or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread - Page 15

post #561 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.

They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.

They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?

I'm failing to see why apple would want to stall a cpu manufacturer from releasing a cpu? What would prevent apple from not being ready? I can kind of see it with IBM / Freescale since apple made the motherboards... but now intel is making the boards... So what would they stall for?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #562 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.

They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.

They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?

Apple can ask for help like most others and Intel will provide board design, services. This was different with Moto and IBM, to ask cost lots of money.
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #563 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by emig647
I'm failing to see why apple would want to stall a cpu manufacturer from releasing a cpu? What would prevent apple from not being ready? I can kind of see it with IBM / Freescale since apple made the motherboards... but now intel is making the boards... So what would they stall for?

It's pretty well known how Apple punishes manufacturers for announcing before they want to do so. The apparently just did it again with Samsung.

Apple has always had their own schedule. But now they can't do it. when Apple used most of IBM's G5's, they could do it. The same thing with Moto and Freescale. If the cpu was ready, but Apple wasn't, the announcement would wait. This isn't exactly news.
post #564 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Brendon
Apple can ask for help like most others and Intel will provide board design, services. This was different with Moto and IBM, to ask cost lots of money.

It isn't so much Apple needing help, as it is Apple wanting to intro products, and the parts that go into them, on their own schedule.

How many discussions have we had over Steve waiting to intro a product when he wants to.
post #565 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That's true. Apple can't hide with IBM and Freescale anymore. When the chips are announced, and everyone else has machines, people will turn to Apple, and say; "So, where are yours?" Apple can't run from that any longer. It's not what they want. They can't control the timing anymore.

They could tell IBM and Freescale to hold off on the announcement of the chips until Apple was ready, but they can't do that to Intel. They have to ride the releases along with everyone else.

They also have to keep up with the crowd. So far, they've done that with the MBP and MB, but not with the iMac, or the Mini. I wonder why?

My guess would be that because the iMac and the Mini are such relatively unique machines, they can hold off updating them a little longer therby increasing their margins without appreciably loosing sales.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #566 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Flounder
My guess would be that because the iMac and the Mini are such relatively unique machines, they can hold off updating them a little longer therby increasing their margins without appreciably loosing sales.

That doesn't really make sense. Apple's margins are fine with these machines. The small increase would not be appreciable. The loss in sales could be. The Mini sell well, but not great. The iMac is Apples leading consumer/prosumer machine on the sesktop. People will wait. What for? And as we get closer to Merom, even more people will wait. This doesn't help the bottom line one bit. The faster the chip, the better Rosetta works. This is holding up some sales as well.

It all matters. Apple makes decisions, and they aren't always good ones.
post #567 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
That doesn't really make sense. Apple's margins are fine with these machines. The small increase would not be appreciable. The loss in sales could be. The Mini sell well, but not great. The iMac is Apples leading consumer/prosumer machine on the sesktop. People will wait. What for? And as we get closer to Merom, even more people will wait. This doesn't help the bottom line one bit. The faster the chip, the better Rosetta works. This is holding up some sales as well.

It all matters. Apple makes decisions, and they aren't always good ones.

I absolutley agree apple doesn't always make good decisions, but we simply don't have the information to know which side of the tetter totter waiting a little longer to upgrade for the purpose of better margins vs. potential loss of sales the situation lies.

I was just presenting what Apple's logic may be. I'm not saying it's correct. I've got no clue
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #568 of 947
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.

Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.

Vinea
post #569 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.

Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.

Vinea

Yeah I know. I was thinking about getting one as a second computer. BUt I'm waiting on a Media center and a tablet, because I would rather buy both of those and a new PowerMac/Mac Pro than a second PC.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #570 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
The mini's were outselling iMacs on Amazon until the MacBook arrived. They do need a bit of a bump or price drop sooner or later unless Apple is happier selling Macbooks which it might be.

Contrary to Melgross' assertion, mini sales were outperforming expectations so they were selling "great" despite the price point.

Vinea

Forget about Amazon. That proves nothing.
post #571 of 947
Is the Mac Pro going to be faster than a Quad?

Apple has always made a big play of comparing their new top of the line machine against the old top of the line machine. We're all used to seeing the bar graphs on the Apple site.

The intel based iMacs, MBPro and MBs all leave their predecessors standing, but part of this is due to the fact they featured a second core, and significantly faster front side buses.

But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #572 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiah
Is the Mac Pro going to be faster than a Quad?

Apple has always made a big play of comparing their new top of the line machine against the old top of the line machine. We're all used to seeing the bar graphs on the Apple site.

The intel based iMacs, MBPro and MBs all leave their predecessors standing, but part of this is due to the fact they featured a second core, and significantly faster front side buses.

But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?

I don't think that there will be any question that the new Mac Pro's will be faster than the G5 models they replace.

The Conroe's will be better performers, and the Woodcrests, if Apple will use them, will be better yet.

We don't know what Apple intends, but if they can go to a 3GHz dual socket Woodcrest design for the top model, the present Quad will definitely be eclipsed.

I was going to buy a Quad in January, but decided to wait. At the very least, of course, the new machines will be the way to go, simply because they are what Apple will be supporting.

And, the likelyhood that we MIGHT be able to replace the chips the machine will initially come with, with faster ones a year or so down the road, is very appealing. It's something many of us had valued over the years, in our towers, but lost when the G5's came out. Consider that possibility as well.
post #573 of 947
Thread Starter 
First off, Woodcrest can be used in dualcore SMP. I read it somewhere. And second off, so far Intel has been so ridiculously faster than PowerPC so far that even the Quad will be eclipsed.
post #574 of 947
If they solder the processors in there like they do with the laptops, i'm going to flip. Wait...all desktop processors use LGA 775. I think we're going to be able to upgrade Pro Intel Macs!
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #575 of 947
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by icfireball
With Boot Camp the new intel PM could be crazy delicious for gaming

Yeah, that's why I'm holding out.

It's really pretty much similar to buying any other boutique gaming PC such as FalconNW or Alienware; you pay more, you get a slick case and fast hardware.

Let's just hope that they dont' intentionally cripple the ability to install PC components. I want in particular to be able to install any GPU I darned well please.

(No, this doesn't require a bunch of Mac OS X drivers, since most hardware has a VESA fallback mode that any operating system can use without custom drivers.)
post #576 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
Yeah, that's why I'm holding out.

It's really pretty much similar to buying any other boutique gaming PC such as FalconNW or Alienware; you pay more, you get a slick case and fast hardware.

Let's just hope that they dont' intentionally cripple the ability to install PC components. I want in particular to be able to install any GPU I darned well please.

(No, this doesn't require a bunch of Mac OS X drivers, since most hardware has a VESA fallback mode that any operating system can use without custom drivers.)

I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).
post #577 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).

The iMac is considered to be a decent gaming machine now. A faster graphics board would be of more value there.
post #578 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Forget about Amazon. That proves nothing.

Analysts also stated that mini sales were stronger than expected. Since the mini was an outperformer the last go around what makes you STILL run around claiming that the mini is suffering in some nebulous way? "well but not great".

Because you still can't admit you were wrong about the mini?

And why does Amazon prove nothing?

Vinea
post #579 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Messiah
But the Quad already has (obviously) four cores – so I'm wondering, just how much faster can the Mac Pros get? Will Apple instead reduce the overall price of the family?

Woodcrest has twice the performance of the 970MP (in some benchmarks, which is good enough for Apple to claim "2X!").
post #580 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by theapplegenius
If they solder the processors in there like they do with the laptops, i'm going to flip. Wait...all desktop processors use LGA 775. I think we're going to be able to upgrade Pro Intel Macs!

Sorry to spoil your fun, but the chips you'll want to upgrade to are going to be either higher speed Woodcrests (which'll work), or the eventual quad-core chips. The problem is that without an updated motherboard, you'll have 4 cores on a bus designed for 2, and sloppy performance will ensue. That's not to say that it won't be a boost, but it will be limited by the bus speed when you talk about 6-8 core machines in a 4-core motherboard.
post #581 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
Analysts also stated that mini sales were stronger than expected. Since the mini was an outperformer the last go around what makes you STILL run around claiming that the mini is suffering in some nebulous way? "well but not great".

Because you still can't admit you were wrong about the mini?

And why does Amazon prove nothing?

Vinea

Stronger than expected, which I also noted a while back, doesn't mean great. It means just what it says.

I wasn't wrong about the Mini.

Because amazon's sales have meaning only for Amazon. The obviously fairly small number of people who buy computers from them are not the average computer buyer.

Going by Amazon's lists, someone who didn't know better, would think that Apple had a 60% marketshare, and sold 50 million machines a year.

Since we know that Apple's marketshare is about 4%, that isn't correct.

How Amazons sales relate to the industry's, is pretty obvious: it's extemely skewed. Therefore any of their numbers are automatically suspect in the way they relate to overall sales, for Apple, as well as for everyone else.

As you pointed out, Dell isn't sold there. How many other manufacturers aren't sold there? And what are the percentages of sales for each model?
post #582 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
Sorry to spoil your fun, but the chips you'll want to upgrade to are going to be either higher speed Woodcrests (which'll work), or the eventual quad-core chips. The problem is that without an updated motherboard, you'll have 4 cores on a bus designed for 2, and sloppy performance will ensue. That's not to say that it won't be a boost, but it will be limited by the bus speed when you talk about 6-8 core machines in a 4-core motherboard.

I'm not so sure. Someone put a dual core Yonah in a single core Mini box, and it seemed to have about the same performance as the dual core model. There are a number of sites which are putting these changes up. It's beginning to become impossible to track them anymore. Most of the sites seem to be in Japan.
post #583 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
I'm not so sure. Someone put a dual core Yonah in a single core Mini box, and it seemed to have about the same performance as the dual core model.

That's because it's the same mobo, designed for a dual core CPU.

David
_ ________________________ _

I have no signature - Doh!
Reply
_ ________________________ _

I have no signature - Doh!
Reply
post #584 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by iMacfan
That's because it's the same mobo, designed for a dual core CPU.

David

Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.
post #585 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.

I see, I think we had our wires crossed. I thought you were saying that that meant a Quad core chip would be fine in a mobo designed for a dual core.

David
_ ________________________ _

I have no signature - Doh!
Reply
_ ________________________ _

I have no signature - Doh!
Reply
post #586 of 947
what happened to the PRICE CUT for Yonah, Pentium D & Pentium 4 announcement which suppose to be 28th May

it will happen only when they release Woodcrest?

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #587 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Yes, as they found out. These might be as well. But, don't forget that the chips are compatable, either core. The mobo's might have to be the same.

My point was that FSB is going to matter a lot more now in chips. And while the upcoming quad-core (December-January) chips might use the same mobo, we can't count on that in the future, even if they use the same socket. When you have a quad-core chip in a dual-core mobo (even a MP enabled one) FSB is gonna be the limiting factor. This will apply in the jump from 4 to 8 (or 6) cores as well.
post #588 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by shanmugam
what happened to the PRICE CUT for Yonah, Pentium D & Pentium 4 announcement which suppose to be 28th May

it will happen only when they release Woodcrest?

I've been wondering that myself...

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #589 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by iMacfan
I see, I think we had our wires crossed. I thought you were saying that that meant a Quad core chip would be fine in a mobo designed for a dual core.

David

A motherboard is not "designed" for a dual-core processor. As long as the socket is the same and the chipset is compatible, it'll work. (Rare exceptions Netburst-->Core, Coppermine-->Tualatin where some parts of the motherboard will burn the processor out.) Now, I don't see a quad-core laptop processor for awhile, Merom may/may not work in a Mini (Chipset) but hopefully it won't be a problem.
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #590 of 947
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).

The one that isn't a Disposable Computer.
post #591 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
The one that isn't a Disposable Computer.

All computers are disposable. I think you're going with "the one that doesn't have a disposable screen"
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #592 of 947
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by theapplegenius
All computers are disposable. I think you're going with "the one that doesn't have a disposable screen"

And videocard. And optical drive. And no possible expansion whatsoever.
post #593 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
I'm curious Placebo, are you getting a PowerMac( or whatever it gets called) or an iMac if they put Conroe in it? If Apple puts Conroe in iMac that would be a sweet machine, even for gaming ( I know Conroe in iMac is a big if).

That doesn't seem that iffy to me. Conroe should be the iMac's processor. It's designated by intel as their desktop processor, The iMac is designated by Apple as their desktop computer. It only makes sense.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #594 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Stronger than expected, which I also noted a while back, doesn't mean great. It means just what it says.

I wasn't wrong about the Mini.

ROFL. You stated that you thought that the $100 price difference would hurt Mini sales. Yet they exceeded sales expectations. You were wrong.

When the first mini came out it greatly exceeded sales expectations by about triple (50K expectations vs 120-140K sold I forget exactly). Lemme see, so analysts once again forecasted weak mini sales because the last mini did so poorly.

Quote:
Because amazon's sales have meaning only for Amazon. The obviously fairly small number of people who buy computers from them are not the average computer buyer.

Even if you assume that Amazon doesn't show that Apple executes well against its true competitors in the upper end of the consumer market (as in not dell, hp, acer, and gateway) it should still be a good indicator of how the Apple models do against each other.

In any case, that the mini did rank higher for some period means there was high demand for the mini at least at the one retailer we can get a strong reading on.

Which means you have butkus for data and you're once again trying desperately not to admit you were wrong.

Vinea
post #595 of 947
Here's a question for someone in the know...is aluminum expensive for Apple to use?
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
You think Im an arrogant [expletive] who thinks hes above the law, and I think youre a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong. Steve Jobs
Reply
post #596 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by DHagan4755
Here's a question for someone in the know...is aluminum expensive for Apple to use?

Nothing compaired to Titanium, and they used that forever, besides Aluminum can act like a heat sink, or conductor.

What do you have in mind??
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #597 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
My point was that FSB is going to matter a lot more now in chips. And while the upcoming quad-core (December-January) chips might use the same mobo, we can't count on that in the future, even if they use the same socket. When you have a quad-core chip in a dual-core mobo (even a MP enabled one) FSB is gonna be the limiting factor. This will apply in the jump from 4 to 8 (or 6) cores as well.

You're right. we can't count on anything for the future. But, as for right now, it seems to be fine. Intel has announced which chips are pin compatable, This has been discussed in the PC community. As in the current Macs, the chips seem to be drop in.

No one can know whether Apple will allow that to continue in the future. But as long as they have the chips socketed, it should work. The bus speeds are up to the chip set being used on that mobo. So if a chip with a faster bus is popped in, as long as that chipset supports the higher bus speed, it will automatically change to it. In some cases, it might be necessary to have a firmware update, no big deal. Intel tells shich chipsets support which cpu's, so none of this is a secret.
post #598 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by Placebo
And videocard. And optical drive. And no possible expansion whatsoever.

But, most people don't expand their machines, though many think that they might when they buy them. Memory, and bigger HD's, are about all that most people change. With wireless built-in, this is pretty much complete for most people.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it is complete for you, or for me.
post #599 of 947
Quote:
Originally posted by vinea
ROFL. You stated that you thought that the $100 price difference would hurt Mini sales. Yet they exceeded sales expectations. You were wrong.



No. They did better than some analysts thought. That's not the same thing. Those analysts thought that it would do worse than the original Mini. They didn't say otherwise. Just that it did better than they though it would.

Look, really. Without numbers, numbers that apparently Apple won't give out, no one can do more than guess.

Quote:
When the first mini came out it greatly exceeded sales expectations by about triple (50K expectations vs 120-140K sold I forget exactly). Lemme see, so analysts once again forecasted weak mini sales because the last mini did so poorly.

Where did you see 50k sales expectation numbers for the quarter? Those numbers would have been a disaster! I didn't see those projections anywhere. The numbers I saw were 225 to 300k expectations, and about 225 to 250k reality.

Quote:
Even if you assume that Amazon doesn't show that Apple executes well against its true competitors in the upper end of the consumer market (as in not dell, hp, acer, and gateway) it should still be a good indicator of how the Apple models do against each other.

For Amazon's market, yes. no doubt. But as we can see that Amazon's sales numbers don't corrispond to market reality, we can't say that the Apple rankings are comparable to their overall sales either. They are suggestive, I will give you that. But just how close do they come? We can't say. If the overall numbers are so far off, those may be as well. What kind of person is buying from Amazon? Does (s)he compare to the person buying from Apple? Or CompUsa? Or elsewhere? We don't know.

That all I'm saying. I love seeing those numbers, but I just don't know they they mean.

Quote:
In any case, that the mini did rank higher for some period means there was high demand for the mini at least at the one retailer we can get a strong reading on.

No, it may not mean anything.

Quote:
Which means you have butkus for data and you're once again trying desperately not to admit you were wrong.

You do this all the time, and not just with me. You use information that has no meaning for your argument, and then you insult me because I show that it doesn't. Then you get angry when I respond in kind.

[/QUOTE]
post #600 of 947
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
But, most people don't expand their machines, though many think that they might when they buy them. Memory, and bigger HD's, are about all that most people change. With wireless built-in, this is pretty much complete for most people.

Of course, that doesn't mean that it is complete for you, or for me.

I WAS TALKING

ABOUT

WHAT I WANT



The iMac is suitable for many people's needs and desires, but I'd rather have something a bit more expandable.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread