The iMac G4 was, IMHO, more beautiful and more unique, but it was also less flexible (e.g., not wall-mountable) and less practical (design and maintenance costs were prohibitively high). So all in all, the G5/Intel iMac design is superior.
You won't see an upgrade on anything until the 965M chipset is released. Intel's development priority went to the desktop version of the 965 which apple has chosen not to use. Unless there is a desktop Core2/965 based Mac appearing, don't expect any big hardware announcements except for the iPhone.
Apple will need to come out with a duel-Quad mac pro or they will fall behind.
They can not update the top end mac as slow as they did with ppc.
Apple will need to come out with a duel-Quad mac pro or they will fall behind.
They can not update the top end mac as slow as they did with ppc.
The current dual-quad situation is not that dire. For starters, there's not a lot of gain to be had in adding 4 more cores if we still can't use half the pro apps effectively (CS3). Also, at $999 for a 2.66 GHz Quad-core chip, this is only really practical on the ultra-high-end ($3500+). And in a lot of situations, clock-speed is beating cores at the moment. I think it'll be more interesting after the first refresh, when we get more than just a heinously expensive 2.66 GHz version. A 2.4 GHz version might be cheap enough to think about, and then offer 4 models at Quad-2.66, Quad-3.0, Octo-2.4, and Octo-2.66, dropping the Quad-2.0
Comments
You won't see an upgrade on anything until the 965M chipset is released. Intel's development priority went to the desktop version of the 965 which apple has chosen not to use. Unless there is a desktop Core2/965 based Mac appearing, don't expect any big hardware announcements except for the iPhone.
Apple will need to come out with a duel-Quad mac pro or they will fall behind.
They can not update the top end mac as slow as they did with ppc.
Apple will need to come out with a duel-Quad mac pro or they will fall behind.
They can not update the top end mac as slow as they did with ppc.
The current dual-quad situation is not that dire. For starters, there's not a lot of gain to be had in adding 4 more cores if we still can't use half the pro apps effectively (CS3). Also, at $999 for a 2.66 GHz Quad-core chip, this is only really practical on the ultra-high-end ($3500+). And in a lot of situations, clock-speed is beating cores at the moment. I think it'll be more interesting after the first refresh, when we get more than just a heinously expensive 2.66 GHz version. A 2.4 GHz version might be cheap enough to think about, and then offer 4 models at Quad-2.66, Quad-3.0, Octo-2.4, and Octo-2.66, dropping the Quad-2.0