or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ciparis

Performance-wise:Quad channel = goodFB-DIMM = badCurrent FB-DIMM implementations (especially as seen in the Mac Pro) represent a performance decrease in every measurable category compared with DDR2. Higher latency than even the MacBook and iMac, and lower bandwidth than desktop DDR2 systems across the board to boot. Measured memory bandwidth of the new Mac Pro in quad channel mode is almost exactly the same as the dual-channel (and slower clocked) MacBook and iMac, which...
The lack of a massive performance increase relative to the part that's being replaced is due in part to the performance of the part that's being replaced relative to the P4 that's being edged out in favor of Conroe, coupled with the existence of bottlenecks elsewhere in the performance equation that mask CPU performance increases (especially with games, which is the same problem Conroe and Woodcrest face when compared with markedly inferior AMD X2 chips). Many current...
It was in the next paragraph: They're all roughly equivalent. Woodcrest is basically the same chip as Conroe but for multi-CPU machines (and using a new chipset and memory standard that helps RAM capacity but hurts RAM performance). Conroe can only have one CPU socket (though even that will get you up to four cores later this year, as has been pointed out). Merom is equivalent to Conroe, though clocked a bit lower and with much better power management.Under the hood...
Conroe was never going to go into the iMac or Mac mini, and I haven't seen any credible commentator suggest otherwise. Merom offers equivalent performance at much lower power usage / heat consumption, and it's a drop-in replacement for the current Yonah chips.The only reason Conroe didn't make it into the Mac Pro was the need for dual CPUs. Woodcrest is not really a higher-performing chip, and should not be positioned as such (though some of them include extra cache...
For gaming and native apps, the iMac is generally faster. Browsing and WoW, in particular, are both significantly better on the iMac than they are on a Dual 2.0 PowerMac with a 6800 Ultra. Java development & compiling are also faster on the iMac. Legacy apps are the opposite (for the time being). In other words, it all depends on the software.
Q is coming along nicely: I still get stuck with a "catalog error" later on while XP finishing installation, but several people have reasonably well-working setups now. Performance is not as good as it will get, but much better than PPC versions to date. I can install Windows 98 (not SE) in just a few minutes, but it too has problems after its final reboot for me. XP installs to the reboot point in just a few minutes as well.
When you're finally using the same parts as PC vendors, and they all announce they're taking orders for 2.16 GHz models, it places Apple in the position of being more or less compelled to match that speed or risk losing sales. Being directly comparable is a new scenario for Apple, and it will in some cases dictate their marketing choices. I'm surprised they didn't announce them this way to begin with, although it may just be a matter of them getting used to Intel's...
There's a simple statement that will prove irresistible for some: If you want the fastest Mac laptop you can buy today, it will cost you $300. That alone is enough to decide the matter for many customers. How much faster doesn't always matter enough to cause hesitation.
Sounds like you're getting a good deal. Get it repaired it should be under warranty.
How old is it, and does he have a receipt? If it's still under warranty, $250 is a good price -- you could buy it and get it fixed for nothing, assuming it hasn't been abused. The hard drive and RAM are easy upgrades. The rest, not so easy, and really not easy if you want it to look right.
New Posts  All Forums: