Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks - Page 4

I hear you. I was the same way until the MPB 17 C2D was introduced in the spring of 2007. Now I cannot imagine life without it.

Objects and opinions do change over time.

It's a computer lab, a USB hub would just be something else to steal.

The market obviously loves this news...up almost $7+ today? Whew!

With a 4% worldwide market share for computers, no desktop computer with a desktop CPU, no licensing of Mac OS X, I wouldn't say that things are so great for Apple under Steve Jobs' leadership.

Steve Jobs demanded backdated stock option bonuses worth more than a billion dollars, but can Steve Jobs really increase the market share of Mac computers by allowing more models or licensing Mac OS X to computer desktop manufacturers like HP and Dell?

If Apple cannot or won't build a desktop computer with a desktop CPU, it should license Mac OS X to companies who can build computers that people want to buy. The iMac is an overpriced, all-in-one computer with a mobile, slower, cooler CPU and graphic card because the iMac is too thin.

Apple should llisten to what customers want to buy and build it. Or license Mac OS X if Apple cannot build what customers want. The "Apple knows best" attitude should be chastised.

I think they have been listening to customers and building what they want, which is why they have been doing so well lately. It's a bit absurd to think they must build everything that any customer might want. They also have to consider whether they can make money off it, so even though it may seem that a bunch of people on this and other similar sites want some feature, that might only add up to a few hundred units sold, which is obviously not worth it for them.

As far as licensing Mac OS X, forget about it, it's never going to happen.

Oh, and Apple, any chance the iMac could look exactly like the Cinema Display?

As Apple continue to gain market share, they will have the sales volumes to achieve economies of scale with an increasingly diverse range of products. I would say that we would eventually see a desktop in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, but desktops are increasingly being replaced by laptops and I expect that trend will continue.

Who said Apple was after marketshare? They could introduce a netbook, that would increase marketshare, but there is little profit in it and could cannibalize their higher margin models. Apple could introduce a mid range desktop, but again there is little profit to be made in that market as margins are razor thin. Apple could license OSX out, but again, they would make very little on it and those third party macs would cannibalize Apples Mac offerings. Apple isn't going after market share in low margin segments of the computer market. Apple isn't interested in a race to the bottom at the expense of build quility, premium materials, and user satisfaction. Apples business strategy is (relatively) low volume, high margin as opposed to a company like HP or Asus that is high volume, low margins. Apples record profits (in a recession, selling premium products) suggests that whatever they are doing is working just fine.

i'd buy it since i upgrade my home built once every few years and even then it's pretty much a new PC. but for $1200 i want a discrete GPU, even if it's a mobile GPU

Thank heavens Apple does listen to its customers.

Better yet, thank heavens you are not one of them!

Did you even READ all of the positive things in my post, things that have ALL happened under the guidance of Steve Jobs, none of which you refer to in your reply, which causes me pain , because reading comprehension is a big problem nowadays. Keep up the effort, tho'.

i have a working LCD and don't want to spend $1200 for a desktop. a mini is the same parts as the iMac. maybe a slower CPU and smaller hard drive but i don't care.

if it's between a MBP and an iMac, i'll take a refurb MBP any day. the refurbs are priced OK and only thing i don't like the ancient GPU's in them

My biggest beef with the current crop of iMacs is the limited storage space. Laptop spec harddrives just aren't big enough to hold everything anymore. I've got a monstrous photo catalog along with a goodly sized video/audio collection in iTunes that takes up most of a 500gb drive. That doesn't leave room for much of anything else on the drive. In addition, my whole family uses our mac. I want to have a reliable backup just in case something goes 'poof'. Of course, I can hang an external enclosure off the back, but then I've got all sorts of usb/firewire cords and a separate power supply to manage. The resulting mess really defeats the whole idea of the thin and clean enclosure the iMac has moved to.

I can see the appeal of the iMac, but it's general utility is lost on me since it's can't effectively deal with my storage needs. The mac pro is waaay to much money. The mini has even less storage capability. Basically, Apple doesn't make a machine for me at this point. If the iMac gets desktop sized drives at some point, I'll be all over it. Of course, this doesn't speak to the fact that there's two 30" CD's on my desk that it can't drive. Ah well.

Actually, the iMac *can* drive *one* of my displays. If I buy the 100.00 mini display-port adapter that's been such a huge hit with everyone that's bought one. </sarcasm>

haha, well i guess its time to commit me

keep it up Ive!

Hard drives are one of the few desktop components that iMac uses, but of course you can only have one.

From the Apple Store:

Right now they offer up to 1 TB, but that number will likely go to 1.5 or 2 TB with an imac refresh. Sounds like 1 TB would probably meet your storage needs anyway (well aside grom the back up needs, of course Apple wants you to get a time capsule for that\).

My new iMac will have Quad Core CPU. ATI 4870 1Gig GPU. 2TB HD.Blue Ray, and Angelina Jolie as a screen saver. Right SJ?

I'm convinced Apple will dispose of their desktop line soon.

The iMac was downgraded earlier this year, MacPro was increased in price in a 6 year old case design. If Blu-ray comes to iMac, it will be the slowest possible drive.

As for "thinness", if using the iMac against a wall, 60% of the depth goes on the foot. Making the case thinner only gains millimetres.

I went Hackintosh, because Apple don't produce a machine which runs Logic properly that is smaller than a house. There's a big BIG gap between MacPro and iMac. They lost a customer.

aW

You should really make up your mind. Earlier you said Apple wouldn't add Blu-Ray because it competed against iTunes downloads. Now you're claiming it's because of licensing issues. So which is it?

Jobs is the master of saying BS that a lot of people mysteriously believe. And that's what his licensing comments were, BS.

The idea that Apple is holding out on features on their computers because they might potentially compete with another of their products is one more reason my next computer WON'T be a Mac. One good thing that the PC world has going for it is that Microsoft can't play gate keeper to the hardware like Apple does.

“[Blu-ray licensing] has changed since then, but that answer was not the only reason why Apple would not want to add AACS to Mac OS X.”

Besides the fact that making things easier does not necessarily mean that things have become easy, the fact remains that there are several reasons why Apple has chosen not to add Blu-ray support.


He’s the CEO of a company, a marketer, why would anyone expect anything he says to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What he said was the truth, it just wasn’t the whole truth.


They are withhold features, not just Apple. HP and Dell don’t have HW features I want. MS doesn’t support SW features I want. You find what works best for you and go with it, or you make your own, or go with nothing.

Haven't used Intel GPU's in 10+ months. They are using an nVidia GPU. 52.6 gb/s compared to Radeon 3200HD's 38, Intel GMA 4500HD's 29 and GMA 950's 10.6... I think it works.

Having run Windows Vista on an nVidia Mini and a Radeon 46xx based laptop (MSI Gaming). There's little to wish for, they both run what they run very well.

Having multiple FW ports is OK, but every FW device (hell even the 2.5" Laptop SATA case I have has 2 FW 400 ports) has multiple FW ports because they can be daisy-chained and not loose any speed (to an extent, if you have more than 20 devices maybe you should consider a Mac Pro).

I think this is a Steve Jobs focus, that the rest of Apple has agreed to.


I look at it as the star-trek effect.

Apple (or is it Steve?) wants to offer the future of computers. The box under the desk is the general way people think of computers... so Apple avoids that. When your average person looks at an iMac they think "where is the computer?!?" A Mac Mini results in the coment "that is the whole computer!?" The iPhone and AppleTV are both computers but don't look like it.

I think steve wants to first move towards "no moving parts", and next to solid state computing... no air between any part.

I think Steve would remove keyboards if he could get away with it... but he can't yet.


I do like supporting a company that's forcing people to see computers in a different light.
And there is a danger of them going too far!

MacPro case is still Best Design 6 years running to. They don't change the design because people like it.

Fastest BD reader is 8x in consumer category. 12x in the pro category. But 4x is needed to play correctly according to THX specs. If we get 4x and it plays BD, what's the problem?

Why haven't we seen a BD drive yet? No slot-load drives have been made, YET.

The iMac has been the Gold Standard in desktops since 1999. iBooks, now MacBooks have been the gold standard in laptops since... And PowerBook's, now MacBook Pro's have been the gold standard in Pro mobiles since... When you create the bar, and in 12 years they still can't match the bar, you can't let up your guard even once. So the iMac will get better, faster, thinner, whatever. It may get a touch screen... Same for the laptops.

Visit any Worst Buy store and compare best to best. At $2899 I can't get an auto-adujsting LCD brightness in a laptop. I can't get Wireless range and I can't get it less than 1.5" closed.

Gold standard will, just like Gold the Commodity, go Up again soon. Core i5 and i7 are ready in the mobile platform. Since the iMac and MacBook lines use the same CPU's and the Core i series can run faster and cooler (4 cores mobile!!!) there's no doubt what "update" is coming. Especially when you consider Apple gets the CPU's from Intel before most other OEM's.

Have you heard the term "NAS"?

Wow, I stand corrected! Thanks for that. Only having one though...still a bummer.

Sure, and I've explored several options. The transfer speeds are awful. I'm not crazy about the transfer speed of USB 2.0, and I'm *certainly* not a fan of LAN speeds. If I upgraded to gigabit on my network it might be different, but at that point it seems like a lot of hoop jumping to compensate for the fact that Apple can't seem to squeeze a second drive into a machine that costs less than 2500.00(!). And I'd still have another box sitting around sucking up power. I'm not against using a NAS if it's appropriate, but as I understand it, the point of a NAS is for shared storage. I don't need to share with any other machines at this point, so it doesn't seem like the right solution.

One more drive, Apple! C'mon!

Actually NAS is just as appropriate for backup. Buy a 1 TB iMac, and get a time capsule. You can easily get 10 MB/s or faster of Wireless-N. Plenty fast for streaming media, and backups. If that's too slow for a you just hook it up via USB. It sounds like these archives don't require fast transfer speeds if it's just playback media like image viewing, audio playback, and whatnot.

Of course you can always use the internal 1TB for day to day use.

Apple makes money selling hardware.

My July 2008 iMac gets VERY, VERY HOT on the top left and top back. I had to install smcFanControl just to keep the CPU from getting to 70 degrees C.

Even then, especially when Flash is being used in a web site game, the CPU goes to 55C and the top left gets hot. Without smcFanControl installed to turn the fans up in speed, the top left gets so hot that I can't hold my hand on it for more than 10 seconds.

I actually had the same problem with the first iMac I bought, and had to send it back, but the second one was exactly the same.

It sits at room temperature with lots of room above, below, to each side, and behind.

So, yes, there are heat problems with some of the iMacs.

If what is said is true though, and it doesn't cause problems with the components near the heat, or even the screen which gets quite warm at the top left, then I'm happy with it.

I'm just hoping the heat doesn't significantly shorten the life of my iMac because I can only afford a new computer about every 5 years or longer.

Greg

The Mac has increased it's market share for the last 6 years.
For the last 6 years the PC's share of the market has fallen.

Even during this recession Apple's Mac sales have grown as well as marketshare.
While sales of the PC have shrunk.

Sales of "desktop computer's with a desktop CPU" have shrunk.... dramatically!

Stop trying to turn Apple into Dell and Microsoft. They're not doing so well are they?

How do you figure the iMac was downgraded this year? I must have missed the memo. As Desi would say ..." 'splain yourself, Lucy".

12 years ago, when he was chosen to lead Apple as its new CEO, replacing Gil Amelio, Steve Jobs promised to substantially increase the Mac market share. Steve Jobs also acknowledged that the 1986 decision to not license the original Mac OS had been a bad decision, but stressed that he was no longer part of the company when that decision was made.

Newcomers to the Mac platform may not realize how important to Mac loyalists was the commitment from Steve Jobs to increase the Mac market share. Mac loyalists had supported the platform since the early days, joining Mac user clubs and promoting Macs at work or in schools, colleges and universities, despite the higher prices and decreasing market share of Macs, and despite the growing popularity and ever lower price of Windows 95 and Windows 98 computers.

Things changed at Apple the day that Steve Jobs demanded outrageous stock option bonuses for himself and his hand picked Vice Presidents. From that moment on, Apple was turned into a money machine producing ever higher profit margins to reward Steve Jobs and his loyal friends in Apple's higher management to the detriment of average users who had to pay higher prices. Gone were any hope of expanding the Mac market share or adopting a policy of competitive prices and features.

As Apple developped a new OS, the iPhone OS, Steve Jobs repeated the original mistake which caused the downfall of the Mac through the late 1980's and 1990's, when he opposed the licensing of the iPhone OS and demanded a $400 premium on every iPhone, a profit margin of more than 200%.

As a lame justification for his greed, Steve Jobs developped the arguments quoted above, stressing that Apple was not going after every market, just the high margin opportunities, somehow accepting that Apple was to forever remain a niche player with different and overpriced products carrying a higher profit margin for average quality or outdated components. All was in the name of Apple and the "vision" of Steve Jobs. The Apple stock became a favorite of hedge fund managers who were looking for a quick profit, not a long term investment.

Mac users and Mac loyalists were betrayed by Steve Jobs and, with its high prices and limited choice of models or options, Apple doesn't have a bright future.

A company should listen to its customers and aim to grow its market share, for otherwise, it should cease to exist.

Your delusional if you think iMac's are only used in people's dark houses.

But your welcome to your glossy choice naturally.

I am on the verge of ordering my first Apple computer, an iMac, and would appreciate specs that are competitive with what is available for windows machines with a smaller budget:

• Up to date processor
• An optical drive with Lightscribe (either DVD or Blue-Ray)
• A solid state disc
• A RAID option
• Video input (the brilliant display is there anyway, why not enable it to be used for external sources, like a PS3?)

I really wonder when the new iMac will be announced, but I guess waiting for it might be worth it.

I will try to shape up and fly right

I wonder if the new imac will be a unibody mac book PRO on steriods ??
With better faster more powerful everything including the 2 chip gpu design .

The all powerful uni body glass .green super 3d gaming rocket IMAC



Gotta go my NANO phone is ringing

GO away to dell they need your speed of client

no all in one computer in the world can even come close to a 3 yr old IMAC
If you ever really tried one you would not say what you say .
GLOSSY hah i
its a glass screen
glass reflects
it also gives us the most fantastic looking video play back ever /


google dell and you have over a hundred models to choose from
even a plaid laptop with thumb print controls for a small extra fee.


see ya later

Sure, just Apple doesn't allow matte people a lot of choice, that's the problem.

(15" MBP just came out a few weeks ago because of the petitions to Apple and Steve personally)



It's a bit more involved than that, light is reflected in various degrees off of everything. With a glossy screen that light gets reflected into ones eyes and obscures the viewing image. Only in a dark room is the glare nearly eliminated, with any reflections caused by lighted devices. Not everyone can change their environment, schools, businesses, malls etc. or want to live in a dark room to use their computer. (one has to paint their walls a grey or black and cover the windows and lights)

Different people have different tolerance levels for glare, some can't use a computer at all with any sort of glare. Some can accept a lot or a little, one size doesn't fit all.

Small hand held devices are fine with glossy screens, because people don't look at them for long or they have a small viewing area and they can be quickly tilted.

But computers are used for hours on end, they have a larger screen which catches more glare. This makes the problems of eyestrain and headaches using glossy screens all the more amplified, the larger the glossy screen the worse the problem.

Glossy TV screens were tried and have failed in the marketplace, because of the size factor.




Sure, it's personal opinion based upon user experience and their glare tolerance levels.




HP did some research (as you know they bought Compaq so they really don't have any computer selling experience, they make printers primarily) and saw that people were attracted to shiny computers over the matte. But people MOST ALWAYS attracted to bright shiny objects, I see it happen all the time in art stores, the shiny glass baubles get bought faster than everything else. Nearly all perfume is in shiny glass baubles, see the connection?

So HP rolls out this "oh shiny" computers which made competitors on the same shelves less attractive. That's what got the ball rolling and everyone except Leveno (who polled their business customers and found out 86% wanted matte) just tagged along for the ride.

HP and Apple had some dealings which fell out with the ousting of HP's CEO. HP's new CEO entered the consumer computing market, Apple's territory, so Apple couldn't have their computers looking matte dull and HP's looking "oh shiny", the war was on.

So all this glossy business was HP's fault really, most computer makers KNOW (from CRT days) glare and reflections are a problem and that's why they have had matte screens. But now because of competition there hands are tied. (why the matte Mac options are hidden away as a BTO order)

Now Apple admits over 50% of people buying the Apple Stores are new to the platform. Apple takes great pains to make their machines "just work" and therefore attractive to people who don't want to work on their computers, so a lot of new computer users.

These new to computer people DON'T HAVE A FRIGGING CLUE that glossy screens can be a problem until they take it to their various environments and begin having eye problems.

So us OLD COMPUTER GEEKS who know the problems with glare and reflections are seeing a whole new generation of people being subject to a problem that was FIXED with matte screens.


So if you prefer glossy, fine, I like loud music. But I know the loud music is damaging my hearing and causing me to talk to loudly to other people sometimes. Glossy CRT screens have already caused me years of eyestrain and headaches during the DTP days.

Glossy screens may not be a immediate problem, but it's damaging effects are gradual and we old geeks are warning everyone we can and pushing Apple to at least offer a CHOICE in their computer models, like there is with PC's.


And glossy screens are cheap, in the fact that's it's cheaper for LCD makers to produce them.

A matte screen requires a process to apply the matte film, where 'anti-glare' (as they like to call it which is not) only requires applying a spray on film. A much easier and cheaper process.


So now the consumer has to apply a matte film to their glossy or pay Apple $50 more for a matte screen. Most people are not aware of the danger of glossy screens can have, so are damaging their eyes and making using a computer very undesirable, some people won't know why neither.

It doesn't make much sense in reducing repeat sales at the cost of immediate sales, but I guess because Apple's market share is improving it's hard to gauge the effects. However most seasoned Mac users are screaming for matte options.

Shiny computer screens are only effective at the point of sale, nobody cares after that because rarely does one compare computers with others based upon it's shine factor. (like they would do with cars for example). Matte has more functionality in different environments and eventually that will win over the other as more and more people realize they can't see the screen.

As for me, I'm not saying Apple should get rid of the all-in-one. Just that there is no bl**dy conceivable reason that the iMac should get any thinner. Lighter would be nice, but how often do you shift it around? If you want a much thinner and lighter iMac, here's what, you might as well have a super thin screen and just embed a Macbook Pro in it. Voila. The price could be the same anyways.

Their engineering on the iMac has really reached the stage where the only difference is in the screen size when compared to a Macbook Pro. Sure you're talking maybe a slightly better GPU and a few more 0.X ghz ... But the cost advantages of a desktop is fast diminishing the more they push it. I mean, look at the price overlap of the iMac and MacBook Pros...!

The iMac could almost now be considered a *well-designed docking station* for a laptop.

Don't get me wrong, the beige(or black)box tower paradigm of a PC desktop is so old and so ridiculous, noisy and full of wires. But the alternative of all-in-ones do not come close in terms of performance or price.

But that's just me, I'm probably not the right guy for an iMac, though I seriously considered it. I have a MacBook 13" Aluminium for everything (work+life+etc) except for my PC desktop and 21" screen for playing the latest PC games and occasionally watching tv shows/movies, surfing the web, taking a break from the Mac world... On Windows 7 now

Welcome to the Mac, you'll be happy that you got one and wise to ask the vets first.


I'll answer your questions:

1: You'll get a up to date processor with the right machine, bought when it's newly released.

MacRumors has a buyers guide (perhaps AI has one too?) that tells you when a particular model was released, so you'll get a updated processor.

It's about time the quad cores made their way into Apple's offerings, since a iMac has it's own power and elaborate cooling, it should be able to handle quad core processor in the next release.


2: Mac's come with Superdrives which burn everything just about. But not Blueray, Steve Jobs has said Blueray is "just a bag of hurt" and he might be right or stalling.Most likely a problem with playing content and copy protection required for BlueRay DVD movies is the "hurt". We will know when we see it I guess. If not, BlueRay external drives are available and even internal options by third party sources for storage solutions.


3: Solid state disk. Sure, either Apple will offer it or you can get one installed by a vendor. But SSD are expensive and really only useful for laptops (or maybe for performance machines like the Mac Pro) because hard drives are sort of fragile. A desktop machine would be better priced with a hard drive, than a expensive SSD with low capacity. Because a desktop machine just sits there, not moved around like a laptop computer is.


4: RAID? Are you into performance? For what I might add? You should be looking at a Mac Pro if you got a fat wallet and want a speed machine. 3D games are better on consoles today anyway. PS3's have 9 core processors and a Blueray drive, AND can have Linux installed on them for the cheap price of a few hundred dollars and some work.

You can get a external RAID solution and use the Firewire 800 port (if the new iMac's will have them) for the fastest transfers.


5: Video input. Well now your talking editing video or something. If your going along that route, a Mac Pro is what you want and as many cores as you can get. (to reduce time with video) And take a look at Blackmagic Design for hardware.

http://blackmagic-design.com/


Hmmm reread your post.

You seem to want to use the iMac's screen to use your PS3 on, right?


Well first of all the PS3 and the HDTV (you got a HDTV?) are talking to each other to enable copy protection (HDCP) which the HDCP isn't available on most computers as a license is required to control it's use to prevent piracy of media content by computer users. Of course you can use the PS3 with lower quality video output (not high definition) and then use a TV input device hooked to the Mac (EyeTV) to display it on your iMac screen. But you'll most likely either get delays or dropped frames, not good while fragging folks online.

PS3 gaming needs a nice large HDTV, the quality is awesome, not to be missed.

Note though, the larger the screen the further back you have to sit from it to get the whole screen into your field of vision, or else your turning your head and eyes a lot. Keep that in mind when buying one and unfortunate for you your trying to save money and HDTV's have not come down significantly in price compared to the old Standard TV's of old.

While it may have been a bad decision to not license Mac OS in 1986, it was a terrible decision to license it approximately 10 years later, and would be an even worse decision to license it now. The market is entirely different today than it was in the mid-80s, and conditions that might have made this a good move then no longer exist. Jobs rightly killed the clones to save Apple, and it would be suicide for Apple to bring them back now.

Apple is doing quite well these days, and Jobs has done a remarkable job turning around a company that had completely lost its way. (I mean, we all have to admit that by 1996 Apple really wasn't innovating, Mac OS was near death, Copland was a disaster, the clone market was a succubus draining the life out of Apple, the Newton was consuming resources they didn't have... a whole litany of enormous problems.) He has also increased market share, significantly. But, trying to become another Microsoft, especially at a time when the Microsoft business model is starting to show severe strain, would just be a recipe for disaster.

And the idea that Jobs has somehow betrayed "the faithful" (because he made a bunch of money?) is ridiculous. If it weren't for Jobs, you'd be choosing between Windows and Linux right now. Instead, you have the most advanced personal computer operating system available, that just keeps getting better; mp3 players that don't suck and a simple way to legally put any music you want on them; the most advanced mobile phone operating system available, that will just keep getting better. How exactly is that betrayal?

All that money that Apple is making on iPhones and iPods and Macs does two things. It funds the development of new products and it protects Apple from hostile takeovers. They also use some of it to reward the people who are responsible for producing all that insanely great stuff, so that they keep producing insanely great stuff. All of these are good things for Apple and good for Apple's customers.

This argument that for Apple to be successful they must become Microsoft just doesn't hold water. There are examples in almost every industry of companies that have been successful not by trying to become bigger than the biggest, but by becoming very good at making something very special for that market. That's the road that Apple has chosen -- it was the only rational one open to them -- and they have been quite successful in what they set out to do, to their, and our, benefit.

Sorry mate I think you will be waiting for quite some time. RAID option is only with external 3rd party drives, not your system drives. Video input, you would require a USB device but that wouldn't be realtime so it is more for TV/cable rather than for PS3. Solid state in a desktop? Very unlikely from Apple. Lightscribe? I think Apple doesn't care about that.

Up to date processor? Good luck seeing a wide-range of quadcores in an iMac anytime this year.

For a majority of people, I do believe the iMac is great compared to cheapo beigeboxes and virus-infested Windows.

But once you look at the market of enthusiasts like yourself, the iMac just falls off the list of reasonable choices.

BTW glossy is fine for casual browsing, watching video, looking at iPhoto pictures, etc. But gaming or work-related stuff where I'm looking at the screen for hours on end, no way glass-super-glossiness would be suitable for me. On my MacBook Alu. 13" I don't use the screen for long because it is too small anyways (I have a 3+ year old 17" Sony LCD for work) and on my PC *THANK GOODNESS* I got a nice matte Samsung 21" screen.

You should have seen and tried the G5 iMac. Now *that* was a real fiasco. But I agree, how can they make the iMac thinner when CPU and GPU components still operate with high levels of heat? I mean, GPUs are a big, big f*ing culprit. Look at an Nvidia 8500GT card circa 2007-2008. Now look at the latest mid-range, say a GTS250 which is twice as big and twice as hot and requires twice the fanspeed.