Well, I think your use of exclamation points is silly
All of Louzer's points about iTunes for Windows are mostly perfectly legitimate. iTunes for Windows is a poor program. You seem to have misunderstood all the points he made:
There is no "unbundled" version. The iTunes download includes QuickTime, because QuickTime is needed for iTunes to work.
Yes, but not every Windows application has the menu bar in the title bar. In most applications, the title bar is at the very top of the window, and the menubar is underneath. In iTunes for Windows, the menubar and title bar are merged. Personally, I think that approach looks better than the normal approach.
Yes, we all know that the registry is a heap of mouldy old junk. But that is beside the point in this case. Louzer was making the point that iTunes uses the registry to make various items launch when Windows is started. It does this without asking the user first. Starting those processes at Windows launch is unnecessary for iTunes to work.
So to recap, the reason lots of Windows users hate iTunes for Windows is because:
1.) It installs QuickTime without making it clear that QuickTime is necessary for iTunes to function.
2.) iTunes is slow and bloated (huge, utterly excessive memory requirement for coverflow, for example)
3.) The installer creates icons all over without asking the user.
4.) The installer sets QuickTime to place an item in the System Tray, without asking the user first if they'd like that to happen.
5.) The installer installs an iPod servicing application which automatically starts every time you use Windows and which won't shut-down properly, whether you have an iPod or not.
6.) In my experience, iTunes rarely shuts-down properly, especially in response to a system-wide shutdown request when Windows itself is shutting down (i.e., the app won't quit when you try to shut-down Windows and Windows tells iTunes to quit).
Perhaps they are merged visually but not in funcionality. They still act very separate from eachother.
I never did like Itunes for Windows, Nor did I like Quicktime for windows, but I blame that more on Windows than Apple. Windows just does not funtion very well in asthetics or in funcionality period. Heck, even Microsoft Office is ten times better on the Mac than it is in Windows!
I use windows everyday, not because I enjoy it, but because I have to for work. I love coming home to a machine that I can simply rely on to get the job done. One that I can plug a devicde into and have it run from startup to shutdown. No headaches, no hiccups, nothing. My whole point in the beginning was that Apple is very competitive price wise, and just because they dont make bargain basement computers doesnt make then less capable of capturing a large portion of the market. The fact is that most companies arfe loosing money with the sub $500 machines.
I will never understand why people refer to computers with Windows installed as PC's.
Because people got sick of saying IBM PC Compatible which I actually remember them doing back in the 80's ... it was on software boxes and everything. "Mac or IBM? But mine is a Cheapco, which one's that?"
As for Apple's share: they'd have to make a truly cheap Mac. Do they want to do that? Is it worth it? I'm not sure, but that Apple TV is looking like a starting point. Don't expect anything though, that kind of talk always gets Steved!
As long as apple refuses to sell Desktops, they will not be able to compete. Apple makes nice competitively priced Professional Workstations but nothing else they sell is competitive.
#1 the Mac Mini is a laptop shoehorned into a small case, with laptop performance.
#2 the iMacs are laptops without builtin keyboards, batteries and with laptop performance.
Most people do not see value in all in one systems or the Mini.
Apple could offer a proper desktop with a Pcie videocard, a 7200rpm drive, Core 2 like the rest of the competition.
Mac Ads do not sell the product. They do not really explain why the Macintosh is superior to windows.
Apple does not need to sell Trailer Park PCs priced at 399 with monitor,inkjet,etc.. those customers usually pirate all the software. Apple just needs to offer a good desktop in the 800-1500 dollar range.
A top of the line video card and windows drivers so you can boot into Windows and play the latest games when you want.
Do that and I wouldn't hold out on getting one of the laptops.
Also, make a dock for the laptops. Silly to have to unplug a bunch of cables. I just have to press one button with my dell and its dock.
Whats a top of the line video card for Laptops though? Do you really want your portable to be 75% more volume just to take care of power and cooling requirements for some of those high end graphic cards? I think my Radeon X1600 256mb does good enough for anything I've played, and I can boot into Windows and play Windows games just fine, yes there are Windows drivers.
Yes, comparing year-over-year units shipped removes seasonality. But this discussion isn't about a slip in units, it is about a slip in market share. I'd say that making quarter to quarter comparisons of market share is better than year-over-year comparisons, as market share could have a big jump from one quarter to the next, then stop increasing. This will give you four quarters in a row of stellar year-over-year market share growth despite the fact that market share only grew once.
I see what you mean, but I think part of it stems from the fact that the type of people that buy Macs aren't necessarily the type that would buy PCs, and are in effect a market to themselves. For example, the household and business markets. Businesses are often more tied to a particular platform because more specialized apps need that platform, for their average user, it's Windows, many also have a standardized replacement cycle. Also, for non-cycle purchases, new business purchases are encouraged by tax deductions, buy just before the end of the year and it counts as a deduction for that tax year.
Households and individuals aren't on a replacement cycle, don't often have deductions. They may choose to upgrade when they start a new semester of school, which is late summer, early winter.
I have sir! I can also resolve all of your so called "issues for under 100 bucks. Actually I HAVE gotten everything on that list of yours for under 100. Not for an imac but for my Powerbook! I have a firewire external enclosure for a 200 gig Maxtor hard drive, and a backup copy of Mac os X tiger onto so I can boot from it in case of emergencies, and for backup reasons. I have a 15 in one external USB 2.0 Card reader, and a powered USB hub (which is just as good as having built in USB ports).
All of your suggestions encourage a multiplication of external boxes, most of which have external power bricks. Without fastidious cable management, ends in messy rat's nests. It runs counter to the supposed simplicity theme. Not having those features may be fine for many customers, but for heavy media work or power users, it's just a headache.
As long as apple refuses to sell Desktops, they will not be able to compete. Apple makes nice competitively priced Professional Workstations but nothing else they sell is competitive.
#1 the Mac Mini is a laptop shoehorned into a small case, with laptop performance.
#2 the iMacs are laptops without builtin keyboards, batteries and with laptop performance.
Most people do not see value in all in one systems or the Mini.
Apple could offer a proper desktop with a Pcie videocard, a 7200rpm drive, Core 2 like the rest of the competition.
Mac Ads do not sell the product. They do not really explain why the Macintosh is superior to windows.
Apple does not need to sell Trailer Park PCs priced at 399 with monitor,inkjet,etc.. those customers usually pirate all the software. Apple just needs to offer a good desktop in the 800-1500 dollar range.
Actually the imac is an all in one desktop computer. There are no laptop parts in it. I have used one and it performs beautifully!
The Mac mini, although using laptop drives, uses full size RAM.
There is nothing wrong with Apple pricing and I have no problem with them making a profit, after all that is how they stay in business.
I recently tried to price out a Media Center PC and there was no way I could get it under $1500 with equivalent hardware and features to a Mac.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
I don't think its fair to say Apple should lower their prices on their Macs just because they made a $1 Billion profit. Maybe it's not obvious but, 1) that's for everything they sell not just Macs, 2) from that profit they have to re-invest probably 75% of those profits back into research to make more great products and 3) they have to pay the bills with the rest!
It maybe a $1 billion profit but that number is probably far from where their actual net income is.
This is a common false comparison all mac fans make (actually, people make it all the time for other products as well). Suppose I manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds and sold it for 10,000. I could then say i was competitive with motorola cause if they also manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds, they too would have to sell it for that price. Deceptive argument that ignores that motorola DOES NOT make diamond cell phones. Yes, a similiarly speced dell cost the same or slightly less than a similiarly speced mac but so what?. That doesn't make macs cheaper or even the same price as dell because (i hope you pay attention here). Dells are cheaper on AVERAGE. BMW is competive with toyota cause a similiar speced toyota (ie, lexus, which toyota owns) cost the same as a BMW. That does not mean someone who can only afford a 18,000 dollar car will run out and buy a Lexus. I think mac fans are condencending when they pretend not to understand what people mean when they say apple should drop prices. What the people that ask for a cheaper mac mean is that apple should sell in their lineup a cheaper computer that is competitive with Dell cheaper computers. Not everyone can afford a BMW.
This is a common false comparison all mac fans make (actually, people make it all the time for other products as well). Suppose I manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds and sold it for 10,000. I could then say i was competitive with motorola cause if they also manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds, they too would have to sell it for that price. Deceptive argument that ignores that motorola DOES NOT make diamond cell phones. Yes, a similiarly speced dell cost the same or slightly less than a similiarly speced mac but so what?. That doesn't make macs cheaper or even the same price as dell because (i hope you pay attention here). Dells are cheaper on AVERAGE. BMW is competive with toyota cause a similiar speced toyota (ie, lexus, which toyota owns) cost the same as a BMW. That does not mean someone who can only afford a 18,000 dollar car will run out and buy a Lexus. I think mac fans are condencending when they pretend not to understand what people mean when they say apple should drop prices. What the people that ask for a cheaper mac mean is that apple should sell in their lineup a cheaper computer that is competitive with Dell cheaper computers. Not everyone can afford a BMW.
I don't think you mean to say that Apple should DROP prices. Rather, they should have machines at a lower price, in addition to what they now have.
These cpu's are being used as desktop parts in many PC implimentations. There are Merom mobo's.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
Apple uses a "server CPU" in the Mac Pro, which isn't a server, and they use a "laptop CPU" in the Mac mini, which isn't a laptop.
It'd be much more appropriate to distinguish the three by their power usage, or their performance oomph, although calling a Merom "low-end" is misleading, so I think "low-power" for Merom, "medium-power" for Allendale and Conroe and "high-power" for Woodcrest is the most accurate.
What Mr. H should have argued is that the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components, which is even more so the case for the Mac mini.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
Apple uses a "server CPU" in the Mac Pro, which isn't a server, and they use a "laptop CPU" in the Mac mini, which isn't a laptop.
It'd be much more appropriate to distinguish the three by their power usage, or their performance oomph, although calling a Merom "low-end" is misleading, so I think "low-power" for Merom, "medium-power" for Allendale and Conroe and "high-power" for Woodcrest is the most accurate.
What Mr. H should have argued is that the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components, which is even more so the case for the Mac mini.
Well, Intel makes the chips, so they can call them anything they want to. Their intention was for them to only be used in laptops, but, of course, Apple has to do what they like, and other companies followed once they saw the advantages.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
The point is that Merom is not a "desktop CPU". Conroe and Woodcrest are desktop CPUs.
Merom is used predominantly in laptops, so I will continue to call it a laptop CPU. In addition, the "desktop" machines that use this CPU are usually really laptops minus screen, keyboard and trackpad.
Quote:
the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
Apple uses a "server CPU" in the Mac Pro, which isn't a server, and they use a "laptop CPU" in the Mac mini, which isn't a laptop.
It'd be much more appropriate to distinguish the three by their power usage, or their performance oomph, although calling a Merom "low-end" is misleading, so I think "low-power" for Merom, "medium-power" for Allendale and Conroe and "high-power" for Woodcrest is the most accurate.
What Mr. H should have argued is that the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components, which is even more so the case for the Mac mini.
They can have a targeted use and the system designer can use them the way they want. Usually it isn't necessarily advantageous in most cases to use them outside the targeted use, for reasons such as cost and speed, but Apple has very unusual form factors in relation to the industry as a whole, and their re-application is a small niche.
Intel markets Xeons for use in servers and the higher end workstations, not just servers, and the Intel product page makes this pretty clear. If Apple used Xeon MP (7xxx series) in Mac Pro, then your point on that would be valid.
The point is that Merom is not a "desktop CPU". Conroe and Woodcrest are desktop CPUs.
Merom is used predominantly in laptops, so I will continue to call it a laptop CPU. In addition, the "desktop" machines that use this CPU are usually really laptops minus screen, keyboard and trackpad.
AKA laptop components.
That's just one machine. Therer are desktop mobo's that are not laptop based. The iMac is not laptop based.
Yes, it's true that small form machines are designed for low power, low heat. They have to be. So what? They still aren't laptops, no matter what the spin.
The point is that Merom is not a "desktop CPU". Conroe and Woodcrest are desktop CPUs.
No, the point is that such a distinction has been irrelevant for years, and for the record, no, Woodcrest is not "a desktop CPU"; it's a server CPU.
Quote:
Merom is used predominantly in laptops
And 1.8-inch drives are used predominantly in portable media players; does that make them portable media drives? No.
Quote:
, so I will continue to call it a laptop CPU. In addition, the "desktop" machines that use this CPU are usually really laptops minus screen, keyboard and trackpad.
And a "server" is "usually really a desktop", only in a different form factor.
Throw your 1990s' glossary away. The terms have become completely meaningless.
Quote:
AKA laptop components.
Ah, so anything Shuttle sells is a "laptop component", even though they don't even do laptops?
Comments
Well, I think your use of exclamation points is silly
All of Louzer's points about iTunes for Windows are mostly perfectly legitimate. iTunes for Windows is a poor program. You seem to have misunderstood all the points he made:
There is no "unbundled" version. The iTunes download includes QuickTime, because QuickTime is needed for iTunes to work.
Yes, but not every Windows application has the menu bar in the title bar. In most applications, the title bar is at the very top of the window, and the menubar is underneath. In iTunes for Windows, the menubar and title bar are merged. Personally, I think that approach looks better than the normal approach.
Yes, we all know that the registry is a heap of mouldy old junk. But that is beside the point in this case. Louzer was making the point that iTunes uses the registry to make various items launch when Windows is started. It does this without asking the user first. Starting those processes at Windows launch is unnecessary for iTunes to work.
So to recap, the reason lots of Windows users hate iTunes for Windows is because:
1.) It installs QuickTime without making it clear that QuickTime is necessary for iTunes to function.
2.) iTunes is slow and bloated (huge, utterly excessive memory requirement for coverflow, for example)
3.) The installer creates icons all over without asking the user.
4.) The installer sets QuickTime to place an item in the System Tray, without asking the user first if they'd like that to happen.
5.) The installer installs an iPod servicing application which automatically starts every time you use Windows and which won't shut-down properly, whether you have an iPod or not.
6.) In my experience, iTunes rarely shuts-down properly, especially in response to a system-wide shutdown request when Windows itself is shutting down (i.e., the app won't quit when you try to shut-down Windows and Windows tells iTunes to quit).
Perhaps they are merged visually but not in funcionality. They still act very separate from eachother.
I never did like Itunes for Windows, Nor did I like Quicktime for windows, but I blame that more on Windows than Apple. Windows just does not funtion very well in asthetics or in funcionality period. Heck, even Microsoft Office is ten times better on the Mac than it is in Windows!
I use windows everyday, not because I enjoy it, but because I have to for work. I love coming home to a machine that I can simply rely on to get the job done. One that I can plug a devicde into and have it run from startup to shutdown. No headaches, no hiccups, nothing. My whole point in the beginning was that Apple is very competitive price wise, and just because they dont make bargain basement computers doesnt make then less capable of capturing a large portion of the market. The fact is that most companies arfe loosing money with the sub $500 machines.
I will never understand why people refer to computers with Windows installed as PC's.
Because people got sick of saying IBM PC Compatible which I actually remember them doing back in the 80's ... it was on software boxes and everything. "Mac or IBM? But mine is a Cheapco, which one's that?"
As for Apple's share: they'd have to make a truly cheap Mac. Do they want to do that? Is it worth it? I'm not sure, but that Apple TV is looking like a starting point. Don't expect anything though, that kind of talk always gets Steved!
#1 the Mac Mini is a laptop shoehorned into a small case, with laptop performance.
#2 the iMacs are laptops without builtin keyboards, batteries and with laptop performance.
Most people do not see value in all in one systems or the Mini.
Apple could offer a proper desktop with a Pcie videocard, a 7200rpm drive, Core 2 like the rest of the competition.
Mac Ads do not sell the product. They do not really explain why the Macintosh is superior to windows.
Apple does not need to sell Trailer Park PCs priced at 399 with monitor,inkjet,etc.. those customers usually pirate all the software. Apple just needs to offer a good desktop in the 800-1500 dollar range.
A top of the line video card and windows drivers so you can boot into Windows and play the latest games when you want.
Do that and I wouldn't hold out on getting one of the laptops.
Also, make a dock for the laptops. Silly to have to unplug a bunch of cables. I just have to press one button with my dell and its dock.
Whats a top of the line video card for Laptops though? Do you really want your portable to be 75% more volume just to take care of power and cooling requirements for some of those high end graphic cards? I think my Radeon X1600 256mb does good enough for anything I've played, and I can boot into Windows and play Windows games just fine, yes there are Windows drivers.
And if you want a docking station for your Mac, then buy a Bookendz. http://bookendzdocks.com/
Yes, comparing year-over-year units shipped removes seasonality. But this discussion isn't about a slip in units, it is about a slip in market share. I'd say that making quarter to quarter comparisons of market share is better than year-over-year comparisons, as market share could have a big jump from one quarter to the next, then stop increasing. This will give you four quarters in a row of stellar year-over-year market share growth despite the fact that market share only grew once.
I see what you mean, but I think part of it stems from the fact that the type of people that buy Macs aren't necessarily the type that would buy PCs, and are in effect a market to themselves. For example, the household and business markets. Businesses are often more tied to a particular platform because more specialized apps need that platform, for their average user, it's Windows, many also have a standardized replacement cycle. Also, for non-cycle purchases, new business purchases are encouraged by tax deductions, buy just before the end of the year and it counts as a deduction for that tax year.
Households and individuals aren't on a replacement cycle, don't often have deductions. They may choose to upgrade when they start a new semester of school, which is late summer, early winter.
I have sir! I can also resolve all of your so called "issues for under 100 bucks. Actually I HAVE gotten everything on that list of yours for under 100. Not for an imac but for my Powerbook! I have a firewire external enclosure for a 200 gig Maxtor hard drive, and a backup copy of Mac os X tiger onto so I can boot from it in case of emergencies, and for backup reasons. I have a 15 in one external USB 2.0 Card reader, and a powered USB hub (which is just as good as having built in USB ports).
All of your suggestions encourage a multiplication of external boxes, most of which have external power bricks. Without fastidious cable management, ends in messy rat's nests. It runs counter to the supposed simplicity theme. Not having those features may be fine for many customers, but for heavy media work or power users, it's just a headache.
As long as apple refuses to sell Desktops, they will not be able to compete. Apple makes nice competitively priced Professional Workstations but nothing else they sell is competitive.
#1 the Mac Mini is a laptop shoehorned into a small case, with laptop performance.
#2 the iMacs are laptops without builtin keyboards, batteries and with laptop performance.
Most people do not see value in all in one systems or the Mini.
Apple could offer a proper desktop with a Pcie videocard, a 7200rpm drive, Core 2 like the rest of the competition.
Mac Ads do not sell the product. They do not really explain why the Macintosh is superior to windows.
Apple does not need to sell Trailer Park PCs priced at 399 with monitor,inkjet,etc.. those customers usually pirate all the software. Apple just needs to offer a good desktop in the 800-1500 dollar range.
Actually the imac is an all in one desktop computer. There are no laptop parts in it. I have used one and it performs beautifully!
The Mac mini, although using laptop drives, uses full size RAM.
#2 the iMacs are laptops without builtin keyboards, batteries and with laptop performance.
Apple could offer a proper desktop with a Pcie videocard, a 7200rpm drive, Core 2 like the rest of the competition.
Uhh yeah...you need to go check out the specs of the iMac one more time. Look them over carefully.
Actually the imac is an all in one desktop computer. There are no laptop parts in it.
Bzzt! Wrong!
The following parts in an iMac are laptop parts:
CPU (Merom, a laptop Core 2 Duo chip)
Chipset (i.e., northbridge and southbridge)
RAM
Optical drive
In addition, the GPU is under-clocked to prevent over-heating.
There is nothing wrong with Apple pricing and I have no problem with them making a profit, after all that is how they stay in business.
I recently tried to price out a Media Center PC and there was no way I could get it under $1500 with equivalent hardware and features to a Mac.
Give me a Mac Mini at $599, The EyeTV at $129 and an external hard drive (extra storage) for $80 and that beats every Media Center PC out there on price and features.
I don't think its fair to say Apple should lower their prices on their Macs just because they made a $1 Billion profit. Maybe it's not obvious but, 1) that's for everything they sell not just Macs, 2) from that profit they have to re-invest probably 75% of those profits back into research to make more great products and 3) they have to pay the bills with the rest!
It maybe a $1 billion profit but that number is probably far from where their actual net income is.
This is a common false comparison all mac fans make (actually, people make it all the time for other products as well). Suppose I manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds and sold it for 10,000. I could then say i was competitive with motorola cause if they also manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds, they too would have to sell it for that price. Deceptive argument that ignores that motorola DOES NOT make diamond cell phones. Yes, a similiarly speced dell cost the same or slightly less than a similiarly speced mac but so what?. That doesn't make macs cheaper or even the same price as dell because (i hope you pay attention here). Dells are cheaper on AVERAGE. BMW is competive with toyota cause a similiar speced toyota (ie, lexus, which toyota owns) cost the same as a BMW. That does not mean someone who can only afford a 18,000 dollar car will run out and buy a Lexus. I think mac fans are condencending when they pretend not to understand what people mean when they say apple should drop prices. What the people that ask for a cheaper mac mean is that apple should sell in their lineup a cheaper computer that is competitive with Dell cheaper computers. Not everyone can afford a BMW.
This is a common false comparison all mac fans make (actually, people make it all the time for other products as well). Suppose I manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds and sold it for 10,000. I could then say i was competitive with motorola cause if they also manufactored a cell phone made of diamonds, they too would have to sell it for that price. Deceptive argument that ignores that motorola DOES NOT make diamond cell phones. Yes, a similiarly speced dell cost the same or slightly less than a similiarly speced mac but so what?. That doesn't make macs cheaper or even the same price as dell because (i hope you pay attention here). Dells are cheaper on AVERAGE. BMW is competive with toyota cause a similiar speced toyota (ie, lexus, which toyota owns) cost the same as a BMW. That does not mean someone who can only afford a 18,000 dollar car will run out and buy a Lexus. I think mac fans are condencending when they pretend not to understand what people mean when they say apple should drop prices. What the people that ask for a cheaper mac mean is that apple should sell in their lineup a cheaper computer that is competitive with Dell cheaper computers. Not everyone can afford a BMW.
I don't think you mean to say that Apple should DROP prices. Rather, they should have machines at a lower price, in addition to what they now have.
Bzzt! Wrong!
The following parts in an iMac are laptop parts:
CPU (Merom, a laptop Core 2 Duo chip)
Chipset (i.e., northbridge and southbridge)
RAM
Optical drive
In addition, the GPU is under-clocked to prevent over-heating.
Since when does a laptop processor have a ZIFF socket?
http://www.powermax.com/articles_rev...icle.php?id=17
Since when does a laptop processor have a ZIFF socket?
http://www.powermax.com/articles_rev...icle.php?id=17
These cpu's are being used as desktop parts in many PC implimentations. There are Merom mobo's.
These cpu's are being used as desktop parts in many PC implimentations. There are Merom mobo's.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
Apple uses a "server CPU" in the Mac Pro, which isn't a server, and they use a "laptop CPU" in the Mac mini, which isn't a laptop.
It'd be much more appropriate to distinguish the three by their power usage, or their performance oomph, although calling a Merom "low-end" is misleading, so I think "low-power" for Merom, "medium-power" for Allendale and Conroe and "high-power" for Woodcrest is the most accurate.
What Mr. H should have argued is that the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components, which is even more so the case for the Mac mini.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
Apple uses a "server CPU" in the Mac Pro, which isn't a server, and they use a "laptop CPU" in the Mac mini, which isn't a laptop.
It'd be much more appropriate to distinguish the three by their power usage, or their performance oomph, although calling a Merom "low-end" is misleading, so I think "low-power" for Merom, "medium-power" for Allendale and Conroe and "high-power" for Woodcrest is the most accurate.
What Mr. H should have argued is that the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components, which is even more so the case for the Mac mini.
Well, Intel makes the chips, so they can call them anything they want to. Their intention was for them to only be used in laptops, but, of course, Apple has to do what they like, and other companies followed once they saw the advantages.
I have no problem with your classifications.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
The point is that Merom is not a "desktop CPU". Conroe and Woodcrest are desktop CPUs.
Merom is used predominantly in laptops, so I will continue to call it a laptop CPU. In addition, the "desktop" machines that use this CPU are usually really laptops minus screen, keyboard and trackpad.
the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components
AKA laptop components.
But the distinction of a "laptop CPU" is silly, regardless of whether Intel uses it (well, they call it "mobile") or not.
Apple uses a "server CPU" in the Mac Pro, which isn't a server, and they use a "laptop CPU" in the Mac mini, which isn't a laptop.
It'd be much more appropriate to distinguish the three by their power usage, or their performance oomph, although calling a Merom "low-end" is misleading, so I think "low-power" for Merom, "medium-power" for Allendale and Conroe and "high-power" for Woodcrest is the most accurate.
What Mr. H should have argued is that the iMac predominantly uses small-form-factor(!) components, which is even more so the case for the Mac mini.
They can have a targeted use and the system designer can use them the way they want. Usually it isn't necessarily advantageous in most cases to use them outside the targeted use, for reasons such as cost and speed, but Apple has very unusual form factors in relation to the industry as a whole, and their re-application is a small niche.
Intel markets Xeons for use in servers and the higher end workstations, not just servers, and the Intel product page makes this pretty clear. If Apple used Xeon MP (7xxx series) in Mac Pro, then your point on that would be valid.
The point is that Merom is not a "desktop CPU". Conroe and Woodcrest are desktop CPUs.
Merom is used predominantly in laptops, so I will continue to call it a laptop CPU. In addition, the "desktop" machines that use this CPU are usually really laptops minus screen, keyboard and trackpad.
AKA laptop components.
That's just one machine. Therer are desktop mobo's that are not laptop based. The iMac is not laptop based.
Yes, it's true that small form machines are designed for low power, low heat. They have to be. So what? They still aren't laptops, no matter what the spin.
The point is that Merom is not a "desktop CPU". Conroe and Woodcrest are desktop CPUs.
No, the point is that such a distinction has been irrelevant for years, and for the record, no, Woodcrest is not "a desktop CPU"; it's a server CPU.
Merom is used predominantly in laptops
And 1.8-inch drives are used predominantly in portable media players; does that make them portable media drives? No.
, so I will continue to call it a laptop CPU. In addition, the "desktop" machines that use this CPU are usually really laptops minus screen, keyboard and trackpad.
And a "server" is "usually really a desktop", only in a different form factor.
Throw your 1990s' glossary away. The terms have become completely meaningless.
AKA laptop components.
Ah, so anything Shuttle sells is a "laptop component", even though they don't even do laptops?
Intel markets Xeons for use in servers and the higher end workstations, not just servers,