Your analogy was pointless. BOTH laptops have dual core processors so arguing two gravediggers are better than one, or only one can fit in a hole is pointless. Both laptops have the same issues.
The original poster claimed that the 1.83Ghz MacBook was effectively 3ghz+ which by the same reasoning the 2.33Ghz Asus is 4.66Ghz. Either way, since both are using the same technology, your analogy makes no sense.
I'm British. We call it humour.
That's great n'all but I got out of the Windows world 5 years ago as my main OSs so you're preaching to the converted here. I'd also point out that there's flaws in the architecture of all the main three OSs but you'll find that out soon enough.
According to my alien residence card, birth certificate and UK passport, I'm also British. I may be wrong, though; I haven't labelled namecalling as humor since leaving elementary school. I'll write to an embassy to check my status of citizenship.
Again, in your response you seemed to object to the notion that a 1.6 Ghz dual core can act almost two times faster than a single core 1.6 Ghz. This is what the gravediggers analogy explained, that yes, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor is able to act very very fast. You see, a single gravedigger represents a single core chip; two gravediggers represents a dual core chip. By using the simple illustration, I hoped to explain that yes, indeed, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor can probably run at speeds equivalent to 4 Ghz (depending on the chip and surrounding architecture).
Also, you are unable to show me where I stated the new Yonah 2.33Ghz laptops are faster than the MacBook ones. There is a good reason for this: I didn't. I don't believe Apple's hardware is by itself faster than PC hardware. I also don't think it has to be in order to be a preferable system for many people, something which I'm sure we both agree on.
It now seems that what's been happening here is a simple misunderstanding/miscommunication. When you said, "So the Yonah 2.33 Ghz dual core is a 4.66 Ghz dual core? Don't be an ass!" I interpreted that as an objection to the notion that a processor could effect such high speeds (4Ghz +). It now seems you were merely reinforcing your earlier statement that there are faster chips in PC laptops. Again, I did not argue that Apple hardware is by itself faster than PC hardware. I only pointed out the dual core in case you hadn't noticed and were unknowingly comparing it to the notebooks available at the lower end of the market.
I'm aware of at least some of OS X's shortcomings, but from experience still prefer it to Windows. Nothing's perfect, but OS X better suits my needs and has much more appeal than hacking Windows to perform the same tasks.
And let's face it, it's cooler!
BTW, I may not be able to reply to additional posts. The PC laptop I was using earlier died this very afternoon! I'm upset about this (especially as it's happened during a MAJOR project) but it's probably the excuse that'll get me to do that thing I've been threatening to do for over a year now: Switch.
When I first saw the Pro books details I wondered at the speed of the cpus chosen, as aegis design first commented upon. It must have to do with cooling. It is a little thinner, about 10% thinner, so this is why you would think about cooling. Being one mere consumer man, I would not know. Apple must have some sensible reason, however. It would make no sense, having in the past released as swift a machine as they are able to, to just introduce one slower for the dickens of it. The other idea I had was that maybe they had a plan to release a higher performance model, that would have FireWire 800.
So intel has no motherboards that include FireWire? That seems hard to believe. It is used by so many pros. Intel and Apple must not think FireWire 800 is entirely ready yet.
Thanks for the links, aegis. Seems like 2.33 GHz is not actually available yet, though. Also, I believe that the higher-clocked PC laptops are thicker. They may have smaller footprints, but in terms of heat dissipation, it's thickness that matters.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Or 2.16Ghz - whatever the highest clocked Core Duo is, I saw it in other PC Manufacturer's line-ups that were announced at CES, and they're putting it in PC notebooks selling for about $2,300. See a Dell with it available here. Point is, they are out there and can be had for what Apple's peddling the 1.83Ghz Core Duo's for. So I presume Apple's saving that chip for a future 'Ultimate' 17 inch MacBook Pro.
No argument there. I was more or less pointing out that Mac buyers will still have to play the, 'if you add all the stuff Apple includes standard to that Dell the prices come out the same' game. Which is fine by me. Except that Mac nay-sayers will still be able to play the 'Macs are so expensive - I can get a Dell Inspiron with 2Ghz Core Duo for $2,299!" crap. The two inch thick, nine pound plastic case, virus/spyware ridden Windows XP, and a hard drive full of bad 30 day trial software the Dell comes with is much less apparent to buyer's shopping from Dell.com. But what can ya do. Point being, the interesting fact here is that the Intel processors don't make it any easier to compare Apple hardware to others, as Apple will continue to use their 'good', 'better', 'best' style product line-up, meaning the short answer for 'how do I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro?' is 'pay $2,499'. The truth is there's plenty of other included tech and software that make it worth $2,499, but that doesn't always translate to consumers. So the 'Macs are more expensive' mythos shall continue.
I guess what I'd like to see is BTO options for processors from Apple, now that they have a real chip supplier. Not that many people would actually use it per se, but it'd make life easier for comparison shoppers. Back in the Blue & White G3 days, you could start with the $1,599 model and BTO the fastest processor at the time (400Mhz G3). That may have been the last time Apple allowed that. But with today's Apple, if you wanted the 400Mhz model you would have had to pony up for the $2,999 model with a 9GB Ultra SCSI hard drive.
Good post.
I entirely agree. I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.
Also, I hope that now they are starting to increase their computer shipments, they will take the opportunity to expand their range a little bit. On the portable side, whilst I happen to like the balance that Apple strike between portability and power, someone else may not. What, exactly, do Apple have against making bigger, heavier laptops with more power? Why don't they let the customer decide? Whilst I wouldn't want them to go as far as ASUS, DELL or other PC manufacturers in terms of number of different computer models, I would have thought three lines would make sense: Ultraportable (lighter and thinner than what Apple currently offers), portability/power in equal measure (what Apple currently offers), and high-performance (bigger but more powerful than what Apple currently offers)
Thanks for the links, aegis. Seems like 2.33 GHz is not actually available yet, though. Also, I believe that the higher-clocked PC laptops are thicker. They may have smaller footprints, but in terms of heat dissipation, it's thickness that matters.
Good post.
I entirely agree. I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.
Also, I hope that now they are starting to increase their computer shipments, they will take the opportunity to expand their range a little bit. On the portable side, whilst I happen to like the balance that Apple strike between portability and power, someone else may not. What, exactly, do Apple have against making bigger, heavier laptops with more power? Why don't they let the customer decide? Whilst I wouldn't want them to go as far as ASUS, DELL or other PC manufacturers in terms of number of different computer models, I would have thought three lines would make sense: Ultraportable (lighter and thinner than what Apple currently offers), portability/power in equal measure (what Apple currently offers), and high-performance (bigger but more powerful than what Apple currently offers)
Yes, the aegisdesign has many keen observations and links. I could not find the mobilewhack page, however, it must have been scuttled, or Camino does not find it.
When the first PowerBook came out, it was big and heavy, but it had a lot packed in to it, which the engineers wanted to do, or that is what I get from reading the Owen Linzmayer and other books. I never did see one of those.
An interesting view of Steve Jobs is gotten from the book that Andy Hertzfeld wrote, called "Revolution in the Valley". While that is about the making of the Macintosh, it gives a picture of Jobs, and his appreciation of and demand for good art/design. It does not seem to be in Apple's(Jobs and Ive's) blood to produce a thick notebook, or we would have had a G5 POwerBook, as we got a G5 iMac.
But it would be nice to have some more variety of options in BTO. Like people have been asking for in a Mac tower, which could just be called Macintosh, or the Mac. That would be a very different concept from the original, true, but it would please many customers.
Just ordered (last night) a new iMac Duo 20". Scheduled to ship on Jan. 19th. Just a few modifications from standard: 2 GB RAM, 256 MB video. When I ordered, it estimated 3-5 days shipping. Checked this morning, and it isn't scheduled to ship until the 19th.
Again, in your response you seemed to object to the notion that a 1.6 Ghz dual core can act almost two times faster than a single core 1.6 Ghz. This is what the gravediggers analogy explained, that yes, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor is able to act very very fast. You see, a single gravedigger represents a single core chip; two gravediggers represents a dual core chip. By using the simple illustration, I hoped to explain that yes, indeed, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor can probably run at speeds equivalent to 4 Ghz (depending on the chip and surrounding architecture).
This discussion, if you want to call it that, is simply circular. I'll break it down to how I see it, but I don't understand why this is so difficult. I think the point is that the gravedigger argument was not, in any way, an answer to what aegisdesign was asking. The gravedigger answer is the correct answer to the wrong question.
I still think the Macbook should have been introduced with an available 2+ GHz Core Duo chip, but was not. Even if it was a third, more expensive option because of limited supply, it should have still been offered. Offering a new laptop that was going to have a 10% slower chip than everyone else's new laptop using the same chip doesn't bode well for Apple, many people can go away from the product page percieving Apple as being on the trailing edge of performance.
I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.
Quote:
Originally posted by NordicMan
But it would be nice to have some more variety of options in BTO.
Yesterday was the first time I knew Video Memory in the 20" Core Duo iMac can be BTO'd to 256MB from 128MB. You've never been able to do jack with the Graphics card on an iMac before. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see even more expansion in Apple's BTO options.
Yesterday was the first time I knew Video Memory in the 20" Core Duo iMac can be BTO'd to 256MB from 128MB. You've never been able to do jack with the Graphics card on an iMac before. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see even more expansion in Apple's BTO options.
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.
This is what people get when they hold on to their "I'll wait for Rev B" attitude.
Honestly, there's no guarantee Rev B won't be as buggy or buggier than Rev A. There's no reason to believe Rev A would be problematic. People that wait for the mystical 'second version' will go through life being miserable.
This is what people get when they hold on to their "I'll wait for Rev B" attitude.
Honestly, there's no guarantee Rev B won't be as buggy or buggier than Rev A. There's no reason to believe Rev A would be problematic. People that wait for the mystical 'second version' will go through life being miserable.
I have a Rev A iMac. It's great. No problems. No regrets. The new Rev A Intel iMacs look great too if I didn't have so much PowerPC software I rely on day to day.
Do you mean that the owner can no longer easily upgrade the memory?
That's all they can do, through a little slot in the bottom.
On the Rev A G5 iMac, the whole of the rear case comes off. You can switch out the hard disk, the RAM, replace the DVD drive, replace the fans, replace the mid plane, replace the screen, replace the PSU - all user serviceable parts.
I think you can't replace the stand for a VESA compatible arm on the Rev C G5 or the Rev A Intel iMac either.
Offering a new laptop that was going to have a 10% slower chip than everyone else's new laptop using the same chip doesn't bode well for Apple, many people can go away from the product page percieving Apple as being on the trailing edge of performance.
Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor. So essentially, I get a leading edge technology which obsoletes my current hardware investment (Expresscard), and I get a trailing edge technology in an area which can only be of benefit (the CPU). Doesn't make much sense from an end-user perspective, but I guess it makes sense from a profit margin perspective (I believe Expresscard is cheaper to implement in hardware than Cardbus).
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
Sure they do. In fact, they have at least several. Not being a systems design engineer nor having the pulse of Apple's financial considerations, I can only comment on two reasons that are, erm, rather obvious (IMHO):
1) It's Apple's prerogative to release products as they see fit. After all, it's their product mix/specification decisions that have driven their success;
2) They most certainly have other machines in the pipeline;
I prefer to entrust Apple's direction to those who have proven themselves capable of managing a $72 billion company over a group of consumers clamoring for a 10% increase in clock speed three days after the release of a product that represents a fundamental shift in market-share opportunity for Apple.
If you're that desperate for clock speed, you have other options.
Sure they do. In fact, they have at least several. Not being a systems design engineer nor having the pulse of Apple's financial considerations, I can only comment on two reasons that are, erm, rather obvious (IMHO):
1) It's Apple's prerogative to release products as they see fit. After all, it's their product mix/specification decisions that have driven their success;
2) They most certainly have other machines in the pipeline;
I prefer to entrust Apple's direction to those who have proven themselves capable of managing a $72 billion company over a group of consumers clamoring for a 10% increase in clock speed three days after the release of a product that represents a fundamental shift in market-share opportunity for Apple.
If you're that desperate for clock speed, you have other options.
Now you're just making assumptions about me. Who said I wanted the extra clock speed?
Yours is the ultimate example of an "apple apologist" post. Apple now shift enough macs to warrant expanding their range and options.
Now, if the fact that the MacBook Pro is only 1 inch thick means they can't use >1.83 GHz, then fair enough. I think that most of us suspect, however, that they are just saving the faster processors for a 17" version.
I understand perfectly that Apple need to make money. When Steve returned to Apple, they were in a mess. Their product line was confused, and their manufacturing was inefficient, they were losing money on their low and mid-range systems. At that time, it was absolutely the right thing to do to pare the product line right down, and that happened with the introduction of the first iMac. Over time, Apple's range has expanded, but not that much.
Over the last year, Apple's manufacturing efficiencies have significantly improved, and Mac shipments are on the rise. I believe that Apple is on the cusp of significant market-share gains, and that they should capitalise on this. It is about time that Apple stop making so many decisions on behalf of their customers.
What, exactly, is wrong with Apple giving consumers the choice? You will note that I have not complained about the pricing of these new machines. If it is techinically possible to fit a 2.16 GHz processor into the MacBook Pro, why don't Apple offer that choice to their customers and charge another $300 to $500 for it?
Comments
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Your analogy was pointless. BOTH laptops have dual core processors so arguing two gravediggers are better than one, or only one can fit in a hole is pointless. Both laptops have the same issues.
The original poster claimed that the 1.83Ghz MacBook was effectively 3ghz+ which by the same reasoning the 2.33Ghz Asus is 4.66Ghz. Either way, since both are using the same technology, your analogy makes no sense.
I'm British. We call it humour.
That's great n'all but I got out of the Windows world 5 years ago as my main OSs so you're preaching to the converted here. I'd also point out that there's flaws in the architecture of all the main three OSs but you'll find that out soon enough.
According to my alien residence card, birth certificate and UK passport, I'm also British. I may be wrong, though; I haven't labelled namecalling as humor since leaving elementary school. I'll write to an embassy to check my status of citizenship.
Again, in your response you seemed to object to the notion that a 1.6 Ghz dual core can act almost two times faster than a single core 1.6 Ghz. This is what the gravediggers analogy explained, that yes, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor is able to act very very fast. You see, a single gravedigger represents a single core chip; two gravediggers represents a dual core chip. By using the simple illustration, I hoped to explain that yes, indeed, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor can probably run at speeds equivalent to 4 Ghz (depending on the chip and surrounding architecture).
Also, you are unable to show me where I stated the new Yonah 2.33Ghz laptops are faster than the MacBook ones. There is a good reason for this: I didn't. I don't believe Apple's hardware is by itself faster than PC hardware. I also don't think it has to be in order to be a preferable system for many people, something which I'm sure we both agree on.
It now seems that what's been happening here is a simple misunderstanding/miscommunication. When you said, "So the Yonah 2.33 Ghz dual core is a 4.66 Ghz dual core? Don't be an ass!" I interpreted that as an objection to the notion that a processor could effect such high speeds (4Ghz +). It now seems you were merely reinforcing your earlier statement that there are faster chips in PC laptops. Again, I did not argue that Apple hardware is by itself faster than PC hardware. I only pointed out the dual core in case you hadn't noticed and were unknowingly comparing it to the notebooks available at the lower end of the market.
I'm aware of at least some of OS X's shortcomings, but from experience still prefer it to Windows. Nothing's perfect, but OS X better suits my needs and has much more appeal than hacking Windows to perform the same tasks.
And let's face it, it's cooler!
BTW, I may not be able to reply to additional posts. The PC laptop I was using earlier died this very afternoon! I'm upset about this (especially as it's happened during a MAJOR project) but it's probably the excuse that'll get me to do that thing I've been threatening to do for over a year now: Switch.
So intel has no motherboards that include FireWire? That seems hard to believe. It is used by so many pros. Intel and Apple must not think FireWire 800 is entirely ready yet.
Originally posted by troberts
MacMac or MacTower, but XServes will stay the same.
I'm sure it will not be MacMac.. that just sounds stupid... I guess the lineup will be
iMac
Mac mini
Mac pro
MacBook
MacBook Pro
and there is possibly room for a new line in-between Mac mini and Mac pro, the "Mac"... Just a thouhgt...
Originally posted by aegisdesign
I thought so too though a couple of places have mentioned it a while back in the Yonah roadmap.
Anyway - it's ugly, it's black, it's plastic, it's the ASUS R1F
http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/10/a...-it-on-the-dl/
And here's some more, including a 12.1" white iBook style laptop with camera a core duo.
ASUS build some of Apple's laptops btw.
http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/a...echnology.html
Thanks for the links, aegis. Seems like 2.33 GHz is not actually available yet, though. Also, I believe that the higher-clocked PC laptops are thicker. They may have smaller footprints, but in terms of heat dissipation, it's thickness that matters.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Or 2.16Ghz - whatever the highest clocked Core Duo is, I saw it in other PC Manufacturer's line-ups that were announced at CES, and they're putting it in PC notebooks selling for about $2,300. See a Dell with it available here. Point is, they are out there and can be had for what Apple's peddling the 1.83Ghz Core Duo's for. So I presume Apple's saving that chip for a future 'Ultimate' 17 inch MacBook Pro.
No argument there. I was more or less pointing out that Mac buyers will still have to play the, 'if you add all the stuff Apple includes standard to that Dell the prices come out the same' game. Which is fine by me. Except that Mac nay-sayers will still be able to play the 'Macs are so expensive - I can get a Dell Inspiron with 2Ghz Core Duo for $2,299!" crap. The two inch thick, nine pound plastic case, virus/spyware ridden Windows XP, and a hard drive full of bad 30 day trial software the Dell comes with is much less apparent to buyer's shopping from Dell.com. But what can ya do. Point being, the interesting fact here is that the Intel processors don't make it any easier to compare Apple hardware to others, as Apple will continue to use their 'good', 'better', 'best' style product line-up, meaning the short answer for 'how do I get a 1.83Ghz Core Duo MacBook Pro?' is 'pay $2,499'. The truth is there's plenty of other included tech and software that make it worth $2,499, but that doesn't always translate to consumers. So the 'Macs are more expensive' mythos shall continue.
I guess what I'd like to see is BTO options for processors from Apple, now that they have a real chip supplier. Not that many people would actually use it per se, but it'd make life easier for comparison shoppers. Back in the Blue & White G3 days, you could start with the $1,599 model and BTO the fastest processor at the time (400Mhz G3). That may have been the last time Apple allowed that. But with today's Apple, if you wanted the 400Mhz model you would have had to pony up for the $2,999 model with a 9GB Ultra SCSI hard drive.
Good post.
I entirely agree. I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.
Also, I hope that now they are starting to increase their computer shipments, they will take the opportunity to expand their range a little bit. On the portable side, whilst I happen to like the balance that Apple strike between portability and power, someone else may not. What, exactly, do Apple have against making bigger, heavier laptops with more power? Why don't they let the customer decide? Whilst I wouldn't want them to go as far as ASUS, DELL or other PC manufacturers in terms of number of different computer models, I would have thought three lines would make sense: Ultraportable (lighter and thinner than what Apple currently offers), portability/power in equal measure (what Apple currently offers), and high-performance (bigger but more powerful than what Apple currently offers)
Originally posted by Mr. H
Thanks for the links, aegis. Seems like 2.33 GHz is not actually available yet, though. Also, I believe that the higher-clocked PC laptops are thicker. They may have smaller footprints, but in terms of heat dissipation, it's thickness that matters.
Good post.
I entirely agree. I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.
Also, I hope that now they are starting to increase their computer shipments, they will take the opportunity to expand their range a little bit. On the portable side, whilst I happen to like the balance that Apple strike between portability and power, someone else may not. What, exactly, do Apple have against making bigger, heavier laptops with more power? Why don't they let the customer decide? Whilst I wouldn't want them to go as far as ASUS, DELL or other PC manufacturers in terms of number of different computer models, I would have thought three lines would make sense: Ultraportable (lighter and thinner than what Apple currently offers), portability/power in equal measure (what Apple currently offers), and high-performance (bigger but more powerful than what Apple currently offers)
Yes, the aegisdesign has many keen observations and links. I could not find the mobilewhack page, however, it must have been scuttled, or Camino does not find it.
When the first PowerBook came out, it was big and heavy, but it had a lot packed in to it, which the engineers wanted to do, or that is what I get from reading the Owen Linzmayer and other books. I never did see one of those.
An interesting view of Steve Jobs is gotten from the book that Andy Hertzfeld wrote, called "Revolution in the Valley". While that is about the making of the Macintosh, it gives a picture of Jobs, and his appreciation of and demand for good art/design. It does not seem to be in Apple's(Jobs and Ive's) blood to produce a thick notebook, or we would have had a G5 POwerBook, as we got a G5 iMac.
But it would be nice to have some more variety of options in BTO. Like people have been asking for in a Mac tower, which could just be called Macintosh, or the Mac. That would be a very different concept from the original, true, but it would please many customers.
Can't wait. Woot!
Originally posted by jdbartlett
Again, in your response you seemed to object to the notion that a 1.6 Ghz dual core can act almost two times faster than a single core 1.6 Ghz. This is what the gravediggers analogy explained, that yes, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor is able to act very very fast. You see, a single gravedigger represents a single core chip; two gravediggers represents a dual core chip. By using the simple illustration, I hoped to explain that yes, indeed, the dual core 2.33 Ghz processor can probably run at speeds equivalent to 4 Ghz (depending on the chip and surrounding architecture).
This discussion, if you want to call it that, is simply circular. I'll break it down to how I see it, but I don't understand why this is so difficult. I think the point is that the gravedigger argument was not, in any way, an answer to what aegisdesign was asking. The gravedigger answer is the correct answer to the wrong question.
I still think the Macbook should have been introduced with an available 2+ GHz Core Duo chip, but was not. Even if it was a third, more expensive option because of limited supply, it should have still been offered. Offering a new laptop that was going to have a 10% slower chip than everyone else's new laptop using the same chip doesn't bode well for Apple, many people can go away from the product page percieving Apple as being on the trailing edge of performance.
Originally posted by JeffDM
[B]This discussion, if you want to call it that, is simply circular.
Glad someone was paying attention. I gave up.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I find it frustrating that Apple's BTO has taken a few steps backwards since it was introduced several years ago.
Originally posted by NordicMan
But it would be nice to have some more variety of options in BTO.
Yesterday was the first time I knew Video Memory in the 20" Core Duo iMac can be BTO'd to 256MB from 128MB. You've never been able to do jack with the Graphics card on an iMac before. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see even more expansion in Apple's BTO options.
Originally posted by Cory Bauer
Yesterday was the first time I knew Video Memory in the 20" Core Duo iMac can be BTO'd to 256MB from 128MB. You've never been able to do jack with the Graphics card on an iMac before. This is definitely a step in the right direction, and hopefully we'll see even more expansion in Apple's BTO options.
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.
This is what people get when they hold on to their "I'll wait for Rev B" attitude.
Honestly, there's no guarantee Rev B won't be as buggy or buggier than Rev A. There's no reason to believe Rev A would be problematic. People that wait for the mystical 'second version' will go through life being miserable.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
This is what people get when they hold on to their "I'll wait for Rev B" attitude.
Honestly, there's no guarantee Rev B won't be as buggy or buggier than Rev A. There's no reason to believe Rev A would be problematic. People that wait for the mystical 'second version' will go through life being miserable.
I have a Rev A iMac. It's great. No problems. No regrets. The new Rev A Intel iMacs look great too if I didn't have so much PowerPC software I rely on day to day.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It's just a pity you can't get inside them anymore like the Rev A iMac G5.
Do you mean that the owner can no longer easily upgrade the memory?
Originally posted by JeffDM
Do you mean that the owner can no longer easily upgrade the memory?
That's all they can do, through a little slot in the bottom.
On the Rev A G5 iMac, the whole of the rear case comes off. You can switch out the hard disk, the RAM, replace the DVD drive, replace the fans, replace the mid plane, replace the screen, replace the PSU - all user serviceable parts.
I think you can't replace the stand for a VESA compatible arm on the Rev C G5 or the Rev A Intel iMac either.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Offering a new laptop that was going to have a 10% slower chip than everyone else's new laptop using the same chip doesn't bode well for Apple, many people can go away from the product page percieving Apple as being on the trailing edge of performance.
Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor. So essentially, I get a leading edge technology which obsoletes my current hardware investment (Expresscard), and I get a trailing edge technology in an area which can only be of benefit (the CPU). Doesn't make much sense from an end-user perspective, but I guess it makes sense from a profit margin perspective (I believe Expresscard is cheaper to implement in hardware than Cardbus).
Originally posted by auxio
Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor.
Are any of the PC laptops with > 1.83 GHz processor only 1 inch thin?
Originally posted by auxio
Yes, it's curious how Apple is on the leading edge by using EFI and Expresscard and yet on the trailing edge using a 1.83 GHz processor.
Do any run OS X and include iLife?
Originally posted by godrifle
Do any run OS X and include iLife?
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Personally, I think that's beside the point. If there's no technical reason (e.g. due to form factor) not to have the faster processor, Apple have no excuse not to offer it.
Sure they do. In fact, they have at least several. Not being a systems design engineer nor having the pulse of Apple's financial considerations, I can only comment on two reasons that are, erm, rather obvious (IMHO):
1) It's Apple's prerogative to release products as they see fit. After all, it's their product mix/specification decisions that have driven their success;
2) They most certainly have other machines in the pipeline;
I prefer to entrust Apple's direction to those who have proven themselves capable of managing a $72 billion company over a group of consumers clamoring for a 10% increase in clock speed three days after the release of a product that represents a fundamental shift in market-share opportunity for Apple.
If you're that desperate for clock speed, you have other options.
Originally posted by godrifle
Sure they do. In fact, they have at least several. Not being a systems design engineer nor having the pulse of Apple's financial considerations, I can only comment on two reasons that are, erm, rather obvious (IMHO):
1) It's Apple's prerogative to release products as they see fit. After all, it's their product mix/specification decisions that have driven their success;
2) They most certainly have other machines in the pipeline;
I prefer to entrust Apple's direction to those who have proven themselves capable of managing a $72 billion company over a group of consumers clamoring for a 10% increase in clock speed three days after the release of a product that represents a fundamental shift in market-share opportunity for Apple.
If you're that desperate for clock speed, you have other options.
Now you're just making assumptions about me. Who said I wanted the extra clock speed?
Yours is the ultimate example of an "apple apologist" post. Apple now shift enough macs to warrant expanding their range and options.
Now, if the fact that the MacBook Pro is only 1 inch thick means they can't use >1.83 GHz, then fair enough. I think that most of us suspect, however, that they are just saving the faster processors for a 17" version.
I understand perfectly that Apple need to make money. When Steve returned to Apple, they were in a mess. Their product line was confused, and their manufacturing was inefficient, they were losing money on their low and mid-range systems. At that time, it was absolutely the right thing to do to pare the product line right down, and that happened with the introduction of the first iMac. Over time, Apple's range has expanded, but not that much.
Over the last year, Apple's manufacturing efficiencies have significantly improved, and Mac shipments are on the rise. I believe that Apple is on the cusp of significant market-share gains, and that they should capitalise on this. It is about time that Apple stop making so many decisions on behalf of their customers.
What, exactly, is wrong with Apple giving consumers the choice? You will note that I have not complained about the pricing of these new machines. If it is techinically possible to fit a 2.16 GHz processor into the MacBook Pro, why don't Apple offer that choice to their customers and charge another $300 to $500 for it?