Originally Posted by Quadra 610
This thread looks like something you'd see at Winsupersite.
C'mon people, shape up.
The desktop market is DYING. It's in the basement. You honestly think shoving quad cores and big GPUs into iMacs will change anything? You honestly think shoving big specs in the consumer's face will do anything? It's hard enough for the generic box-makers to sell them at lower prices.
Desktops have got to get smaller, thinner, and even more portable. The future is in form and design
. The whole "tower" paradigm is getting old, and it shows.
Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).
For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further
from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price as well. You may say the average consumer doesn't need that speed... well the average consumer could probably get by with a Celeron or a G4, or even less, but once you've used a C2D, you would not go back to a Celeron. With some applications and general workflow (especially running VMs) I can't begin to tell you how much better an i7 is against a C2D... and BTW, the i5, is almost as good, no reason why that should not be in the iMac.
I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple should really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face, because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.