So you can get a quad core with double the Ram, including a display for $50 less. It also has options for multiple drives as well as Blu-Ray.
Now the screen size is lower but this is one thing I don't like about the iMac. If I want a 3.06GHz processor and a Geforce 8800, why should I have to pay $200 or so more for the 24" display?
To get RAID-0, I have to get a Mac Pro for $550 more and even then, I still only get a quad 2.8GHz. The Xeon might beat the Core 2 Quad on some things but it won't be very much and the Mac Pro doesn't come with a display.
If I set the Cube above to use 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo, I can set it to have a 24" display and it comes out round about the same as the iMac at $1809 only a bit faster.
But as I say, I'd rather be able to spend more to get a much faster spec than only get the option to blow it on a large screen that I don't want. 20" displays are fine for most people.
The prices shouldn't be that close though. Going by Intel's price list, you'd expect that Apple could drop prices by $300-400 on the CPU alone. Assuming they don't drop by that much for whatever reason, they can lower prices significantly by stopping forcing people to pay for an Apple display when they buy a Mac. They aren't giving those away for free and you can see how much they charge for a standalone model.
The standalone 24" is $900. Even half that is a significant premium on an iMac, especially if you already own a screen.
I think the best solution is to get the Cube back. Two drives + one optical. Integrated Nvidia but one PCI slot that has the option for a dedicated card or you can use it how you wish. 4GB Ram. Starting with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and going up to 3GHz Core 2 Quad. Price range would be exactly the same as the iMac. The iMac would sell next to it because you get a display included for the same price, you just get a lower spec.
Is that a serious post? Assuming it is you have failed to see that...
1) It's Not yet November 17th so expecting i7 now is impossible.
2) Apple doesn't use AMD CPUs.
3) Apple doesn't use desktop-grade CPUs in their iMacs
4) The iMac was updated in April with specialized Santa Rosa/Penryn chipsets with Montevina properties (ie: what are being used now)
5) Notebook-grade Nehelham chipsets aren't due until Fall of 2009.
6) Due to the very limited number of chip models Apple's uses, their bulk orders far exceed the larger PC vendors whose sell mainly older HW, so Apple has to wait until Intel has ramped up production enough to accommodate Apple's demands. This is an issue that keeps getting worse as Apple's unit sales keep growing by 4x the industry.
So you can get a quad core with double the Ram, including a display for $50 less. It also has options for multiple drives as well as Blu-Ray.
Now the screen size is lower but this is one thing I don't like about the iMac. If I want a 3.06GHz processor and a Geforce 8800, why should I have to pay $200 or so more for the 24" display?
To get RAID-0, I have to get a Mac Pro for $550 more and even then, I still only get a quad 2.8GHz. The Xeon might beat the Core 2 Quad on some things but it won't be very much and the Mac Pro doesn't come with a display.
If I set the Cube above to use 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo, I can set it to have a 24" display and it comes out round about the same as the iMac at $1809 only a bit faster.
But as I say, I'd rather be able to spend more to get a much faster spec than only get the option to blow it on a large screen that I don't want. 20" displays are fine for most people.
The prices shouldn't be that close though. Going by Intel's price list, you'd expect that Apple could drop prices by $300-400 on the CPU alone. Assuming they don't drop by that much for whatever reason, they can lower prices significantly by stopping forcing people to pay for an Apple display when they buy a Mac. They aren't giving those away for free and you can see how much they charge for a standalone model.
The standalone 24" is $900. Even half that is a significant premium on an iMac, especially if you already own a screen.
I think the best solution is to get the Cube back. Two drives + one optical. Integrated Nvidia but one PCI slot that has the option for a dedicated card or you can use it how you wish. 4GB Ram. Starting with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and going up to 3GHz Core 2 Quad. Price range would be exactly the same as the iMac. The iMac would sell next to it because you get a display included for the same price, you just get a lower spec.
So you can get a quad core with double the Ram, including a display for $50 less. It also has options for multiple drives as well as Blu-Ray.
Now the screen size is lower but this is one thing I don't like about the iMac. If I want a 3.06GHz processor and a Geforce 8800, why should I have to pay $200 or so more for the 24" display?
To get RAID-0, I have to get a Mac Pro for $550 more and even then, I still only get a quad 2.8GHz. The Xeon might beat the Core 2 Quad on some things but it won't be very much and the Mac Pro doesn't come with a display.
If I set the Cube above to use 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo, I can set it to have a 24" display and it comes out round about the same as the iMac at $1809 only a bit faster.
But as I say, I'd rather be able to spend more to get a much faster spec than only get the option to blow it on a large screen that I don't want. 20" displays are fine for most people.
The prices shouldn't be that close though. Going by Intel's price list, you'd expect that Apple could drop prices by $300-400 on the CPU alone. Assuming they don't drop by that much for whatever reason, they can lower prices significantly by stopping forcing people to pay for an Apple display when they buy a Mac. They aren't giving those away for free and you can see how much they charge for a standalone model.
The standalone 24" is $900. Even half that is a significant premium on an iMac, especially if you already own a screen.
I think the best solution is to get the Cube back. Two drives + one optical. Integrated Nvidia but one PCI slot that has the option for a dedicated card or you can use it how you wish. 4GB Ram. Starting with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and going up to 3GHz Core 2 Quad. Price range would be exactly the same as the iMac. The iMac would sell next to it because you get a display included for the same price, you just get a lower spec.
I'd buy a quad 3 gig Cube in an instant with any decent GPU. Apple offer more choice in their 'mobile' line than they do in their desktop line. Mini. Another laptop. iMac. Another laptop.
Their only 'upgradeable' machine starts at an eye-watering £1500.
Core i7 is the new Intel quad-core desktop chip. Mainstream quad-core desktop CPUs have been available for more than a year from both AMD and Intel, yet Apple doesn't use the new chips in its aging iMac design. What's wrong with Apple?
I was totally wondering the same thing. Until Solipsism cleared all THAT up for me. It's the age-old Apple premise . . . the operating system IS the computer. And we're paying a premium for it. Since Day One (1984), you could always buy a blazing fast PC for a lot less money than you could buy a comparable Mac.
Comments
cooler running desktop chips would allow Apple to run faster CPUs at a lower price, but that is just a hypothesis. It is not fact.
I found a PC Cube on this site:
http://www.boldata.com/config.cfm
Xtreme? SX38P2 PRO Series
Core 2 quad 2.83GHz
4GB Ram
RAID controller
320GB drive
ATI HD3870 512MB
20" Samsung dusplay
DVDRW
XP Pro
$1742
vs the iMac
Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
2GB Ram
320GB drive
ATI HD 2600 Pro 256MB
24" display
DVDRW
OS X
$1799
So you can get a quad core with double the Ram, including a display for $50 less. It also has options for multiple drives as well as Blu-Ray.
Now the screen size is lower but this is one thing I don't like about the iMac. If I want a 3.06GHz processor and a Geforce 8800, why should I have to pay $200 or so more for the 24" display?
To get RAID-0, I have to get a Mac Pro for $550 more and even then, I still only get a quad 2.8GHz. The Xeon might beat the Core 2 Quad on some things but it won't be very much and the Mac Pro doesn't come with a display.
If I set the Cube above to use 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo, I can set it to have a 24" display and it comes out round about the same as the iMac at $1809 only a bit faster.
But as I say, I'd rather be able to spend more to get a much faster spec than only get the option to blow it on a large screen that I don't want. 20" displays are fine for most people.
The prices shouldn't be that close though. Going by Intel's price list, you'd expect that Apple could drop prices by $300-400 on the CPU alone. Assuming they don't drop by that much for whatever reason, they can lower prices significantly by stopping forcing people to pay for an Apple display when they buy a Mac. They aren't giving those away for free and you can see how much they charge for a standalone model.
The standalone 24" is $900. Even half that is a significant premium on an iMac, especially if you already own a screen.
I think the best solution is to get the Cube back. Two drives + one optical. Integrated Nvidia but one PCI slot that has the option for a dedicated card or you can use it how you wish. 4GB Ram. Starting with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and going up to 3GHz Core 2 Quad. Price range would be exactly the same as the iMac. The iMac would sell next to it because you get a display included for the same price, you just get a lower spec.
Is that a serious post? Assuming it is you have failed to see that...
1) It's Not yet November 17th so expecting i7 now is impossible.
2) Apple doesn't use AMD CPUs.
3) Apple doesn't use desktop-grade CPUs in their iMacs
4) The iMac was updated in April with specialized Santa Rosa/Penryn chipsets with Montevina properties (ie: what are being used now)
5) Notebook-grade Nehelham chipsets aren't due until Fall of 2009.
6) Due to the very limited number of chip models Apple's uses, their bulk orders far exceed the larger PC vendors whose sell mainly older HW, so Apple has to wait until Intel has ramped up production enough to accommodate Apple's demands. This is an issue that keeps getting worse as Apple's unit sales keep growing by 4x the industry.
I found a PC Cube on this site:
http://www.boldata.com/config.cfm
Xtreme? SX38P2 PRO Series
Core 2 quad 2.83GHz
4GB Ram
RAID controller
320GB drive
ATI HD3870 512MB
20" Samsung dusplay
DVDRW
XP Pro
$1742
vs the iMac
Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
2GB Ram
320GB drive
ATI HD 2600 Pro 256MB
24" display
DVDRW
OS X
$1799
So you can get a quad core with double the Ram, including a display for $50 less. It also has options for multiple drives as well as Blu-Ray.
Now the screen size is lower but this is one thing I don't like about the iMac. If I want a 3.06GHz processor and a Geforce 8800, why should I have to pay $200 or so more for the 24" display?
To get RAID-0, I have to get a Mac Pro for $550 more and even then, I still only get a quad 2.8GHz. The Xeon might beat the Core 2 Quad on some things but it won't be very much and the Mac Pro doesn't come with a display.
If I set the Cube above to use 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo, I can set it to have a 24" display and it comes out round about the same as the iMac at $1809 only a bit faster.
But as I say, I'd rather be able to spend more to get a much faster spec than only get the option to blow it on a large screen that I don't want. 20" displays are fine for most people.
The prices shouldn't be that close though. Going by Intel's price list, you'd expect that Apple could drop prices by $300-400 on the CPU alone. Assuming they don't drop by that much for whatever reason, they can lower prices significantly by stopping forcing people to pay for an Apple display when they buy a Mac. They aren't giving those away for free and you can see how much they charge for a standalone model.
The standalone 24" is $900. Even half that is a significant premium on an iMac, especially if you already own a screen.
I think the best solution is to get the Cube back. Two drives + one optical. Integrated Nvidia but one PCI slot that has the option for a dedicated card or you can use it how you wish. 4GB Ram. Starting with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and going up to 3GHz Core 2 Quad. Price range would be exactly the same as the iMac. The iMac would sell next to it because you get a display included for the same price, you just get a lower spec.
make it 2 pci-e slots x16 2 wide and a x4 slot.
I found a PC Cube on this site:
http://www.boldata.com/config.cfm
Xtreme? SX38P2 PRO Series
Core 2 quad 2.83GHz
4GB Ram
RAID controller
320GB drive
ATI HD3870 512MB
20" Samsung dusplay
DVDRW
XP Pro
$1742
vs the iMac
Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
2GB Ram
320GB drive
ATI HD 2600 Pro 256MB
24" display
DVDRW
OS X
$1799
So you can get a quad core with double the Ram, including a display for $50 less. It also has options for multiple drives as well as Blu-Ray.
Now the screen size is lower but this is one thing I don't like about the iMac. If I want a 3.06GHz processor and a Geforce 8800, why should I have to pay $200 or so more for the 24" display?
To get RAID-0, I have to get a Mac Pro for $550 more and even then, I still only get a quad 2.8GHz. The Xeon might beat the Core 2 Quad on some things but it won't be very much and the Mac Pro doesn't come with a display.
If I set the Cube above to use 3.0GHz Core 2 Duo, I can set it to have a 24" display and it comes out round about the same as the iMac at $1809 only a bit faster.
But as I say, I'd rather be able to spend more to get a much faster spec than only get the option to blow it on a large screen that I don't want. 20" displays are fine for most people.
The prices shouldn't be that close though. Going by Intel's price list, you'd expect that Apple could drop prices by $300-400 on the CPU alone. Assuming they don't drop by that much for whatever reason, they can lower prices significantly by stopping forcing people to pay for an Apple display when they buy a Mac. They aren't giving those away for free and you can see how much they charge for a standalone model.
The standalone 24" is $900. Even half that is a significant premium on an iMac, especially if you already own a screen.
I think the best solution is to get the Cube back. Two drives + one optical. Integrated Nvidia but one PCI slot that has the option for a dedicated card or you can use it how you wish. 4GB Ram. Starting with 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo and going up to 3GHz Core 2 Quad. Price range would be exactly the same as the iMac. The iMac would sell next to it because you get a display included for the same price, you just get a lower spec.
I'd buy a quad 3 gig Cube in an instant with any decent GPU. Apple offer more choice in their 'mobile' line than they do in their desktop line. Mini. Another laptop. iMac. Another laptop.
Their only 'upgradeable' machine starts at an eye-watering £1500.
Ouch.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Core i7 is the new Intel quad-core desktop chip. Mainstream quad-core desktop CPUs have been available for more than a year from both AMD and Intel, yet Apple doesn't use the new chips in its aging iMac design. What's wrong with Apple?
I was totally wondering the same thing. Until Solipsism cleared all THAT up for me. It's the age-old Apple premise . . . the operating system IS the computer. And we're paying a premium for it. Since Day One (1984), you could always buy a blazing fast PC for a lot less money than you could buy a comparable Mac.
'Apple stating, "Holiday product lineup is complete"...
This may only refer to consumer line, as pro line purchases would not be based on Holiday season. Splitting hairs? I don't know.'
Posted elsewhere, but what do you think:
'Apple stating, "Holiday product lineup is complete"...
This may only refer to consumer line, as pro line purchases would not be based on Holiday season. Splitting hairs? I don't know.'
Gainestown Xeon server processors aren't due until next year. Possibly not even January. No updates from Apple at all for at least 2 months.