or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple rolls out new iMacs, Mac Book Pro, iLife '06
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rolls out new iMacs, Mac Book Pro, iLife '06 - Page 3

post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I thought Yonah topped out at 2.16 GHz? Do you have a link to this 2.33 GHz Asus?

Or 2.16Ghz - whatever the highest clocked Core Duo is, I saw it in other PC Manufacturer's line-ups that were announced at CES, and they're putting it in PC notebooks selling for about $2,300. See a Dell with it available here. Point is, they are out there and can be had for what Apple's peddling the 1.83Ghz Core Duo's for. So I presume Apple's saving that chip for a future 'Ultimate' 17 inch MacBook Pro.

Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
The laptops that cost $500 less generally have plastic cases, look ugly and weight more. If you compare Apple to other premium brand laptops they aren't really more expensive. Sometimes cheaper even.

No argument there. I was more or less pointing out that Mac buyers will still have to play the, 'if you add all the stuff Apple includes standard to that Dell the prices come out the same' game. Which is fine by me. Except that Mac nay-sayers will still be able to play the 'Macs are so expensive - I can get a Dell Inspiron with 2Ghz Core Duo for $2,299!" crap. The two inch thick, nine pound plastic case, virus/spyware ridden Windows XP, and a hard drive full of bad 30 day trial software the Dell comes with is much less apparent to buyer's shopping from Dell.com. But what can ya do. Point being, the interesting fact here is that the Intel processors don't make it any easier to compare Apple hardware to others, as Apple will continue to use their 'good', 'better', 'best' style product line-up, meaning the short answer for 'how do I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro?' is 'pay $2,499'. The truth is there's plenty of other included tech and software that make it worth $2,499, but that doesn't always translate to consumers. So the 'Macs are more expensive' mythos shall continue.

I guess what I'd like to see is BTO options for processors from Apple, now that they have a real chip supplier. Not that many people would actually use it per se, but it'd make life easier for comparison shoppers. Back in the Blue & White G3 days, you could start with the $1,599 model and BTO the fastest processor at the time (400Mhz G3). That may have been the last time Apple allowed that. But with today's Apple, if you wanted the 400Mhz model you would have had to pony up for the $2,999 model with a 9GB Ultra SCSI hard drive.
post #82 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I thought so too though a couple of places have mentioned it a while back in the Yonah roadmap.

Anyway - it's ugly, it's black, it's plastic, it's the ASUS R1F

http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/10/a...-it-on-the-dl/

Yonah tops out at 2.16 GHz and this product is still not released in any way shape or form. It was a concept model for CES.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Your analogy was pointless. BOTH laptops have dual core processors so arguing two gravediggers are better than one, or only one can fit in a hole is pointless. Both laptops have the same issues.

The original poster claimed that the 1.83Ghz MacBook was effectively 3ghz+ which by the same reasoning the 2.33Ghz Asus is 4.66Ghz. Either way, since both are using the same technology, your analogy makes no sense.

I'm British. We call it humour.

That's great n'all but I got out of the Windows world 5 years ago as my main OSs so you're preaching to the converted here. I'd also point out that there's flaws in the architecture of all the main three OSs but you'll find that out soon enough.

According to my alien residence card, birth certificate and UK passport, I'm also British. I may be wrong, though; I haven't labelled namecalling as humor since leaving elementary school. I'll write to an embassy to check my status of citizenship.

Again, in your response you seemed to object to the notion that a 1.6 Ghz dual core can act almost two times faster than a single core 1.6 Ghz. This is what the gravediggers analogy explained, that yes, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor is able to act very very fast. You see, a single gravedigger represents a single core chip; two gravediggers represents a dual core chip. By using the simple illustration, I hoped to explain that yes, indeed, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor can probably run at speeds equivalent to 4 Ghz (depending on the chip and surrounding architecture).

Also, you are unable to show me where I stated the new Yonah 2.33Ghz laptops are faster than the MacBook ones. There is a good reason for this: I didn't. I don't believe Apple's hardware is by itself faster than PC hardware. I also don't think it has to be in order to be a preferable system for many people, something which I'm sure we both agree on.

It now seems that what's been happening here is a simple misunderstanding/miscommunication. When you said, "So the Yonah 2.33 Ghz dual core is a 4.66 Ghz dual core? Don't be an ass!" I interpreted that as an objection to the notion that a processor could effect such high speeds (4Ghz +). It now seems you were merely reinforcing your earlier statement that there are faster chips in PC laptops. Again, I did not argue that Apple hardware is by itself faster than PC hardware. I only pointed out the dual core in case you hadn't noticed and were unknowingly comparing it to the notebooks available at the lower end of the market.

I'm aware of at least some of OS X's shortcomings, but from experience still prefer it to Windows. Nothing's perfect, but OS X better suits my needs and has much more appeal than hacking Windows to perform the same tasks.

And let's face it, it's cooler!

BTW, I may not be able to reply to additional posts. The PC laptop I was using earlier died this very afternoon! I'm upset about this (especially as it's happened during a MAJOR project) but it's probably the excuse that'll get me to do that thing I've been threatening to do for over a year now: Switch.
post #84 of 115
When I first saw the Pro books details I wondered at the speed of the cpus chosen, as aegis design first commented upon. It must have to do with cooling. It is a little thinner, about 10% thinner, so this is why you would think about cooling. Being one mere consumer man, I would not know. Apple must have some sensible reason, however. It would make no sense, having in the past released as swift a machine as they are able to, to just introduce one slower for the dickens of it. The other idea I had was that maybe they had a plan to release a higher performance model, that would have FireWire 800.

So intel has no motherboards that include FireWire? That seems hard to believe. It is used by so many pros. Intel and Apple must not think FireWire 800 is entirely ready yet.
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by troberts
MacMac or MacTower, but XServes will stay the same.

I'm sure it will not be MacMac.. that just sounds stupid... I guess the lineup will be

iMac
Mac mini
Mac pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro

and there is possibly room for a new line in-between Mac mini and Mac pro, the "Mac"... Just a thouhgt...
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I thought so too though a couple of places have mentioned it a while back in the Yonah roadmap.

Anyway - it's ugly, it's black, it's plastic, it's the ASUS R1F

http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/10/a...-it-on-the-dl/

And here's some more, including a 12.1" white iBook style laptop with camera a core duo.

ASUS build some of Apple's laptops btw.

http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/a...echnology.html


Thanks for the links, aegis. Seems like 2.33 GHz is not actually available yet, though. Also, I believe that the higher-clocked PC laptops are thicker. They may have smaller footprints, but in terms of heat dissipation, it's thickness that matters.


Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Or 2.16Ghz - whatever the highest clocked Core Duo is, I saw it in other PC Manufacturer's line-ups that were announced at CES, and they're putting it in PC notebooks selling for about $2,300. See a Dell with it available here. Point is, they are out there and can be had for what Apple's peddling the 1.83Ghz Core Duo's for. So I presume Apple's saving that chip for a future 'Ultimate' 17 inch MacBook Pro.


No argument there. I was more or less pointing out that Mac buyers will still have to play the, 'if you add all the stuff Apple includes standard to that Dell the prices come out the same' game. Which is fine by me. Except that Mac nay-sayers will still be able to play the 'Macs are so expensive - I can get a Dell Inspiron with 2Ghz Core Duo for $2,299!" crap. The two inch thick, nine pound plastic case, virus/spyware ridden Windows XP, and a hard drive full of bad 30 day trial software the Dell comes with is much less apparent to buyer's shopping from Dell.com. But what can ya do. Point being, the interesting fact here is that the Intel processors don't make it any easier to compare Apple hardware to others, as Apple will continue to use their 'good', 'better', 'best' style product line-up, meaning the short answer for 'how do I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro?' is 'pay $2,499'. The truth is there's plenty of other included tech and software that make it worth $2,499, but that doesn't always translate to consumers. So the 'Macs are more expensive' mythos shall continue.

I guess what I'd like to see is BTO options for processors from Apple, now that they have a real chip supplier. Not that many people would actually use it per se, but it'd make life easier for comparison shoppers. Back in the Blue & White G3 days, you could start with the $1,599 model and BTO the fastest processor at the time (400Mhz G3). That may have been the last time Apple allowed that. But with today's Apple, if you wanted the 400Mhz model you would have had to pony up for the $2,999 model with a 9GB Ultra SCSI hard drive.

Good post.

I entirely agree. I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.

Also, I hope that now they are starting to increase their computer shipments, they will take the opportunity to expand their range a little bit. On the portable side, whilst I happen to like the balance that Apple strike between portability and power, someone else may not. What, exactly, do Apple have against making bigger, heavier laptops with more power? Why don't they let the customer decide? Whilst I wouldn't want them to go as far as ASUS, DELL or other PC manufacturers in terms of number of different computer models, I would have thought three lines would make sense: Ultraportable (lighter and thinner than what Apple currently offers), portability/power in equal measure (what Apple currently offers), and high-performance (bigger but more powerful than what Apple currently offers)
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #87 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Thanks for the links, aegis. Seems like 2.33 GHz is not actually available yet, though. Also, I believe that the higher-clocked PC laptops are thicker. They may have smaller footprints, but in terms of heat dissipation, it's thickness that matters.




Good post.

I entirely agree. I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.

Also, I hope that now they are starting to increase their computer shipments, they will take the opportunity to expand their range a little bit. On the portable side, whilst I happen to like the balance that Apple strike between portability and power, someone else may not. What, exactly, do Apple have against making bigger, heavier laptops with more power? Why don't they let the customer decide? Whilst I wouldn't want them to go as far as ASUS, DELL or other PC manufacturers in terms of number of different computer models, I would have thought three lines would make sense: Ultraportable (lighter and thinner than what Apple currently offers), portability/power in equal measure (what Apple currently offers), and high-performance (bigger but more powerful than what Apple currently offers)

Yes, the aegisdesign has many keen observations and links. I could not find the mobilewhack page, however, it must have been scuttled, or Camino does not find it.

When the first PowerBook came out, it was big and heavy, but it had a lot packed in to it, which the engineers wanted to do, or that is what I get from reading the Owen Linzmayer and other books. I never did see one of those.

An interesting view of Steve Jobs is gotten from the book that Andy Hertzfeld wrote, called "Revolution in the Valley". While that is about the making of the Macintosh, it gives a picture of Jobs, and his appreciation of and demand for good art/design. It does not seem to be in Apple's(Jobs and Ive's) blood to produce a thick notebook, or we would have had a G5 POwerBook, as we got a G5 iMac.

But it would be nice to have some more variety of options in BTO. Like people have been asking for in a Mac tower, which could just be called Macintosh, or the Mac. That would be a very different concept from the original, true, but it would please many customers.
post #88 of 115
Just ordered (last night) a new iMac Duo 20". Scheduled to ship on Jan. 19th. Just a few modifications from standard: 2 GB RAM, 256 MB video. When I ordered, it estimated 3-5 days shipping. Checked this morning, and it isn't scheduled to ship until the 19th.

Can't wait. Woot!
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #89 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Again, in your response you seemed to object to the notion that a 1.6 Ghz dual core can act almost two times faster than a single core 1.6 Ghz. This is what the gravediggers analogy explained, that yes, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor is able to act very very fast. You see, a single gravedigger represents a single core chip; two gravediggers represents a dual core chip. By using the simple illustration, I hoped to explain that yes, indeed, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor can probably run at speeds equivalent to 4 Ghz (depending on the chip and surrounding architecture).

This discussion, if you want to call it that, is simply circular. I'll break it down to how I see it, but I don't understand why this is so difficult. I think the point is that the gravedigger argument was not, in any way, an answer to what aegisdesign was asking. The gravedigger answer is the correct answer to the wrong question.

I still think the Macbook should have been introduced with an available 2+ GHz Core Duo chip, but was not. Even if it was a third, more expensive option because of limited supply, it should have still been offered. Offering a new laptop that was going to have a 10% slower chip than everyone else's new laptop using the same chip doesn't bode well for Apple, many people can go away from the product page percieving Apple as being on the trailing edge of performance.
post #90 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
[B]This discussion, if you want to call it that, is simply circular.

Glad someone was paying attention. I gave up. \
post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.

Quote:
Originally posted by NordicMan
But it would be nice to have some more variety of options in BTO.

Yesterday was the first time I knew Video Memory in the 20" Core Duo iMac can be BTO'd to 256MB from 128MB. You've never been able to do jack with the Graphics card on an iMac before. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see even more expansion in Apple's BTO options.
post #92 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Yesterday was the first time I knew Video Memory in the 20" Core Duo iMac can be BTO'd to 256MB from 128MB. You've never been able to do jack with the Graphics card on an iMac before. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see even more expansion in Apple's BTO options.

It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.
post #93 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.

This is what people get when they hold on to their "I'll wait for Rev B" attitude.

Honestly, there's no guarantee Rev B won't be as buggy or buggier than Rev A. There's no reason to believe Rev A would be problematic. People that wait for the mystical 'second version' will go through life being miserable.
post #94 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
This is what people get when they hold on to their "I'll wait for Rev B" attitude.

Honestly, there's no guarantee Rev B won't be as buggy or buggier than Rev A. There's no reason to believe Rev A would be problematic. People that wait for the mystical 'second version' will go through life being miserable.

I have a Rev A iMac. It's great. No problems. No regrets. The new Rev A Intel iMacs look great too if I didn't have so much PowerPC software I rely on day to day.
post #95 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.

Do you mean that the owner can no longer easily upgrade the memory?
post #96 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Do you mean that the owner can no longer easily upgrade the memory?

That's all they can do, through a little slot in the bottom.

On the Rev A G5 iMac, the whole of the rear case comes off. You can switch out the hard disk, the RAM, replace the DVD drive, replace the fans, replace the mid plane, replace the screen, replace the PSU - all user serviceable parts.

I think you can't replace the stand for a VESA compatible arm on the Rev C G5 or the Rev A Intel iMac either.
post #97 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Offering a new laptop that was going to have a 10% slower chip than everyone else's new laptop using the same chip doesn't bode well for Apple, many people can go away from the product page percieving Apple as being on the trailing edge of performance.

Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor. So essentially, I get a leading edge technology which obsoletes my current hardware investment (Expresscard), and I get a trailing edge technology in an area which can only be of benefit (the CPU). Doesn't make much sense from an end-user perspective, but I guess it makes sense from a profit margin perspective (I believe Expresscard is cheaper to implement in hardware than Cardbus).
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #98 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by auxio
Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor.

Are any of the PC laptops with > 1.83 GHz processor only 1 inch thin?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #99 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by auxio
Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor.

Do any run OS X and include iLife?
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #100 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
Do any run OS X and include iLife?

Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.

Sure they do. In fact, they have at least several. Not being a systems design engineer nor having the pulse of Apple's financial considerations, I can only comment on two reasons that are, erm, rather obvious (IMHO):

1) It's Apple's prerogative to release products as they see fit. After all, it's their product mix/specification decisions that have driven their success;
2) They most certainly have other machines in the pipeline;

I prefer to entrust Apple's direction to those who have proven themselves capable of managing a $72 billion company over a group of consumers clamoring for a 10% increase in clock speed three days after the release of a product that represents a fundamental shift in market-share opportunity for Apple.

If you're that desperate for clock speed, you have other options.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #102 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
Sure they do. In fact, they have at least several. Not being a systems design engineer nor having the pulse of Apple's financial considerations, I can only comment on two reasons that are, erm, rather obvious (IMHO):

1) It's Apple's prerogative to release products as they see fit. After all, it's their product mix/specification decisions that have driven their success;
2) They most certainly have other machines in the pipeline;

I prefer to entrust Apple's direction to those who have proven themselves capable of managing a $72 billion company over a group of consumers clamoring for a 10% increase in clock speed three days after the release of a product that represents a fundamental shift in market-share opportunity for Apple.

If you're that desperate for clock speed, you have other options.

Now you're just making assumptions about me. Who said I wanted the extra clock speed?

Yours is the ultimate example of an "apple apologist" post. Apple now shift enough macs to warrant expanding their range and options.

Now, if the fact that the MacBook Pro is only 1 inch thick means they can't use >1.83 GHz, then fair enough. I think that most of us suspect, however, that they are just saving the faster processors for a 17" version.

I understand perfectly that Apple need to make money. When Steve returned to Apple, they were in a mess. Their product line was confused, and their manufacturing was inefficient, they were losing money on their low and mid-range systems. At that time, it was absolutely the right thing to do to pare the product line right down, and that happened with the introduction of the first iMac. Over time, Apple's range has expanded, but not that much.

Over the last year, Apple's manufacturing efficiencies have significantly improved, and Mac shipments are on the rise. I believe that Apple is on the cusp of significant market-share gains, and that they should capitalise on this. It is about time that Apple stop making so many decisions on behalf of their customers.

What, exactly, is wrong with Apple giving consumers the choice? You will note that I have not complained about the pricing of these new machines. If it is techinically possible to fit a 2.16 GHz processor into the MacBook Pro, why don't Apple offer that choice to their customers and charge another $300 to $500 for it?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #103 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
Do any run OS X and include iLife?

Yeah, I can just hear the comments if Apple had put a faster processor in that required a thicker case to accomodate greater heat dissipation.

"Why in the world would Apple make their laptops THICKER..."
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #104 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.

Price - they might not be able to sell a $3000 laptop
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #105 of 115
Quote:
Yours is the ultimate example of an "apple apologist" post. Apple now shift enough macs to warrant expanding their range and options.

Do you use "Apologist" as someone who argues for a position, or are you using it in an attempt to label me in a negative way?

For what, exactly, do Apple (and, apparently, now, me) need to apologize? For not doing what you think Apple should do?

Quote:
Now, if the fact that the MacBook Pro is only 1 inch thick means they can't use >1.83 GHz, then fair enough. I think that most of us suspect, however, that they are just saving the faster processors for a 17" version.

So it's fair if Apple physically can't fit a faster CPU into a 1" enclosure, but not fair if they are reserving it for another enclosure? I don't really get that. It's not like Apple isn't telling you the clock speed of the CPU. Sounds like you just expect Apple to be the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers; A company with the very best of everything. And then, you claim, price wouldn't be your source of angst. That's great. The other customers might, though.

Quote:
Over time, Apple's range has expanded, but not that much.

True. Their product line hasn't expanded at the same rate as their profits. That's a good thing, agreed? When it was the other way around, Apple was in serious trouble. Don't you suspect that the Intel transition is as much about expanding the product line as it is about anything else?

Quote:
What, exactly, is wrong with Apple giving consumers the choice?

I couldn't begin to tell you the answer to this question. I've never run a company like Apple. I've never been in the business of managing multiple manufactured product lines in a system that supports only modest BTO options. But, I suspect, it has something to do with their business plan, their infrastructure, and other considerations that we're not privy to. Just because Dell can do it, doesn't mean it's right for other companies. Each company has its core competencies. To expect a company to run willy nilly after this model or that is reckless, and I'm thankful that Apple's board saw fit to remove those who think that way and replace them with those who understand the company's core competencies.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #106 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
Do you use "Apologist" as someone who argues for a position, or are you using it in an attempt to label me in a negative way?

For what, exactly, do Apple (and, apparently, now, me) need to apologize? For not doing what you think Apple should do?

It is not a term that I originated. People use it when they refer to those who appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. You didn't provide much argument against Apple providing higher clock-speed CPUs beyond "Apple decided not to ship higher clocked CPUs, they are a successful company, so they must be right".

Please also note, that I said the post was one fit for an Apple apologist. You may not be one. Your argument is expanding a bit, so maybe you aren't an apologist.


Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
So it's fair if Apple physically can't fit a faster CPU into a 1" enclosure, but not fair if they are reserving it for another enclosure? I don't really get that.

I was assuming that the 17" will also be 1 inch thick. If this turns out to be the case, and it has a 2.16 GHz processor, then there doesn't seem to be a technical reason for not also offering the faster processor in the 15" model.


Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
True. Their product line hasn't expanded at the same rate as their profits. That's a good thing, agreed?

agreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
When it was the other way around, Apple was in serious trouble. Don't you suspect that the Intel transition is as much about expanding the product line as it is about anything else?

I hope so.

Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
I couldn't begin to tell you the answer to this question. I've never run a company like Apple. I've never been in the business of managing multiple manufactured product lines in a system that supports only modest BTO options. But, I suspect, it has something to do with their business plan, their infrastructure, and other considerations that we're not privy to. Just because Dell can do it, doesn't mean it's right for other companies. Each company has its core competencies. To expect a company to run willy nilly after this model or that is reckless, and I'm thankful that Apple's board saw fit to remove those who think that way and replace them with those who understand the company's core competencies.

Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
Sounds like you just expect Apple to be the be-all and end-all of computer manufacturers; A company with the very best of everything. And then, you claim, price wouldn't be your source of angst. That's great. The other customers might, though.

I agree with you on some points. A well-run company needs to have a well-defined plan and definitely shouldn't "run willy nilly after this model or that".

If you are a computer manufacturer, shouldn't you make damn sure that one of your core competencies is making computers that your customers want? The choices offered by Apple's BTO system have actually decreased over the years, which I find disappointing.

Apple's computers are the only ones that you can run OS X on. No, I'm not about to say that this should change. It absolutely should not. But if Apple want to increase OS X market share, I think that they need to start offering their potential customers more options. Apple have around 4% market share, we know that what they offer satisfies that 4%. If Apple want any of the 96% to become their customers, they have to start offering them machines that they want to buy.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
It is not a term that I originated. People use it when they refer to those who appear to think that Apple can do no wrong. You didn't provide much argument against Apple providing higher clock-speed CPUs beyond "Apple decided not to ship higher clocked CPUs, they are a successful company, so they must be right".

You misread my post. Bottom line is that I think I'll take Apple's track record for predicting and delivering the goods that consumers want over what you want.

Quote:

Please also note, that I said the post was one fit for an Apple apologist. You may not be one. Your argument is expanding a bit, so maybe you aren't an apologist.

Oh, well that's entirely different. My POST is befitting an apologist. I, myself, am not. Alrighty then.

Quote:

I was assuming that the 17" will also be 1 inch thick. If this turns out to be the case, and it has a 2.16 GHz processor, then there doesn't seem to be a technical reason for not also offering the faster processor in the 15" model.

Other than the fact that a 17" chassis provides over 10% more component and cooling room by virtue of the fact that it's larger. And, whether the physical layout of the board can withstand the additional heat. And whether the proximity of the components are affected by different airflow considerations, heat build up, RFI interference, and and and and. You're making a lot of assumptions that aren't grounded in anything other than a desire to have bragging rights.

Quote:
If you are a computer manufacturer, shouldn't you make damn sure that one of your core competencies is making computers that your customers want?

Yes, giving customers what they want is important. Another important consideration is giving your other stakeholders what they want. Success in business is a constant balancing act between the two.

Quote:
The choices offered by Apple's BTO system have actually decreased over the years, which I find disappointing.

And yet, all the while that their BTO options have decreased their sales have increased. This is important to Apple's other stakeholders...

Quote:
But if Apple want to increase OS X market share, I think that they need to start offering their potential customers more options.

I suspect that a 10% processor differential has such a small impact on whether a consumer will convert from Windows to Mac OS X that Apple has chosen to focus on other areas that represent very real adoption hurdles.
I got nothin'.
Reply
I got nothin'.
Reply
post #108 of 115
The iMac in some ways reminds me of the first Macintosh. That first Mac was meant to be a closed unit. Something that was remarkable for its time, and that did many things for the user, empowering him or her. The iLife applications and the Mac OS are what do that, like the early Macintosh. It was not meant to be upgraded. I am glad that Apple at least lets memory be upgraded on the present iMacs.

But, I like the later PowerMac idea, wherein you were able to replace HD, or motherboard, if need be, and memory, additional drives could be put in, all the kind of things that aegisdesign expressed earlier about the earlier G5 iMac.

I found my self being attracted to the new Mac Book. But I believe I am going to wait for the Book to come later in the year.

I don't plan to wait too long to get a Mac for office work, so the iMac is looking like a possibility.
post #109 of 115
eek, this is getting almost out of control. To reply or not to reply? I'll think I'll go for one more, then leave it.

Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
a desire to have bragging rights.

?? Could you clarify? Are you saying that I want Apple to offer a faster processor so that I can having bragging rights?

Quote:
Originally posted by godrifle
I suspect that a 10% processor differential has such a small impact on whether a consumer will convert from Windows to Mac OS X

You're right, I don't think that only the introduction of allowing people to choose a 10% faster processor is going to get a significant number of people to switch. This argument started because I said beyond technical limitations due to the form factor, there wasn't much excuse for not offering the faster processor (it's pin compatible and the same size). The argument developed from there onto BTO in general, I was using the processor as a key example of Apple making decisions on behalf of their potential customers.

I think it is worth saying again that Apple are the only people who manufacture computers that can run OS X. If you are a current Windows user, you have A LOT of different computers to choose from. Now, there is obviously no way that Apple can offer a model to compete with every single PC model out there, but I think it's about time that Apple started to expand the options it offers its customers in an effort to obtain more switchers.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #110 of 115
So you believe Apple elected not to use a cpu that was 2.16 Ghz, in lieu of just having a 1.8 Ghz cpu?

It seems peculiar that if they were able to offer it, that Apple would not.

I do not know why this was. One would think that the thickness of the Mac notebook may have meant that heat was an issue.

There have been so many times when Apple went for the quickest cpu that they were able to offer. Why would this not happen now?

Well, some time we will find the reason.
post #111 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by e1618978
Price - they might not be able to sell a $3000 laptop

I was looking around, it seems there are quite a few pricier laptop models available.
post #112 of 115
15 is the heart and soul of laptop sizes, for consumers and pros they gave us a future with the mac pro, now gives them some leaway for the next year. if it could run windows and you all showed me how, i'd buy right now. i'm excited about the price performance ratio. considering where we came from this is huge
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #113 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by NordicMan
So you believe Apple elected not to use a cpu that was 2.16 Ghz, in lieu of just having a 1.8 Ghz cpu?

It seems peculiar that if they were able to offer it, that Apple would not.

I do not know why this was. One would think that the thickness of the Mac notebook may have meant that heat was an issue.

There have been so many times when Apple went for the quickest cpu that they were able to offer. Why would this not happen now?

Well, some time we will find the reason.

Cosmos 1999 pointed to this Think Secret article in another thread which says the MacBook Pro's appear to be using the low-voltage versions of the Core Duo chips, which only clock up to 1.83Ghz. The iMacs use the Typical version, which clocks up to 2Ghz. If that's the case, then Apple opted to use the more expensive variant that gets better battery life, and probably produces less heat. Those PC manufacturers offering 2Ghz Core Duo's in notebooks are using the version that isn't low-voltage, which I presume equals poorer battery life and a big fat heavy case. I presume no one will know if this is true or not until someone who can tell what chip is what gets their hands on a MacBook Pro.
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Cosmos 1999 pointed to this Think Secret article in another thread which says the MacBook Pro's appear to be using the low-voltage versions of the Core Duo chips, which only clock up to 1.83Ghz.

Only problem with that thinking is that Intel only released 2 low voltage versions.

The L2400 is 1.66Ghz and the L2300 at 1.5Ghz. So that'd mean Apple have an L2500 before anyone else or Intel have announced it.

Incidentally, if anyone wants to see the insides of the intel iMac see

http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawar...c_intel01.html

Nice closeup on the T2400 CPU in the 1.83Ghz model. The insides are a complete mess by comparison to the Rev A G5.
post #115 of 115
Thank you for the link aegisdesign. It would be interesting to also see the 20" iMac insides. Being the same motherboard, it must not look much different, just the screen is wider/bigger, and then a little more room inside, I reckon.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple rolls out new iMacs, Mac Book Pro, iLife '06