Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.
I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)
I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.
Well then we'll have to assume that PC buyers also find the available desktop offerings "pretty weak", because laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales in that market as well, a trend that appears to be accelerating.
Basically what we're doing here is backing into the great X-Mac outcry, which I guess is overdue: Apple should make an expandable, midrange machine with desktop parts. A headless iMac. A cheap Mac Pro. Whatever. I would welcome such a machine, I might even buy one.
But they won't, and they won't because desktops are a shrinking market and "expandability" is hugely overrated by the tech savvy as a necessary feature. Dirt cheap external drives and lots of internal memory mean the vast majority of users will never, ever crack open the case of their machines.
And given that the vast majority of their users will never really tax the laptop hardware they're getting in their iMacs, what is Apple's actual incentive to make the fabled X-Mac?
The theory amongst fans of the idea is that there are all these customers that need exactly that and that Apple could increase their market share, perhaps by quite a bit, if they offered such machines, but is that true? You have to assume that Apple has at least sort of looked into this; they're not entirely adverse to increasing market share as long as it involves their general premium market segment.
My suspicion is that while they would certainly sell a certain number of less expensive, more powerful, expandable desktop machines, the numbers aren't what enthusiasts believe, and certainly not sufficient for Apple to risk cannibalizing the sales of high margin iMacs or Mac Pros.
Like I say, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just how Apple operates and it seems to be working out pretty well. For those specific folks who need or want a machine that Apple doesn't sell it sucks.
Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!
Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.
I think we'll get it. Wasn't the iMac first to get the Core2Duo?
I don't think Apple's clueless like certain folk on here think because Apple's giving iPhone users MMS tomorrow which they think nobody needs or wants.
If they wait until early next year, then they'll likely go with Arrandale.
I'm assuming you mean Clarksfield ;-) Arrandale is going to be a low power two-core chip.
Where Clarksfield runs at a 55 watts TDP, Apple is going to need to do some significant cooling engineering to get it to work in any of their systems - notebooks or iMacs, so your probably looking at mid-2010 at the earliest before you see them in notebooks or iMacs. The top current Core 2 Duo runs at 35 watts TDP as a comparison.
I doubt you could find one person these days that does as you describe above. None of those concerns are as important as knowing your money was well spent on a machine that will remain viable for the long haul.
When it comes to most consumers, you are off base. They aren't looking underneath the hood here.
Including for most PC buyers, the cpu is unimportant, the video card is unimportant. They have no idea what amount of RAM to get, and rarely get more than is in the machine. Same thing is true for HDD's.
They look at initial cost, looks, whether it will play their music and videos, etc.
If you want to talk about the much smaller techie crowd, then it's different.
But even here, Mac users almost always are interested in how much faster the new Mac is when compared to their OLD Mac, not to a PC.
If people buy a computer because a Windows machine is a bit faster or slower than a Mac, then that's a bad reason.
I've used Macs for so long because of the OS firstly, and the machines secondly. I've found PCs to be screwy, to say the least, and even if one is faster, that wouldn't be a good reason to switch.
I think we'll get it. Wasn't the iMac first to get the Core2Duo?
I don't think Apple's clueless like certain folk on here think because Apple's giving iPhone users MMS tomorrow which they think nobody needs or wants.
Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.
I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.
The only purpose I can see to build thinner iMacs is to save on aluminum. A couple of ounces saved on each iMac means a few dollars saved for every thousand iMacs that roll off the assembly line. For every thousand iMacs' aluminum shavings scraped from the floor and collected, they can be melted down to build one free MacBook unibody case. Now that's what I call efficiency.
I don't care what they put in their computers as long as they get people to buy them in quantity and make plenty of profit from every sale. Go Apple.
I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.
The only purpose I can see to build thinner iMacs is to save on aluminum. A couple of ounces saved on each iMac means a few dollars saved for every thousand iMacs that roll off the assembly line. For every thousand iMacs' aluminum shavings scraped from the floor and collected, they can be melted down to build one free MacBook unibody case. Now that's what I call efficiency.
I don't care what they put in their computers as long as they get people to buy them in quantity and make plenty of profit from every sale. Go Apple.
The iMacs must be thinner because Steve has a crippling case of hardware anorexia.
He looks at the current iMac and says "Oh God, it's so fat. It's disgusting. STOP LOOKING AT IT!"
Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.
Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.
Apple enabled MMS with iPhone OS 3.0 in June 2009. WHat does that have to do with AT&T? It's Apple who decided it would be a feature not AT&T. You're talking about something else entirely.
If that is true, than the Mac market has done a complete 180 from where it was even just a couple of years ago. Mac users have always been more computer literate, pursuing bleeding-edge technology since the early days of desktop publishing. Most of the Mac users I know and have supported always went out and bought the latest stuff as soon as it came out - that is how Apple earned its brand loyalty. The advent of consumer use of Macs is a recent trend that is small and growing, the majority of Mac users are still professionals that need the most out of their hardware. This article from Government Computer News illustrates my point:
Business, government, and scientific use of Macs is going to skew the numbers of what kind of performance is needed in their computers. You can be sure they know what they are buying.
The article you cite disproves your point. If the iMac is sufficiently powerful to meet general computing needs then it doesn't matter what kind of parts it's got inside. Your argument that "consumer use of Macs is a recent trend" is confusing. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but (speaking as a Mac user of 25 years) it certainly doesn't seem to be true.
I dunno... as far as a desktop screen that you sit 1 1/2 feet from I think anything bigger than 24" starts to demand you sit further away from the screen, which starts to negate the whole desktop idea and starts to look like a TV. I use 2 monitors for the extra screen real-estate, but neither is bigger than 24".
Anyone currently using a 27" or 30" monitor as their main display? How is it sitting that close to such a big screen?
I use 30'' screen and sit to it very close (about a foot from it). 30'' Apple cinema display wiht its 2560x1600 resolution is 107 DPI, or the same as 24'' screens with 1920x1200 resolution, so the resolution is the same, you just have more surface area (i.e. more space to put application windows around). So, you can view these large screens from the same distance as the smaller screens.
Incidently, 17'' Macbook Pro's with 1920x1200 resolution are 133 DPI, so significantly higher than your typical LCD at any size.
A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac. It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.
This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.
And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.
I use an iMac professionally and it does exactly what I need it to do. The current iMacs are more than capable of handling most "pro" uses. Graphic designers, software/web developers, photographers, etc. I don't see a need to try to shoehorn the latest intel processors into a form factor that can't handle the heat and power consumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWiz67
I dearly hope most of you are wrong...
And Apple manage to get i5 in there because the "semi-professional audio/video crowd" surely need more than a lame dual core with a crippled video card?
Someone I know is constantly fighting malware in windows, because he can't afford a Mac Pro. iMac is so under spec he would have to upgrade in about a year. He wants a solid mid-range machine that runs Logic pro properly.
aW
I am however one of the people that would buy a more "mid-range" box from Apple. Not sure if it should be a cube type form factor or what, but surely there are a few of us out there that would like to have a mac with much better graphics hardware combined with the otherwise adequate performance of the iMacs, without having spring for a mac pro. In a little bigger enclosure, and without the monitor, Apple could put together something that is still elegant and quiet.
I guess Apple doesn't see this market as big enough to go there., but right now, in this segment, if you want to run OSX you are out of luck. You are stuck with windows or Linux.
Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!
Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.
It has nothing to do with being clever,after all, most PC users aren't exactly clever.
Most computer users simply don't care. Modern machines are fast enough for most people already.
If Apple isn't making a machine fast enough for those who want a faster consumer machine, then they'll buy a PC. That's fine too. Apple isn't trying to get everyone to buy Macs. They have their limits as to what they are interested in doing. People have to understand that.
But you also have to understand that Apple will move to new chips, and if they can get 4 core chips at the price they think is good for them, they will do it. There is no doubt that Apple wants to move to 4 core anf beyond, when they think the time is right for them.
I'm assuming you mean Clarksfield ;-) Arrandale is going to be a low power two-core chip.
Where Clarksfield runs at a 55 watts TDP, Apple is going to need to do some significant cooling engineering to get it to work in any of their systems - notebooks or iMacs, so your probably looking at mid-2010 at the earliest before you see them in notebooks or iMacs. The top current Core 2 Duo runs at 35 watts TDP as a comparison.
That's why I linked to the article, and mentioned Arrandale afterwards.
We may be seeing new Macbooks a bit later, so if that's true, I wonder what we'll see in them.
With Apple supposedly moving to even thinner enclosures for iMacs, I wonder how they could squeeze a 55 watt chip inside. But if you read the article, you would see that the TCPis just that, the max rating. With the new chips moving up so many bins in speed when needed, its just possible that average power may fall low enough for Apple to manage it. Just a guess.
At any rate, the iMacs using the mobile chips usually, because of the desktop buss and drives, eck out more performance than a laptop does with the same chips.
The article you cite disproves your point. If the iMac is sufficiently powerful to meet general computing needs then it doesn't matter what kind of parts it's got inside. Your argument that "consumer use of Macs is a recent trend" is confusing. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but (speaking as a Mac user of 25 years) it certainly doesn't seem to be true.
By that statement I know you didn't even bother to read the article... the article went into detail on how those organizations use Macs for applications requiring performance. Mostly they were talking about Mac Pros, but there was a couple of examples of iMac use.
Hello, greater than 90% of the computer market is Windows based PCs - where do you think the greatest concentration of consumer use of computers are then? So yes, consumer use of Macs is a recent trend. Macs are still mostly (until I see numbers to the contrary) used by people who made them popular in the first place - graphics professionals, movie makers, desktop publishers, and scientists - all people that are more demanding of their equipment than your average web browsing, Microsoft Word processing user (who for the most part are using Windows PCs). Plus the consumer side of the computer market is a very small percentage of the overall computer market which is dominated by business use of computers - and business users are more demanding of their computers than the average home user.
A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac.
I have a friend that got a 24" model about two months ago. She is happy with it but if she would have asked I would of suggested holding off on the purchase.
Quote:
It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.
This could result in a very long discussion but I will just say that Snow Leopard changes that a bit. There appears to be a subset of programs that already benefit greatly from Snow Leopard. Apparently Apple refactored NSOperation facilities to leverage GCD so some programs fair well under SL.
The reality is though that many programs use older threading models that assume things about the machine they run on and thus don't benefit hugely from SL.
In otherwords Threaded apps under SL are a mixed bag today. Optimized software is a ways off.
Quote:
This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.
I have to wonder if such testing would be valid today under SL?
Quote:
And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.
With Turbo Boost and the other processor enhancements an i7 based CPU ought to be able to out perform the current iMacs on poorly threaded code and at the same time do well with the newer GCD code. Maybe it is to good to be true but it would be very nice if i7 turns out to be the ideal transitional processor.
Comments
No kids...
In my case, no kids still in the house - and no more alimony!
Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.
I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)
I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.
Well then we'll have to assume that PC buyers also find the available desktop offerings "pretty weak", because laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales in that market as well, a trend that appears to be accelerating.
Basically what we're doing here is backing into the great X-Mac outcry, which I guess is overdue: Apple should make an expandable, midrange machine with desktop parts. A headless iMac. A cheap Mac Pro. Whatever. I would welcome such a machine, I might even buy one.
But they won't, and they won't because desktops are a shrinking market and "expandability" is hugely overrated by the tech savvy as a necessary feature. Dirt cheap external drives and lots of internal memory mean the vast majority of users will never, ever crack open the case of their machines.
And given that the vast majority of their users will never really tax the laptop hardware they're getting in their iMacs, what is Apple's actual incentive to make the fabled X-Mac?
The theory amongst fans of the idea is that there are all these customers that need exactly that and that Apple could increase their market share, perhaps by quite a bit, if they offered such machines, but is that true? You have to assume that Apple has at least sort of looked into this; they're not entirely adverse to increasing market share as long as it involves their general premium market segment.
My suspicion is that while they would certainly sell a certain number of less expensive, more powerful, expandable desktop machines, the numbers aren't what enthusiasts believe, and certainly not sufficient for Apple to risk cannibalizing the sales of high margin iMacs or Mac Pros.
Like I say, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just how Apple operates and it seems to be working out pretty well. For those specific folks who need or want a machine that Apple doesn't sell it sucks.
No quad core = no buysies...
Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!
Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.
I think we'll get it. Wasn't the iMac first to get the Core2Duo?
I don't think Apple's clueless like certain folk on here think because Apple's giving iPhone users MMS tomorrow which they think nobody needs or wants.
They don't need Lynnfield. If they're going to move up to Nehalem soon, then this is what they'll move to.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3647&p=1
If they wait until early next year, then they'll likely go with Arrandale.
I'm assuming you mean Clarksfield ;-) Arrandale is going to be a low power two-core chip.
Where Clarksfield runs at a 55 watts TDP, Apple is going to need to do some significant cooling engineering to get it to work in any of their systems - notebooks or iMacs, so your probably looking at mid-2010 at the earliest before you see them in notebooks or iMacs. The top current Core 2 Duo runs at 35 watts TDP as a comparison.
I doubt you could find one person these days that does as you describe above. None of those concerns are as important as knowing your money was well spent on a machine that will remain viable for the long haul.
When it comes to most consumers, you are off base. They aren't looking underneath the hood here.
Including for most PC buyers, the cpu is unimportant, the video card is unimportant. They have no idea what amount of RAM to get, and rarely get more than is in the machine. Same thing is true for HDD's.
They look at initial cost, looks, whether it will play their music and videos, etc.
If you want to talk about the much smaller techie crowd, then it's different.
But even here, Mac users almost always are interested in how much faster the new Mac is when compared to their OLD Mac, not to a PC.
If people buy a computer because a Windows machine is a bit faster or slower than a Mac, then that's a bad reason.
I've used Macs for so long because of the OS firstly, and the machines secondly. I've found PCs to be screwy, to say the least, and even if one is faster, that wouldn't be a good reason to switch.
I think we'll get it. Wasn't the iMac first to get the Core2Duo?
I don't think Apple's clueless like certain folk on here think because Apple's giving iPhone users MMS tomorrow which they think nobody needs or wants.
Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.
Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.
The only purpose I can see to build thinner iMacs is to save on aluminum. A couple of ounces saved on each iMac means a few dollars saved for every thousand iMacs that roll off the assembly line. For every thousand iMacs' aluminum shavings scraped from the floor and collected, they can be melted down to build one free MacBook unibody case. Now that's what I call efficiency.
I don't care what they put in their computers as long as they get people to buy them in quantity and make plenty of profit from every sale. Go Apple.
I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.
The only purpose I can see to build thinner iMacs is to save on aluminum. A couple of ounces saved on each iMac means a few dollars saved for every thousand iMacs that roll off the assembly line. For every thousand iMacs' aluminum shavings scraped from the floor and collected, they can be melted down to build one free MacBook unibody case. Now that's what I call efficiency.
I don't care what they put in their computers as long as they get people to buy them in quantity and make plenty of profit from every sale. Go Apple.
The iMacs must be thinner because Steve has a crippling case of hardware anorexia.
He looks at the current iMac and says "Oh God, it's so fat. It's disgusting. STOP LOOKING AT IT!"
Then he makes all his engineers throw up.
Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.
Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.
Apple enabled MMS with iPhone OS 3.0 in June 2009. WHat does that have to do with AT&T? It's Apple who decided it would be a feature not AT&T. You're talking about something else entirely.
If that is true, than the Mac market has done a complete 180 from where it was even just a couple of years ago. Mac users have always been more computer literate, pursuing bleeding-edge technology since the early days of desktop publishing. Most of the Mac users I know and have supported always went out and bought the latest stuff as soon as it came out - that is how Apple earned its brand loyalty. The advent of consumer use of Macs is a recent trend that is small and growing, the majority of Mac users are still professionals that need the most out of their hardware. This article from Government Computer News illustrates my point:
http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2009/02/...se.aspx?Page=1
Business, government, and scientific use of Macs is going to skew the numbers of what kind of performance is needed in their computers. You can be sure they know what they are buying.
The article you cite disproves your point. If the iMac is sufficiently powerful to meet general computing needs then it doesn't matter what kind of parts it's got inside. Your argument that "consumer use of Macs is a recent trend" is confusing. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but (speaking as a Mac user of 25 years) it certainly doesn't seem to be true.
The iMacs must be thinner because Steve has a crippling case of hardware anorexia.
He looks at the current iMac and says "Oh God, it's so fat. It's disgusting. STOP LOOKING AT IT!"
Then he makes all his engineers throw up.
Isn't that commonly know as Macorexia?
I dunno... as far as a desktop screen that you sit 1 1/2 feet from I think anything bigger than 24" starts to demand you sit further away from the screen, which starts to negate the whole desktop idea and starts to look like a TV. I use 2 monitors for the extra screen real-estate, but neither is bigger than 24".
Anyone currently using a 27" or 30" monitor as their main display? How is it sitting that close to such a big screen?
I use 30'' screen and sit to it very close (about a foot from it). 30'' Apple cinema display wiht its 2560x1600 resolution is 107 DPI, or the same as 24'' screens with 1920x1200 resolution, so the resolution is the same, you just have more surface area (i.e. more space to put application windows around). So, you can view these large screens from the same distance as the smaller screens.
Incidently, 17'' Macbook Pro's with 1920x1200 resolution are 133 DPI, so significantly higher than your typical LCD at any size.
A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac. It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.
This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.
And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.
I use an iMac professionally and it does exactly what I need it to do. The current iMacs are more than capable of handling most "pro" uses. Graphic designers, software/web developers, photographers, etc. I don't see a need to try to shoehorn the latest intel processors into a form factor that can't handle the heat and power consumption.
I dearly hope most of you are wrong...
And Apple manage to get i5 in there because the "semi-professional audio/video crowd" surely need more than a lame dual core with a crippled video card?
Someone I know is constantly fighting malware in windows, because he can't afford a Mac Pro. iMac is so under spec he would have to upgrade in about a year. He wants a solid mid-range machine that runs Logic pro properly.
aW
I am however one of the people that would buy a more "mid-range" box from Apple. Not sure if it should be a cube type form factor or what, but surely there are a few of us out there that would like to have a mac with much better graphics hardware combined with the otherwise adequate performance of the iMacs, without having spring for a mac pro. In a little bigger enclosure, and without the monitor, Apple could put together something that is still elegant and quiet.
I guess Apple doesn't see this market as big enough to go there., but right now, in this segment, if you want to run OSX you are out of luck. You are stuck with windows or Linux.
No quad core = no buysies...
Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!
Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.
It has nothing to do with being clever,after all, most PC users aren't exactly clever.
Most computer users simply don't care. Modern machines are fast enough for most people already.
If Apple isn't making a machine fast enough for those who want a faster consumer machine, then they'll buy a PC. That's fine too. Apple isn't trying to get everyone to buy Macs. They have their limits as to what they are interested in doing. People have to understand that.
But you also have to understand that Apple will move to new chips, and if they can get 4 core chips at the price they think is good for them, they will do it. There is no doubt that Apple wants to move to 4 core anf beyond, when they think the time is right for them.
Everyone doesn't have to agree.
And a lot of iMacs are used by pros now.
It has nothing to do with being clever,after all, most PC users aren't exactly clever.
Most computer users simply don't care. Modern machines are fast enough for most people already.
Everyone doesn't have to agree.
And a lot of iMacs are used by pros now.
Put down the bottle pleez. So "Pros" only use iMacs now and not PCs?????
PC users aren't clever??
Stop embarrassing yourself.
I'm assuming you mean Clarksfield ;-) Arrandale is going to be a low power two-core chip.
Where Clarksfield runs at a 55 watts TDP, Apple is going to need to do some significant cooling engineering to get it to work in any of their systems - notebooks or iMacs, so your probably looking at mid-2010 at the earliest before you see them in notebooks or iMacs. The top current Core 2 Duo runs at 35 watts TDP as a comparison.
That's why I linked to the article, and mentioned Arrandale afterwards.
We may be seeing new Macbooks a bit later, so if that's true, I wonder what we'll see in them.
With Apple supposedly moving to even thinner enclosures for iMacs, I wonder how they could squeeze a 55 watt chip inside. But if you read the article, you would see that the TCPis just that, the max rating. With the new chips moving up so many bins in speed when needed, its just possible that average power may fall low enough for Apple to manage it. Just a guess.
At any rate, the iMacs using the mobile chips usually, because of the desktop buss and drives, eck out more performance than a laptop does with the same chips.
The article you cite disproves your point. If the iMac is sufficiently powerful to meet general computing needs then it doesn't matter what kind of parts it's got inside. Your argument that "consumer use of Macs is a recent trend" is confusing. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but (speaking as a Mac user of 25 years) it certainly doesn't seem to be true.
By that statement I know you didn't even bother to read the article... the article went into detail on how those organizations use Macs for applications requiring performance. Mostly they were talking about Mac Pros, but there was a couple of examples of iMac use.
Hello, greater than 90% of the computer market is Windows based PCs - where do you think the greatest concentration of consumer use of computers are then? So yes, consumer use of Macs is a recent trend. Macs are still mostly (until I see numbers to the contrary) used by people who made them popular in the first place - graphics professionals, movie makers, desktop publishers, and scientists - all people that are more demanding of their equipment than your average web browsing, Microsoft Word processing user (who for the most part are using Windows PCs). Plus the consumer side of the computer market is a very small percentage of the overall computer market which is dominated by business use of computers - and business users are more demanding of their computers than the average home user.
Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.
Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.
Can the both of you leave MMS out of this discussion, please?
A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac.
I have a friend that got a 24" model about two months ago. She is happy with it but if she would have asked I would of suggested holding off on the purchase.
It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.
This could result in a very long discussion but I will just say that Snow Leopard changes that a bit. There appears to be a subset of programs that already benefit greatly from Snow Leopard. Apparently Apple refactored NSOperation facilities to leverage GCD so some programs fair well under SL.
The reality is though that many programs use older threading models that assume things about the machine they run on and thus don't benefit hugely from SL.
In otherwords Threaded apps under SL are a mixed bag today. Optimized software is a ways off.
This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.
I have to wonder if such testing would be valid today under SL?
And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.
With Turbo Boost and the other processor enhancements an i7 based CPU ought to be able to out perform the current iMacs on poorly threaded code and at the same time do well with the newer GCD code. Maybe it is to good to be true but it would be very nice if i7 turns out to be the ideal transitional processor.
Dave
precisely unclear when
Huh?
Perhaps you meant, "it's unclear precisely when"?