.
• Pentium D: Two independent chips in one package, communicating the SMP protocols over a stub of the FSB that's brought into the package. Logically indistinguishable from the same two chips in two packages communicating over the FSB on the mobo
• Yonah: Two CPUs on one piece of silicon, each with private L2 cache, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) on the silicon
• Merom/Conroe: Two CPUs on one piece of silicon, with a shared L2 cache, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) on the silicon
• Woodcrest: Two CPUs on one piece of silicon, with a shared L2 cache, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) both on the silicon and in the northbridge, so that dual-socket quad-core configs are allowed
• Kentsfield: Four CPUs on two pieces of silicon, with two shared L2 caches, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) both in the silicon and the package but not on the northbridge, so that -single-socket quad-core configs are allowed
• Clovertown: Four CPUs on two pieces of silicon, with two shared L2 caches, with SMP logic (cache coherency, IPC) both on the silicon and the package, and also in the northbridge, so that dual-socket octo-core configs are allowed

All of these chips are engineered with full SMP support. Whether it's on-chip, in-package, or over-the-FSB - it's all SMP.
_____________________

Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:

The most popular entry-level SMP systems use the x86 instruction set architecture and are based on Intel’s Xeon, Pentium D and Core Duo processors or AMD’s Athlon64 X2 or Opteron 200 series processors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_multiprocessing​

It's basically silly to say that "pros won't accept a Conroe because pros demand SMP". You can't run a Conroe without SMP hardware and software.

Because of this ambiguity caused by the marketing-speak of Intel/AMD and the others, we're seeing wider adoption of the term "socket" instead of "processor".

...enough said.

 

[Evangelion]

Intel and AMD push hard to make sure that a dual-core processor is *licensed* as a single CPU.

And quite a few software-firms agree with them. Those that do not, are retarded. But my point remains: According to Intel, single-socket, dualcore system is a 1-way system, dual-socket, dual-core system is a 2-way system.

This is because there are a lot of big software packages that are priced according to the number of processors, often much more expensive for a 4-way than a 2-way.

And that's retarded. And those companies that do charge like that are not going to change their mind based on few paragraphs on intel.com.

So, Intel/AMD have an agenda that requires them to distort the meaning of the word "processor". They have to warp the word "processor" to justify the licensing stance.

So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?

Finally, a source that doesn't have a marketing agenda says:

Like I have said: there are more than one way of looking at this thing. That is one way. The "other" way isn't really wrong either.

...enough said.

hopefully so. You seem to have some major problems accepting the fact that not everyone shares your viewpoint? So you then proceed to cram your viewpoint down other people's throats.

 

[milo]

As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips. This is about as exciting as finding out that a faucet will have a red handle if it runs hot water, blue if cold. Whee.

There's one big difference. The woodcrest can be used in multilple chip configs, allowing quad while the conroe maxes out at two cores. That's comparable to a cosmetic difference?

I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. 😉

But the problem is that PC's with these chipsets will be very expensive as well. And if apple goes with two cores of woodcrest on the low end, those machines will be matched at a much lower price point by conroe machines from PC makers (as well as conroe iMacs). Single chip woodcrest makes no sense financially unless intel gives apple woodcrests for the same price as conroes, and I don't see that happening.

I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics 😕 😉

I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......

You know, I'd be perfectly fine with integrated graphics with the work I do. I wouldn't mind having the option of not wasting money on a video card I won't even put to good use and leaving a slot open.

So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing.

That's just stupid logic, you expect any computer company to match the price of a machine you built? That's like saying a resturant shouldn't charge more for a meal than what you paid for the ingredients at the grocery store.

Different CPU-models in one line of computers? Unlikely. Current PowerMacs have just one type of CPU in 'em, it just happens that one model has two of them.

Why not use different cpu models? It makes a ton of financial sense, and with intel doing most of the mobo work, there's not much reason not to.

You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper.

Technically, the minis got more expensive, but the new models are a much better value (bang for your buck). I obviously think so, I bought one.

Where's the "Mac OS Rumors" option? (http://macosrumors.com/20060710B1.php)

They are still labouring under the illusion that Woodcrest will be quad core.

AND they have the wrong idea that conroe can be run in dual chip configs. So clueless.

Unless Apple bucks their own trend of charging more for the Intel Mac replacements over the G4/G5 units....

To be fair, the imac and macbook 15 didn't have price increases...in this case it really comes down to their choice of config, if they wanted to they could easily have a base model cheaper than the current dual G5 tower.

 

[AidenShaw]

So, your argument is basically that even though AMD and Intel disagree with you, you are still right, because this is just a vast conspiracy?

Please show me where Intel says that a Core Duo is *not* SMP ! Note that "way" (as in "2-way") meaning "socket" isn't the same thing.

Don't search for "SMP Core.Duo" at apple.com, you'll find lines like Intel Core Duo based Apple computers, which use SMP, will have a performance jump of 15 to 30 percent.

Please install Linux on a Core Duo and tell me if it installs the SMP kernel !

I can tell you for sure that XP installs the SMP version of the kernel on a Core Duo !

Google for "SMP Core.Duo" and notice 68K hits, and then do "not.SMP Core.Duo" and notice the 110 hits. (Many of them in Mac forums 😱 )


Yes, there's a vast conspiracy that considers multi-core to be SMP... Many of them happen to have computer science training, experience and degrees. 😉

...truly enough.

 

[milo]

because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.

Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.

In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).

Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.

Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?

As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.

That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.

How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?

Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.

Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.

Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.

Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.

Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.

we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.

Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.

 

[Senbei]

I don't get the bubble that many Apple fans seem to live in, where Apple can short-change you with crippled hardware at premium prices (which they have done) and get away with it.

Some of us don't live in a bubble and do understand that we pay a premium for the entire Mac experience (combination of hardware and software design as opposed to flat raw speed). That experience isn't 100% perfect but what else in life is?

As far as the clearly delineated and simplified product stratification, many are still bound by muscle memory 😀 ever since Jobs collapsed Apple's once dizzying hardware line into that simple 4-grid matrix of consumer and professional (with the exception of the Cube in the past, Xserve, and the "entry level" mini).

For me, I hope Apple breaks out of this annoying (and limiting) matrix once all of the Core 2 family are out on the table and offers maybe just a few more form factor choices (taking advantage of each processors TDP envelope in the design) as opposed to the current stratification based primarily around the prevention of product cannibilization via an imaginary consumer versus professional distinction. The good thing is we'll know Apple's plans real soon.

 

[Mord]

the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.

 

[milo]

well they will all have the same mobo, so conroe on the low end and woodcrest on the high ends isnt an option

Why do they all have to have the same mobo?

Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.

Why doesn't splitting the lineup make sense? If they don't split the lineup, they're looking at bumping the price of the base model by hundreds of dollars with no benefit. Complete waste of money.

the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.

Do you have anything to back that up? That totally sounds like speculation.

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

I wish apple would stop wasting money on the "kick ass case", especially since it's not that great a case aside from looking pretty. I'd love to see a budget model that was simple - why not make one more similar to a dell and keep the price more competitive? I buy it for the OS and apps, not because the plastic is shinier.

the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.

Are you comparing to woodcrest? I call BS. If you want to make that claim for real, do it with real numbers, not with ones you guesstimated.

 

[Mord]

no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.

+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.

 

[Mord]

every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.

 

[milo]

no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.

+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.

If you looked up real numbers, post the real numbers. Based on the real numbers I've seen the price difference would be hundreds of dollars.

And PC companies are offering single woodcrest simply because conroe isn't shipping yet. Today, they have no other option for dual core. They might keep that config when conroe ships (for the few who may want that), but the conroe version will likely be hundreds less.

EDIT: Looking at Dell, so far they only seem to have woodcrests in server machines. They don't seem to be offering them in any config of desktop yet.

 

[zero2dash]

Apple needs to keep the prices and the configurations real now more than ever. I'm not saying PAR but but they can't get crazy.

Amen to that.
Look, I was looking forward to probably getting a Mac Pro later this year/early next year (more towards the time that all the "initial adopters" have reported all their bugs and CS3/Adobe goes Universal) but then I realized that I'd most likely be paying at least $2,000 for a BASE Mac Pro and that's disgusting. I'd like a Mac Pro with a decent amount of bells and whistles, not a base model...so then I'm probably paying $2,500+ (closer to $3,000) and that's ridiculous.

I love OSX as much as the next guy, but $3,000 is a large sum to pay for a computer. $3,000 could pay off about half of my remaining car loan balance...so if I have $3,000 dispensable income, sorry - I'd rather get the car paid off.

If Apple said "we realize the market prices and we're going to be competitive" then I'd be all ears. But we all know that isn't going to happen; no matter who makes Apple's innards or how non-unique it is, Apple will still charge an arm and a leg over street prices and quote it as being "the price to pay for the Apple experience". Like sbarton said, you can build a Core 2 Duo system for cheaper than $1,200 and I guarantee you that it'll come with a whole lot more than a Mac Pro costing twice the amount. If you're so hung up on running Windows and you hate it that bad, then by all means find a *nix distro that you like or attempt to run OSX86 on it. (I'm not encouraging software piracy nor am I discussing it further - I'm just saying "it's an option".)

I really want to buy an Apple again after using a G5 for the last year + at work, and I'm having a crippled experience on an outdated/slow machine running old versions of the programs I use. (G5 1.8, 1256mb RAM, OSX 10.39 Panther, Adobe CS Suite 1) It's high time though that I've come to realize that I'll never get a Mac for what I'm willing to pay for one, and I'm not accepting crippled hardware just to get OSX (ie buying a Mini or even an iMac both of which will undoubtedly be cheaper than a Mac Pro). Dell's get cheaper by the day...heck Dell's nowadays in most cases are actually cheaper than building your own (and you get a lot of freebie bonuses including monitors and the Windows License/install discs that you normally pay for). I thought about buying a refurb G5 DP (prob a 2.3) but for what I'd pay for that, it's still several hundred dollars over the same Core 2 system with better hardware, so I'm stuck no matter what I do. I'm not looking for pity or trying to incite a flame war, I'm just saying.

Meanwhile Apple apparently hasn't gotten the memo about PC price inflation being dead as of 6+ years ago. /shrug
Enjoy your new computers folks...wish I had the money to join you. Guess I'll stick with my P4 desktop and A2200+ laptop for now and maybe build a Core 2 system next year instead and take some of that extra money and put it towards the car loan. 🙁 Guess I'll be sticking with CS2 in Windows for the time being...

 

[AidenShaw]

every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.

But they also offer Conroe-priced single-socket workstations.

The dual-socket Xeon systems with single socket populated are much more expensive than the single-socket only systems.

Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.

 

[Mord]

the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.


memory:

a pair of 512 sticks for woodcrest is 200 bucks (FB-dimm 4200)

a pair of 512 sticks for conroe is about 140 bucks (ddr2 5300)

thus the 60 buck retail difference translates to about a 35-40 buck difference in bulk apple prices.

a 2.4GHz conroe costs $316

a 2.33GHz woodcrest costs $455

$139 difference, to apple allot less probably about 50 or so due to the huge discounts they will be getting from intel (and don't tell my the bulk 1000 prices are the discounts as they are nearly identical to newegg prices)

motherboard:

their are not too many of these about so their is rather a mark up

350 bucks for woodcrest

250 bucks for a 975X

again to apple the difference is allot less about 20 bucks manufacturing, their is a huge mark up mobo's are just printed out. for apple the difference will only be in the chipset and maybe extra ram slots if they made two

i was a bit off in the cpu price difference, but thats the one part which apple will get for the best price.


selling SMP rigs with one cpu is commonplace as it gives a low entry price, to make a whole SKU is just silly.


apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.

 

[milozauckerman]

So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?

Well, well, some wicked-awesome case design is what matters most! Is it tough to say that with a straight face?

Isn't this just the wannabe design-snob version of l33t kiddos outfitting their computers with neon and other assorted garbage?

 

[milo]

Apple will offer a New Form Factor 64-bit Dual-Core Conroe Mini-Tower whether or not a single chip Woodie is in the lineup. They'll have no choice.

Not necessarily. They could also just put the conroe in the base model with the same form factor, although they probably wouldn't be able to get it as cheap. I don't really care if they go with the mini form factor or not as long as the price is low enough.

the single xeon configs i was refering to were netburst based ones.

(snip)

apple tried the powermac mini as it were and you did not buy it, it was called the g4 cube.

That's a $300 difference in list price. Even if apple pays half of that, it's a significant amount, not to mention that the difference goes higher the more ram you buy.

Sure, it makes sense for companies to offer a single woodcrest config IN ADDITION to conroe configs. It mostly makes sense for users who want to add the second chip themselves in the future. But all those companies also will sell conroe configs, and they will be cheaper. It just doesn't make sense to sell single woodcrest as a substitute for conroe, apple would likely be the only company doing that.

And the cube failed because it was simply outrageously overpriced (I would NOT consider it "powermac" by any stretch of the imagination, but it still cost almost as much as the full towers). They brought it back as the mini which has sold very well and demonstrated that people DO want smaller, cheaper alternatives.

 

[Multimedia]

b) Re-Design The Internals Of The iMac, And Replace The Core Duo With Conroe

What makes you think that? Do you believe that it doesn't take any time or money to re-design the internals of the iMac? Apple has two choice basically:

a) replace the Core Duo in iMac and replace it with Merom

b) re-design the internals of the iMac, and replace the Core Duo with Conroe

And heat-output might come in to play here. Conroe might not be P4-hot, but it's a lot hotter than Merom is.

Exactly. And that's why many of us think they will exercise choice b. Otherwise they would have to use the much more expensive Meroms just to top out at 2.33GHz which makes no sense. iMacs are due a do-over anyway. Why not a do-over for Conroe now so they can run above 2.33GHz?

I don't mean 3GHz now. I mean sometime next year with the new design they can do now in anticipation of additional heat then when 3GHz is no longer the top most expensive speed. Even liquid cooling is not out of the question in the next iMac design. Apple has developed a lot of experience with that on the G5 Power Macs. And the Quad's liquid cooling system is dead quiet.

Bumping iMacs to 2 and 2.16GHz Meroms hardly seems like much of a performance boost to me. But perhaps you're right. Face it. We're all in the zone of wild speculation and unsubstantiated prognostication. 😉

 

[spetznatz]

[The majority of Mac users use Adobe products] Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop.

Well, you could try this...

http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12

It's still a bit flaky in beta, and the interface is a Windows / Linux clone, but at least it's Universal Binary!!!😀

Oh, yeah, and it's only $32 if you buy now.

Now would I be stirring up a hornets' nest if I asked if it was too much to hope that the lower-end pro's would have a single Woodcrest and an open socket?

Right, where did I put my tin helmet?....