Huh? Do you think every current PC today sells with a Conroe processor? I'm sorry, sir, but they do not.
You're correct that not all pc desktops come with conroes TODAY. But soon they will, except for the bottom of the barrel teaser crap which will sport a pent d until those are phased out. The interesting thing I've noticed is how Intel and Apple are obfuscating which processor they are using. Only the well informed really know that they are getting Merom and not Conroe. Most don't realize they are paying more for less (at least IMO). In the end I don't think the average consumer will know any better. They'll just know they got a core 2 processor. When pcs start adopting conroe core 2 more aggressively though they should be able to hurt Apple on price. A 2.3 ghz Merom is a $600 chip vs. a 2.4 Conroe which is a $300 chip. Right now core 2 is in high end pc systems so Apple looks competive on price. Six months from now that won't be the case unless Apple drops prices which they don't usually do. Look at the MBP, when it was initially released it look reasonably priced but today it looks well overpriced IMO. Apple hasn't budged on price and has only bumped up the speed. Today iMac looks pretty solid but I don't know where it goes from here especially when Kentsfield arives.
In the first place the iMac is the Apple desktop and not Apples laptop. A Merom is intels laptop processor, and Conroe is meant for desktops.
I think that could have something to do with it. Apple is bottom feeding to lower prices, but they are loosing specs. Apparently they now believe that iMac is no longer in the spec range of the typical desktop. PC desktop wins this round, but we shall see how much the average consumer thinks he really needs.
I agree. The thing that worries me is that conroe is the 'mainstream' desktop chip. It isn't a high end part. What happens when Kentsfield arrives at the end of the year?
Apple's hiding nothing - the processor is exactly the specs they say it is. If someone can't tell the difference between Conroe and Merom, they'll default to MHz-wars. Or buy whichever one is most comfortable for them.
You're correct that not all pc desktops come with conroes TODAY. But soon they will, except for the bottom of the barrel teaser crap which will sport a pent d until those are phased out. The interesting thing I've noticed is how Intel and Apple are obfuscating which processor they are using. Only the well informed really know that they are getting Merom and not Conroe. Most don't realize they are paying more for less (at least IMO). In the end I don't think the average consumer will know any better. They'll just know they got a core 2 processor. When pcs start adopting conroe core 2 more aggressively though they should be able to hurt Apple on price. A 2.3 ghz Merom is a $600 chip vs. a 2.4 Conroe which is a $300 chip. Right now core 2 is in high end pc systems so Apple looks competive on price. Six months from now that won't be the case unless Apple drops prices which they don't usually do. Look at the MBP, when it was initially released it look reasonably priced but today it looks well overpriced IMO. Apple hasn't budged on price and has only bumped up the speed. Today iMac looks pretty solid but I don't know where it goes from here especially when Kentsfield arives.
"More for less" are three big words. Even if someone knew they were getting a Merom and not a Conroe...this person might have another definition of "less". Not everyone is interested solely in speed. Sure, the obvious is 'less' speed and that's what you were refering to when you said people won't realize they're paying "more for less". But these people would also not realize they're paying more for less noise, more for less heat generation, more for less power draw.
A big factor in my decision to buy a Mac Pro was that they were quiet...it was an even bigger factor than the fact that they're pretty much the fastest chips on the planet and they came in twos.
As I sit here in front of my Mac Pro, I realize that it's a hell of a lot quieter than my Quicksilver G4 and produces a hell of a lot less heat and this is true no matter how hard I push the Mac Pro. There is a tiny bit of heat coming from the PSU...this is nothing compared to the G4 furnace.
The quietness of the Mac Pro and the idea that I won't get heat strokes sitting next to the computer during the summer is priceless to me and worth paying more. In my case I payed more for more though (these Woodcrest Xeon chips are a marvel in technology.) But I can see people paying more $ for less speed if it meant they could keep the sleek look of the iMac, if they could keep the iMac's noise level down to an acceptable decibel level, and not slowly cook everyone enclosed in the same room.
I too took exception to the original posting that implied that the reason for Firewire's present state of use was because Apple, "… pissed everybody off with their licencing scheme."
I found the statement rather offensive, misleading and inaccurate by omission. True, Intel was not happy with the licencing innially proposed by Apple, however there were a lot of other factors that affected the result. (http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1104)
On a continuing note, re the comment by jbh0001, "Now that Apple and Intel have made nice, Firewire might get a second change," I find the first half of his statement rather empty as well.
I believe that Firewire will succeed not because of niceties, but because of the what Apple has in store for the future. For what appears obvious, Apple's new video paradigm to come will require high-speed CPUs, peripherals and media devices. In addition, Apple's Leopard-Time Machine could dictate it even more. Thus, not a casual need for Firewire, but of necessity. That, and what is typical of Apples innovativeness that again leads the industry to new heights.
"More for less" are three big words. Even if someone knew they were getting a Merom and not a Conroe...this person might have another definition of "less". Not everyone is interested solely in speed. Sure, the obvious is 'less' speed and that's what you were refering to when you said people won't realize they're paying "more for less". But these people would also not realize they're paying more for less noise, more for less heat generation, more for less power draw.
A big factor in my decision to buy a Mac Pro was that they were quiet...it was an even bigger factor than the fact that they're pretty much the fastest chips on the planet and they came in twos.
As I sit here in front of my Mac Pro, I realize that it's a hell of a lot quieter than my Quicksilver G4 and produces a hell of a lot less heat and this is true no matter how hard I push the Mac Pro. There is a tiny bit of heat coming from the PSU...this is nothing compared to the G4 furnace.
The quietness of the Mac Pro and the idea that I won't get heat strokes sitting next to the computer during the summer is priceless to me and worth paying more. In my case I payed more for more though (these Woodcrest Xeon chips are a marvel in technology.) But I can see people paying more $ for less speed if it meant they could keep the sleek look of the iMac, if they could keep the iMac's noise level down to an acceptable decibel level, and not slowly cook everyone enclosed in the same room.
You make valid points. I did try to qualify the "more for less" by sayng that was my opinion. My wife has a noisy pc but it doesn't bother me as much as it may others. I still contend that by chooosing Merom over Conroe Apple has give the iMac a rather limited upgrade path. And I fully agree that while you paid a premium for Woodcrest, you got value in that.
PS. I thought you had a half million posts give or take a few thousand.
It was also not in Intel's interest to use a technology that was CPU independent like Firewire that works regardless of how fast the CPU is. USB is dependent on the CPU performance and guess what Intel likes selling?
Firewire's not going anywhere though. You just can't use USB for Digital Video. It's more than fast enough for most consumer drives and I'd much rather have Firewire drives than USB2.
Apple's hiding nothing - the processor is exactly the specs they say it is. If someone can't tell the difference between Conroe and Merom, they'll default to MHz-wars. Or buy whichever one is most comfortable for them.
I think that it's as much Intel's 'fault' as in how they distinguish their chips. However there was considerable discussion here as to what chip was being used and most visitors to this forum are well informed an current in technology matters. I think the casual user who heard "those new Intels chips are really good" won't know the difference. Six months from now they may wonder why their friend's core 2 pc is so much faster than their core 2 iMac.
I agree. The thing that worries me is that conroe is the 'mainstream' desktop chip. It isn't a high end part. What happens when Kentsfield arrives at the end of the year?
Kentsfield isn't going to be 'mainstream' by the end of the year though is it? I thought they were badging that as an 'Extreme Edition'. Sure the iMac isn't going to be in the Extreme leagues but it doesn't really have to be. It's not a gamer rig.
I think that it's as much Intel's 'fault' as in how they distinguish their chips. However there was considerable discussion here as to what chip was being used and most visitors to this forum are well informed an current in technology matters. I think the casual user who heard "those new Intels chips are really good" won't know the difference. Six months from now they may wonder why their friend's core 2 pc is so much faster than their core 2 iMac.
But a conroe at relatively the same clock speed as a merom isn't going to be "much faster" is it? That's not the impression I have anyways.
Also, just because they are using merom right now, it doesn't restrict them in any way in the future. They can use whatever the heck the decide too. Saying that the current choice of merom means that they won't be able to stay competitive in the future simply doesn't make any sense.
Have a little faith! These iMacs are fantastic machines, and if I hadn't bought one back in February, I'd sure as heck be doing it now.
Kentsfield isn't going to be 'mainstream' by the end of the year though is it? I thought they were badging that as an 'Extreme Edition'. Sure the iMac isn't going to be in the Extreme leagues but it doesn't really have to be. It's not a gamer rig.
But won't that position plain conroes further down the food chain? The 2.9 ghz c2 which now retails for 1k will probably be a $600 chip. The 2.6 ghz c2 may be a $300 chip. Merom doesn't get an upgrade until Santa Rosa next year. The iMac upgrades looks ok today but six months to a year from now I just don't see where this is heading. Intel's desktop roadmap is more visible than their laptop chip roadmap.
But a conroe at relatively the same clock speed as a merom isn't going to be "much faster" is it? That's not the impression I have anyways.
Also, just because they are using merom right now, it doesn't restrict them in any way in the future. They can use whatever the heck the decide too. Saying that the current choice of merom means that they won't be able to stay competitive in the future simply doesn't make any sense.
Have a little faith! These iMacs are fantastic machines, and if I hadn't bought one back in February, I'd sure as heck be doing it now.
Time will tell, but indications are that the slower FSB does hinder performance. Look at how Merom compared to Yonah, mostly a 5-10% improvement only. Some tests did see a 20% imcrease in speed but not many.
Time will tell, but indications are that the slower FSB does hinder performance. Look at how Merom compared to Yonah, mostly a 5-10% improvement only. Some tests did see a 20% imcrease in speed but not many.
But won't that position plain conroes further down the food chain? The 2.9 ghz c2 which now retails for 1k will probably be a $600 chip. The 2.6 ghz c2 may be a $300 chip. Merom gets now upgrades until Santa Rosa next year. The iMac upgrades looks ok today but six months to a year from now I just don't see where this is heading. Intel's desktop roadmap is more visible than their laptop chip roadmap.
That's 6 months to a year away. Even with the current c2Extreme dropping to $600 it's still more expensive than the current Merom 2.33 and way too hot for most consumer PCs never mind the iMac. The 2.6 c2 dropping to $300 however might be a challenger. Who knows? Perhaps Intel will get the power requirements down on the desktop chips enough that those will go in the iMac too.
So far there's not much on the power reduction roadmap, just adding more cores to the extreme end and little steps in performance-per-watt since Core, which was a big step admittedly.
To your original statement, "Nobody but Apple (essentially) used firewire, and then only for (preety much ) external hard drives. Why? Because Apple got Intel to put a lot of development into Firewire, and then pissed everybody off with their licencing scheme."
Is only part of the story as your link supports. It seems apparent also that a certain faction at Intel were bound and determined to make USB the preferred standard at all costs. And only used the pricing issue to fuel the fire.
Does it sound like there was a hint of jealously abounding the USB development that may have been the primary factor of discontent? Not any less that "Apple?(P'd) everybody off?"
Apple have just dropped the prices on all the iMacs and have frequently done the same in the past when they release an updated product.
Ian
Well that can be argued both ways. Mac pros went up, minis went up, macbooks went up and mbps unchanged. Apple seeems to be pretty happy with their current price points give or take $100.
Comments
Wow, where did you pull that one out?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire
read the history section
Huh? Do you think every current PC today sells with a Conroe processor? I'm sorry, sir, but they do not.
You're correct that not all pc desktops come with conroes TODAY. But soon they will, except for the bottom of the barrel teaser crap which will sport a pent d until those are phased out. The interesting thing I've noticed is how Intel and Apple are obfuscating which processor they are using. Only the well informed really know that they are getting Merom and not Conroe. Most don't realize they are paying more for less (at least IMO). In the end I don't think the average consumer will know any better. They'll just know they got a core 2 processor. When pcs start adopting conroe core 2 more aggressively though they should be able to hurt Apple on price. A 2.3 ghz Merom is a $600 chip vs. a 2.4 Conroe which is a $300 chip. Right now core 2 is in high end pc systems so Apple looks competive on price. Six months from now that won't be the case unless Apple drops prices which they don't usually do. Look at the MBP, when it was initially released it look reasonably priced but today it looks well overpriced IMO. Apple hasn't budged on price and has only bumped up the speed. Today iMac looks pretty solid but I don't know where it goes from here especially when Kentsfield arives.
In the first place the iMac is the Apple desktop and not Apples laptop. A Merom is intels laptop processor, and Conroe is meant for desktops.
I think that could have something to do with it. Apple is bottom feeding to lower prices, but they are loosing specs. Apparently they now believe that iMac is no longer in the spec range of the typical desktop. PC desktop wins this round, but we shall see how much the average consumer thinks he really needs.
I agree. The thing that worries me is that conroe is the 'mainstream' desktop chip. It isn't a high end part. What happens when Kentsfield arrives at the end of the year?
You're correct that not all pc desktops come with conroes TODAY. But soon they will, except for the bottom of the barrel teaser crap which will sport a pent d until those are phased out. The interesting thing I've noticed is how Intel and Apple are obfuscating which processor they are using. Only the well informed really know that they are getting Merom and not Conroe. Most don't realize they are paying more for less (at least IMO). In the end I don't think the average consumer will know any better. They'll just know they got a core 2 processor. When pcs start adopting conroe core 2 more aggressively though they should be able to hurt Apple on price. A 2.3 ghz Merom is a $600 chip vs. a 2.4 Conroe which is a $300 chip. Right now core 2 is in high end pc systems so Apple looks competive on price. Six months from now that won't be the case unless Apple drops prices which they don't usually do. Look at the MBP, when it was initially released it look reasonably priced but today it looks well overpriced IMO. Apple hasn't budged on price and has only bumped up the speed. Today iMac looks pretty solid but I don't know where it goes from here especially when Kentsfield arives.
"More for less" are three big words. Even if someone knew they were getting a Merom and not a Conroe...this person might have another definition of "less". Not everyone is interested solely in speed. Sure, the obvious is 'less' speed and that's what you were refering to when you said people won't realize they're paying "more for less". But these people would also not realize they're paying more for less noise, more for less heat generation, more for less power draw.
A big factor in my decision to buy a Mac Pro was that they were quiet...it was an even bigger factor than the fact that they're pretty much the fastest chips on the planet and they came in twos.
As I sit here in front of my Mac Pro, I realize that it's a hell of a lot quieter than my Quicksilver G4 and produces a hell of a lot less heat and this is true no matter how hard I push the Mac Pro. There is a tiny bit of heat coming from the PSU...this is nothing compared to the G4 furnace.
The quietness of the Mac Pro and the idea that I won't get heat strokes sitting next to the computer during the summer is priceless to me and worth paying more. In my case I payed more for more though (these Woodcrest Xeon chips are a marvel in technology.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire
read the history section
I too took exception to the original posting that implied that the reason for Firewire's present state of use was because Apple, "… pissed everybody off with their licencing scheme."
I found the statement rather offensive, misleading and inaccurate by omission. True, Intel was not happy with the licencing innially proposed by Apple, however there were a lot of other factors that affected the result. (http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1104)
On a continuing note, re the comment by jbh0001, "Now that Apple and Intel have made nice, Firewire might get a second change," I find the first half of his statement rather empty as well.
I believe that Firewire will succeed not because of niceties, but because of the what Apple has in store for the future. For what appears obvious, Apple's new video paradigm to come will require high-speed CPUs, peripherals and media devices. In addition, Apple's Leopard-Time Machine could dictate it even more. Thus, not a casual need for Firewire, but of necessity. That, and what is typical of Apples innovativeness that again leads the industry to new heights.
"More for less" are three big words. Even if someone knew they were getting a Merom and not a Conroe...this person might have another definition of "less". Not everyone is interested solely in speed. Sure, the obvious is 'less' speed and that's what you were refering to when you said people won't realize they're paying "more for less". But these people would also not realize they're paying more for less noise, more for less heat generation, more for less power draw.
A big factor in my decision to buy a Mac Pro was that they were quiet...it was an even bigger factor than the fact that they're pretty much the fastest chips on the planet and they came in twos.
As I sit here in front of my Mac Pro, I realize that it's a hell of a lot quieter than my Quicksilver G4 and produces a hell of a lot less heat and this is true no matter how hard I push the Mac Pro. There is a tiny bit of heat coming from the PSU...this is nothing compared to the G4 furnace.
The quietness of the Mac Pro and the idea that I won't get heat strokes sitting next to the computer during the summer is priceless to me and worth paying more. In my case I payed more for more though (these Woodcrest Xeon chips are a marvel in technology.)
You make valid points. I did try to qualify the "more for less" by sayng that was my opinion. My wife has a noisy pc but it doesn't bother me as much as it may others. I still contend that by chooosing Merom over Conroe Apple has give the iMac a rather limited upgrade path. And I fully agree that while you paid a premium for Woodcrest, you got value in that.
PS. I thought you had a half million posts give or take a few thousand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FireWire
read the history section
It was also not in Intel's interest to use a technology that was CPU independent like Firewire that works regardless of how fast the CPU is. USB is dependent on the CPU performance and guess what Intel likes selling?
Firewire's not going anywhere though. You just can't use USB for Digital Video. It's more than fast enough for most consumer drives and I'd much rather have Firewire drives than USB2.
Apple's hiding nothing - the processor is exactly the specs they say it is. If someone can't tell the difference between Conroe and Merom, they'll default to MHz-wars. Or buy whichever one is most comfortable for them.
I think that it's as much Intel's 'fault' as in how they distinguish their chips. However there was considerable discussion here as to what chip was being used and most visitors to this forum are well informed an current in technology matters. I think the casual user who heard "those new Intels chips are really good" won't know the difference. Six months from now they may wonder why their friend's core 2 pc is so much faster than their core 2 iMac.
I agree. The thing that worries me is that conroe is the 'mainstream' desktop chip. It isn't a high end part. What happens when Kentsfield arrives at the end of the year?
Kentsfield isn't going to be 'mainstream' by the end of the year though is it? I thought they were badging that as an 'Extreme Edition'. Sure the iMac isn't going to be in the Extreme leagues but it doesn't really have to be. It's not a gamer rig.
I think that it's as much Intel's 'fault' as in how they distinguish their chips. However there was considerable discussion here as to what chip was being used and most visitors to this forum are well informed an current in technology matters. I think the casual user who heard "those new Intels chips are really good" won't know the difference. Six months from now they may wonder why their friend's core 2 pc is so much faster than their core 2 iMac.
But a conroe at relatively the same clock speed as a merom isn't going to be "much faster" is it? That's not the impression I have anyways.
Also, just because they are using merom right now, it doesn't restrict them in any way in the future. They can use whatever the heck the decide too. Saying that the current choice of merom means that they won't be able to stay competitive in the future simply doesn't make any sense.
Have a little faith! These iMacs are fantastic machines, and if I hadn't bought one back in February, I'd sure as heck be doing it now.
Kentsfield isn't going to be 'mainstream' by the end of the year though is it? I thought they were badging that as an 'Extreme Edition'. Sure the iMac isn't going to be in the Extreme leagues but it doesn't really have to be. It's not a gamer rig.
But won't that position plain conroes further down the food chain? The 2.9 ghz c2 which now retails for 1k will probably be a $600 chip. The 2.6 ghz c2 may be a $300 chip. Merom doesn't get an upgrade until Santa Rosa next year. The iMac upgrades looks ok today but six months to a year from now I just don't see where this is heading. Intel's desktop roadmap is more visible than their laptop chip roadmap.
But a conroe at relatively the same clock speed as a merom isn't going to be "much faster" is it? That's not the impression I have anyways.
Also, just because they are using merom right now, it doesn't restrict them in any way in the future. They can use whatever the heck the decide too. Saying that the current choice of merom means that they won't be able to stay competitive in the future simply doesn't make any sense.
Have a little faith! These iMacs are fantastic machines, and if I hadn't bought one back in February, I'd sure as heck be doing it now.
Time will tell, but indications are that the slower FSB does hinder performance. Look at how Merom compared to Yonah, mostly a 5-10% improvement only. Some tests did see a 20% imcrease in speed but not many.
The completely silent operation of my iMac is without a doubt my favorite thing about it.
Time will tell, but indications are that the slower FSB does hinder performance. Look at how Merom compared to Yonah, mostly a 5-10% improvement only. Some tests did see a 20% imcrease in speed but not many.
See http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=99466
But won't that position plain conroes further down the food chain? The 2.9 ghz c2 which now retails for 1k will probably be a $600 chip. The 2.6 ghz c2 may be a $300 chip. Merom gets now upgrades until Santa Rosa next year. The iMac upgrades looks ok today but six months to a year from now I just don't see where this is heading. Intel's desktop roadmap is more visible than their laptop chip roadmap.
That's 6 months to a year away. Even with the current c2Extreme dropping to $600 it's still more expensive than the current Merom 2.33 and way too hot for most consumer PCs never mind the iMac. The 2.6 c2 dropping to $300 however might be a challenger. Who knows? Perhaps Intel will get the power requirements down on the desktop chips enough that those will go in the iMac too.
So far there's not much on the power reduction roadmap, just adding more cores to the extreme end and little steps in performance-per-watt since Core, which was a big step admittedly.
Wow, where did you pull that one out?
Direct from the horse's mouth.
...... Six months from now that won't be the case unless Apple drops prices which they don't usually do.
Apple have just dropped the prices on all the iMacs and have frequently done the same in the past when they release an updated product.
Ian
Is only part of the story as your link supports. It seems apparent also that a certain faction at Intel were bound and determined to make USB the preferred standard at all costs. And only used the pricing issue to fuel the fire.
Does it sound like there was a hint of jealously abounding the USB development that may have been the primary factor of discontent? Not any less that "Apple?(P'd) everybody off?"
But only the Shadow knows.
Apple have just dropped the prices on all the iMacs and have frequently done the same in the past when they release an updated product.
Ian
Well that can be argued both ways. Mac pros went up, minis went up, macbooks went up and mbps unchanged. Apple seeems to be pretty happy with their current price points give or take $100.
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.ph...y_upgradeable/
The 24 incher has it's GPU on a replaceable card, allegedly.