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remain a niche player with different and overpriced products carrying a higher profit margin for average quality or outdated components.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.
It is a good thing that laws re slander/libel have yet to be applied to the internet. Although, the UK is now considering such.
Your continuing tirade against everything Apple is quite boring and only portrays your level of intelligence, which in my opinion is unmeasurable.
So has anyone done any digging about Wedge Partners--who they are, why they would have any more information than any other analyst/research firm? Is anyone else suspect that Wedge announces dates that coincide with two buyers guides Rhythmac and the MacRumors Buyers guide?
User upgradeable parts: RAM, anything else requires completely disassembling the system.
CPU intel core 2 duo mobile
GPU Nvidia 100 series mobile or Radeon mobility 4850 (Apple routinely assigns a desktop name to a mobile chipset thinking that the current batch of Mac users won't do any research and actually look at the chip ID while in windows)
User upgradable parts: Hard drive, optical drive, RAM, inverter, airport card, upper fans. Easy to take the back off.
CPU: desktop IBM PPC970 or 970FX
GPU desktop GeForce 5200FX
chipset: Apple U3L (also used in single CPU PowerMac G5)
Lets now examine Apple's current systems.
Macbook Pro:
Designed in way that user can easily upgrade hard drive, optical drive, and RAM. Battery too if it wasn't proprietary. Parts situated for easy cooling
Mac Pro: Easy access to hard drives, RAM, optical drives, and CPUs via doors and trays. Parts situated for easy cooling
iMac and Mac Mini: parts crammed haphazardly into tiny spaces. Require major difficultly to access internal components and replacement requires complete disassembly. Do to crammed nature cooling is less than optimal.
Seems to me that the iMac and Mini are not quite up to Apple standards past or present. However changing them, (especially a flatter mini) would require admitting a mistake.
What will it be worth when the teenager don't think its cool anymore and the fanboys have driven away every last user who uses OSX for a living. How many times has this platform been sent back down to square one because of arrogance? Won't happen again right? I'm sure they were saying that in the 80s and after the iMac boom.
I can't speek to the iMac as I haven't taken mine apart yet, but I did take apart my mini this past weekend to upgrade the memory.
A putty knife and a screwdriver are all you need. 4 screws, and 3 springs. It took all of 10 minutes to complete the upgrade from start to finish. I wouldn't consider it difficult at all.
I do know the memory is easily accessible on the iMac via a single screw at the bottom, but I haven't had need to do anything else on it. Now you've gotten me curious as to how hard it really is to get to the guts.
I can't speek to the iMac as I haven't taken mine apart yet, but I did take apart my mini this past weekend to upgrade the memory.
A putty knife and a screwdriver are all you need. 4 screws, and 3 springs. It took all of 10 minutes to complete the upgrade from start to finish. I wouldn't consider it difficult at all.
I do know the memory is easily accessible on the iMac via a single screw at the bottom, but I haven't had need to do anything else on it. Now you've gotten me curious as to how hard it really is to get to the guts.
It's a real pain, having upgraded the HD myself. You have to remove the glass from its magnetic clips using suction cup hooks, you then have about 20 plus torx screws that vary in length to remove around the aluminium frame. When you've finished that, the frame needs to come off and that's a very tight fit. At the same time you need to be careful not to rip out the camera and mic at the top. After that, you need to undo the screen, which is another set of screws. The screen is attached in two places to the logic board - bottom and top left.
I didn't have the guts to remove that completely, so I had my wife gingerly and reluctantly tilt the screen up as far as it would go while I unclipped the hard drive. You also have to be careful not to rip the temperature monitor off the HD too. I can tell you I was sweating at this stage, as you have to work quickly to avoid dust collecting on the screen. Any larger dust particle will upset the LCD as I found out later. Reassembly was also difficult, as the aluminium frame doesn't go back on easily and I was loathe to force it. That's why I hope any new refresh will also give us easy access to the hard drive and also the video card.
It's a real pain, having upgraded the HD myself. You have to remove the glass from its magnetic clips using suction cup hooks, you then have about 20 plus torx screws that vary in length to remove around the aluminium frame. When you've finished that, the frame needs to come off and that's a very tight fit. At the same time you need to be careful not to rip out the camera and mic at the top. After that, you need to undo the screen, which is another set of screws. The screen is attached in two places to the logic board - bottom and top left.
I didn't have the guts to remove that completely, so I had my wife gingerly and reluctantly tilt the screen up as far as it would go while I unclipped the hard drive. You also have to be careful not to rip the temperature monitor off the HD too. I can tell you I was sweating at this stage, as you have to work quickly to avoid dust collecting on the screen. Any larger dust particle will upset the LCD as I found out later. Reassembly was also difficult, as the aluminium frame doesn't go back on easily and I was loathe to force it. That's why I hope any new refresh will also give us easy access to the hard drive and also the video card.
I agree..that sounds like it sucks arse Fortunately I bought the fastest available for my iMac. About the only thing I have plans to ever upgrade on this are possibly a bit more memory (I think my iMac 8,1 will take 6 GB..not sure if anyone makes 3 GB sims though (sigh). It has a TB drive though. Plenty of storage to last a few years.
The BD files are temporary. Look about 10 posts up and you'll see my reply. I know very well what I'm doing, having written numerous guides on conversions from XviD, DVD, SVCD, Blu-Ray, H.264, Understanding Aspect ratios and resolutions, etc.
But why would you only be insisting for a Blue-ray ROM and not a writer?
I have no use for writing to BD-Rom media, and most BD-Roms are already DVD-RW capable with only the BD functionality as Read Only, which suites my purposes. I use NAS storage for backups, and I do very little conversion work these days except for the occasional Blu-Ray to DVD for my remaining DVD players. For anything to be played on my HTPC MediaPC, I simply leave the format as-is until I delete it, or buy the disk retail.
If the next iteration of iMac doesn't include a BD-Rom I wil eventually consider just buying an after market drive. I hate the though of more boxes and wires, but it really is tedious moving 40 GB files from my old laptop with a BD-RW to my Mac which is much newer, with much faster hardware, for processing.
I have no use for writing to BD-Rom media, and most BD-Roms are already DVD-RW capable with only the BD functionality as Read Only, which suites my purposes. I use NAS storage for backups, and I do very little conversion work these days except for the occasional Blu-Ray to DVD for my remaining DVD players. For anything to be played on my HTPC MediaPC, I simply leave the format as-is until I delete it, or buy the disk retail.
If the next iteration of iMac doesn't include a BD-Rom I wil eventually consider just buying an after market drive. I hate the though of more boxes and wires, but it really is tedious moving 40 GB files from my old laptop with a BD-RW to my Mac which is much newer, with much faster hardware, for processing.
I don't think you will get much support from the majority of internal-Blue-ray drive angst'rs who are demanding the format for backup purposes.
Certainly for just watching Blue-ray movies via a Mac is one hell of an expensive media player.
I don't think you will get much support from the majority of internal-Blue-ray drive angst'rs who are demanding the format for backup purposes.
Certainly for just watching Blue-ray movies via a Mac is one hell of an expensive media player.
See now that's where I'd think they were crazy. Writable BD media is way to expensive per GB at this stage. I'm sure it will get cheaper just as DVD media did, but it has a long way to go.
I agree..that sounds like it sucks arse Fortunately I bought the fastest available for my iMac. About the only thing I have plans to ever upgrade on this are possibly a bit more memory (I think my iMac 8,1 will take 6 GB..not sure if anyone makes 3 GB sims though (sigh). It has a TB drive though. Plenty of storage to last a few years.
If your Mac can take 6GB you use a 4GB stick and a 2GB stick to give you 6GB of RAM. ... 4GB sticks at the moment are very expensive but like 2GB modules they should come down in price in 2010, especially as the economy recovers. The only thing holding back 4GB and 8GB (two 4GB sticks) becoming the next industry standard is the Windows world where 32bit flavours of Windows are so prevalent, even over the next 2 years, that not many would be interested in 6GB or 8GB RAM until maybe 2011 when 64bit Windows start to become the norm. But then again, things can change and move pretty fast. SSDs and 4GB RAM sticks are half the price of what they were 6 months+ ago (IIRC, very roughly) so...
Don't these use Dual Channel? If I use dissimilar sticks, I lose the benefit of dual-channel (assuming these are using dual channel that is)
Yeah you may not get dual-channel but the benefit of 2 extra GB of RAM would still be quite significant... From the benchmarks I've seen (but can't recall exactly)
In my MacBook Alu which supports 6GB for example, instead of the 4GB I have now, if I had 6GB I can have VMWare Fusion allocate 2GB to Windows XP and then cruise on 4GB mainly for the Mac OS side. Should reduce memory swapping especially with a lot of Adobe CS4 apps open, plus browsers, etc. That and an SSD which down the line should be affordable and much faster than my current 7200rpm drive.
Dual-channel is great but I really think the boost is not that "significant" from all the reading I've done. I could be wrong, but it's one of those "nice to have" but "not that crucial".
Maybe in 2010 there could be a flood of 3GB RAM into the market as an affordable intermediary between 2GB and 4GB sticks...?
A bit off topic, but when will we see a move from trible-channel to four or five-channel RAM? I know ATI uses ddr5 RAM in some of their graphic cards
Seriously though, DDR5 RAM just refers to the speed... It is an interesting question how many channels GPUs use to access the RAM. Anyone?
For motherboard RAM, triple-channel is now in Core i7, Mac Pro and so on but it's still really expensive and not in any portable hardware tech... Not in any mainstream way. So I wonder if triple-channel itself will take some time to get popular.
Maybe in 5 years we will have 8-channel RAM accessing 128GB to 256GB of RAM, 100TB SSDs, etc. You probably still won't be able to play Crysis at Max settings.
I think a new iMac should sport an AMD Athlon X4 (620/630) with the 790gx or better chipset. That will be a good low price for great performance and will outshine the current Intel setup with the 9400 class GPU. Put that in the aluminum body and sell it for less.
I think a new iMac should sport an AMD Athlon X4 (620/630) with the 790gx or better chipset. That will be a good low price for great performance and will outshine the current Intel setup with the 9400 class GPU. Put that in the aluminum body and sell it for less.
If the price point is going to stay the same, the core i5 with the p55 chipset and a GPU with some dedicated VRAM will be good.
No thanks, at 95 watts, I'll pay an extra $100 for an i5. These new Atlons aren't faster than the Core 2 cpus that the iMac currently uses. See how it compares to the C2D e7500? Those new athlons are nice at the low end (the true low end that Dave thinks is the i5). Great news for eMachines.
I'm still not convinced that the next iMac will use a cpu that is that hot anyway. Time will tell.
Dude, I knew someone would do this. You just took one of the first or second page synthetic benchmarks and came to your conclusion.
Look at the 3D, gaming and video encoding benchmarks and you can see the Athlon2 X4 comes in around a Core2 *QUAD* but at a lower price point.
The Anandtech article was quite reasonable in showing where it shines, and where it doesn't. I would suggest you go back and actually read the whole article.
I mean, look at that benchmark you showed, the Core2 Duo does better than the Core2 Quad, which can't be the case all the time when using the computer, right? ...Even the Pentium does better than an Intel Quad in that benchmark.
But I do agree we are talking about desktop parts anyway so they can't even use a 65W (IIRC) Core2 Quad in an iMac, let alone any AMD.
Edit: I don't mean to sound rude, just that I think AMD's value is really misunderstood sometimes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
No thanks, at 95 watts, I'll pay an extra $100 for an i5. These new Atlons aren't faster than the Core 2 cpus that the iMac currently uses. See how it compares to the C2D e7500? Those new athlons are nice at the low end (the true low end that Dave thinks is the i5). Great news for eMachines.
I'm still not convinced that the next iMac will use a cpu that is that hot anyway. Time will tell.
Comments
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.
It is a good thing that laws re slander/libel have yet to be applied to the internet. Although, the UK is now considering such.
Your continuing tirade against everything Apple is quite boring and only portrays your level of intelligence, which in my opinion is unmeasurable.
http://www.amfiteatar.org/content/view/155/57/lang,en/
User upgradeable parts: RAM, anything else requires completely disassembling the system.
CPU intel core 2 duo mobile
GPU Nvidia 100 series mobile or Radeon mobility 4850 (Apple routinely assigns a desktop name to a mobile chipset thinking that the current batch of Mac users won't do any research and actually look at the chip ID while in windows)
Chipset Nvidia 9400 mobile.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1811?viewlocale=en_US
User upgradable parts: Hard drive, optical drive, RAM, inverter, airport card, upper fans. Easy to take the back off.
CPU: desktop IBM PPC970 or 970FX
GPU desktop GeForce 5200FX
chipset: Apple U3L (also used in single CPU PowerMac G5)
Lets now examine Apple's current systems.
Macbook Pro:
Designed in way that user can easily upgrade hard drive, optical drive, and RAM. Battery too if it wasn't proprietary. Parts situated for easy cooling
Mac Pro: Easy access to hard drives, RAM, optical drives, and CPUs via doors and trays. Parts situated for easy cooling
iMac and Mac Mini: parts crammed haphazardly into tiny spaces. Require major difficultly to access internal components and replacement requires complete disassembly. Do to crammed nature cooling is less than optimal.
Seems to me that the iMac and Mini are not quite up to Apple standards past or present. However changing them, (especially a flatter mini) would require admitting a mistake.
What will it be worth when the teenager don't think its cool anymore and the fanboys have driven away every last user who uses OSX for a living. How many times has this platform been sent back down to square one because of arrogance? Won't happen again right? I'm sure they were saying that in the 80s and after the iMac boom.
I can't speek to the iMac as I haven't taken mine apart yet, but I did take apart my mini this past weekend to upgrade the memory.
A putty knife and a screwdriver are all you need. 4 screws, and 3 springs. It took all of 10 minutes to complete the upgrade from start to finish. I wouldn't consider it difficult at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaHNLR6Aac
I do know the memory is easily accessible on the iMac via a single screw at the bottom, but I haven't had need to do anything else on it. Now you've gotten me curious as to how hard it really is to get to the guts.
I can't speek to the iMac as I haven't taken mine apart yet, but I did take apart my mini this past weekend to upgrade the memory.
A putty knife and a screwdriver are all you need. 4 screws, and 3 springs. It took all of 10 minutes to complete the upgrade from start to finish. I wouldn't consider it difficult at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaHNLR6Aac
I do know the memory is easily accessible on the iMac via a single screw at the bottom, but I haven't had need to do anything else on it. Now you've gotten me curious as to how hard it really is to get to the guts.
It's a real pain, having upgraded the HD myself. You have to remove the glass from its magnetic clips using suction cup hooks, you then have about 20 plus torx screws that vary in length to remove around the aluminium frame. When you've finished that, the frame needs to come off and that's a very tight fit. At the same time you need to be careful not to rip out the camera and mic at the top. After that, you need to undo the screen, which is another set of screws. The screen is attached in two places to the logic board - bottom and top left.
I didn't have the guts to remove that completely, so I had my wife gingerly and reluctantly tilt the screen up as far as it would go while I unclipped the hard drive. You also have to be careful not to rip the temperature monitor off the HD too. I can tell you I was sweating at this stage, as you have to work quickly to avoid dust collecting on the screen. Any larger dust particle will upset the LCD as I found out later. Reassembly was also difficult, as the aluminium frame doesn't go back on easily and I was loathe to force it. That's why I hope any new refresh will also give us easy access to the hard drive and also the video card.
It's a real pain, having upgraded the HD myself. You have to remove the glass from its magnetic clips using suction cup hooks, you then have about 20 plus torx screws that vary in length to remove around the aluminium frame. When you've finished that, the frame needs to come off and that's a very tight fit. At the same time you need to be careful not to rip out the camera and mic at the top. After that, you need to undo the screen, which is another set of screws. The screen is attached in two places to the logic board - bottom and top left.
I didn't have the guts to remove that completely, so I had my wife gingerly and reluctantly tilt the screen up as far as it would go while I unclipped the hard drive. You also have to be careful not to rip the temperature monitor off the HD too. I can tell you I was sweating at this stage, as you have to work quickly to avoid dust collecting on the screen. Any larger dust particle will upset the LCD as I found out later. Reassembly was also difficult, as the aluminium frame doesn't go back on easily and I was loathe to force it. That's why I hope any new refresh will also give us easy access to the hard drive and also the video card.
I agree..that sounds like it sucks arse
The BD files are temporary. Look about 10 posts up and you'll see my reply. I know very well what I'm doing, having written numerous guides on conversions from XviD, DVD, SVCD, Blu-Ray, H.264, Understanding Aspect ratios and resolutions, etc.
http://www.videohelp.com/guides?sear...or+List+Guides
My apologies. And thanks for the links.
But why would you only be insisting for a Blue-ray ROM and not a writer?
My apologies. And thanks for the links.
But why would you only be insisting for a Blue-ray ROM and not a writer?
I have no use for writing to BD-Rom media, and most BD-Roms are already DVD-RW capable with only the BD functionality as Read Only, which suites my purposes. I use NAS storage for backups, and I do very little conversion work these days except for the occasional Blu-Ray to DVD for my remaining DVD players. For anything to be played on my HTPC MediaPC, I simply leave the format as-is until I delete it, or buy the disk retail.
If the next iteration of iMac doesn't include a BD-Rom I wil eventually consider just buying an after market drive. I hate the though of more boxes and wires, but it really is tedious moving 40 GB files from my old laptop with a BD-RW to my Mac which is much newer, with much faster hardware, for processing.
I have no use for writing to BD-Rom media, and most BD-Roms are already DVD-RW capable with only the BD functionality as Read Only, which suites my purposes. I use NAS storage for backups, and I do very little conversion work these days except for the occasional Blu-Ray to DVD for my remaining DVD players. For anything to be played on my HTPC MediaPC, I simply leave the format as-is until I delete it, or buy the disk retail.
If the next iteration of iMac doesn't include a BD-Rom I wil eventually consider just buying an after market drive. I hate the though of more boxes and wires, but it really is tedious moving 40 GB files from my old laptop with a BD-RW to my Mac which is much newer, with much faster hardware, for processing.
I don't think you will get much support from the majority of internal-Blue-ray drive angst'rs who are demanding the format for backup purposes.
Certainly for just watching Blue-ray movies via a Mac is one hell of an expensive media player.
I don't think you will get much support from the majority of internal-Blue-ray drive angst'rs who are demanding the format for backup purposes.
Certainly for just watching Blue-ray movies via a Mac is one hell of an expensive media player.
See now that's where I'd think they were crazy. Writable BD media is way to expensive per GB at this stage. I'm sure it will get cheaper just as DVD media did, but it has a long way to go.
I agree..that sounds like it sucks arse
If your Mac can take 6GB you use a 4GB stick and a 2GB stick to give you 6GB of RAM.
Don't these use Dual Channel? If I use dissimilar sticks, I lose the benefit of dual-channel (assuming these are using dual channel that is)
Yeah you may not get dual-channel but the benefit of 2 extra GB of RAM would still be quite significant... From the benchmarks I've seen (but can't recall exactly)
In my MacBook Alu which supports 6GB for example, instead of the 4GB I have now, if I had 6GB I can have VMWare Fusion allocate 2GB to Windows XP and then cruise on 4GB mainly for the Mac OS side. Should reduce memory swapping especially with a lot of Adobe CS4 apps open, plus browsers, etc. That and an SSD which down the line should be affordable and much faster than my current 7200rpm drive.
Dual-channel is great but I really think the boost is not that "significant" from all the reading I've done. I could be wrong, but it's one of those "nice to have" but "not that crucial".
Maybe in 2010 there could be a flood of 3GB RAM into the market as an affordable intermediary between 2GB and 4GB sticks...?
The benefits of dual-channel RAM are measurable but almost never noticeable.
A bit off topic, but when will we see a move from trible-channel to four or five-channel RAM?
I know ATI uses ddr5 RAM in some of their graphic cards
A bit off topic, but when will we see a move from trible-channel to four or five-channel RAM? I know ATI uses ddr5 RAM in some of their graphic cards
Seriously though, DDR5 RAM just refers to the speed... It is an interesting question how many channels GPUs use to access the RAM. Anyone?
For motherboard RAM, triple-channel is now in Core i7, Mac Pro and so on but it's still really expensive and not in any portable hardware tech... Not in any mainstream way. So I wonder if triple-channel itself will take some time to get popular.
Maybe in 5 years we will have 8-channel RAM accessing 128GB to 256GB of RAM, 100TB SSDs, etc. You probably still won't be able to play Crysis at Max settings.
AMD Athlon X4
If the price point is going to stay the same, the core i5 with the p55 chipset and a GPU with some dedicated VRAM will be good.
I think a new iMac should sport an AMD Athlon X4 (620/630) with the 790gx or better chipset. That will be a good low price for great performance and will outshine the current Intel setup with the 9400 class GPU. Put that in the aluminum body and sell it for less.
AMD Athlon X4
If the price point is going to stay the same, the core i5 with the p55 chipset and a GPU with some dedicated VRAM will be good.
No thanks, at 95 watts, I'll pay an extra $100 for an i5. These new Atlons aren't faster than the Core 2 cpus that the iMac currently uses. See how it compares to the C2D e7500? Those new athlons are nice at the low end (the true low end that Dave thinks is the i5). Great news for eMachines.
I'm still not convinced that the next iMac will use a cpu that is that hot anyway. Time will tell.
Look at the 3D, gaming and video encoding benchmarks and you can see the Athlon2 X4 comes in around a Core2 *QUAD* but at a lower price point.
The Anandtech article was quite reasonable in showing where it shines, and where it doesn't. I would suggest you go back and actually read the whole article.
I mean, look at that benchmark you showed, the Core2 Duo does better than the Core2 Quad, which can't be the case all the time when using the computer, right?
But I do agree we are talking about desktop parts anyway so they can't even use a 65W (IIRC) Core2 Quad in an iMac, let alone any AMD.
Edit: I don't mean to sound rude, just that I think AMD's value is really misunderstood sometimes.
No thanks, at 95 watts, I'll pay an extra $100 for an i5. These new Atlons aren't faster than the Core 2 cpus that the iMac currently uses. See how it compares to the C2D e7500? Those new athlons are nice at the low end (the true low end that Dave thinks is the i5). Great news for eMachines.
I'm still not convinced that the next iMac will use a cpu that is that hot anyway. Time will tell.