Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.
When people are shopping for a Mac, and want a Mac, they are not price comparing to piece of shit PC boxes. Pull your head out of your ass.
erm.. if this were the case Apple would be bankrupt by now instead of turning a profit from its computers. You know that those looking to get a sub $1000 system are unlikely to be a Mac customer. And those that were teetering around the $1000 mark will probably cough up the extra once they see an iMac or Macbook in person. Especially if they have an iPhone or iPod Touch (and like them !!).
Hey I agree the Mac is a more elegant solution but let's be a bit more pragmatic here. Apple's recent switcher sales have come from frustrated PC users who don't like Vista and/or the security problems that Windows offered.
Windows 7 may not be sexy but if the reports of it's stability and UI improvements strike a chord in consumerdom Apple's not going to find as much success with campy "I'm a Mac" commercials.
Sure sell a dual core $999 computer w/20" LCD. It's a nice computer for basic use. Anything $1200 and up needs to be quad core IMO. Apple need not give people a reason to keep their money in their wallet.
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.
This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.
Pray tell what considerable experience to you draw upon to glean such insightful commentary?
Simple. When people want to buy a Mac, they are looking at different Mac models. Period. They aren't browsing the aisles at Best Buy looking at PC's that are not Macs. I have helped many people shop for a Mac, and none of them have any interest in PC boxes, nor do they care how cheap a PC box is when they are only looking for a Mac. If people are shopping for a Windows computer, they aren't shopping in the Apple Store, they are shopping for Dell's, etc.
When you are interested in buying a Honda, you don't go to the Toyota dealer to look for one. It is really not that hard to figure out, but apparently you don't have a clue.
I know Apple can't match these specs on the iMac. But they need to get closer. Simply putting slightly faster dual core cpus in the iMac ain't gonna cut it IMO.
I won't buy one and I'm in the market for a new desktop machine this year.
This is not actually a reply to my comment though is it? The original assertion made was that a "better" computer than the iMac could be had for half the price of an iMac. I said to the OP that this is nonsense and to prove it, which none of this does.
Your first item is the same price as the iMac quoted and all the others lack a monitor which would put them in the same range. Also, as above, crap parts etc. ...
I certainly don't deny that there are lots of computers at different price points and some of them might indeed be a better deal than an iMac depending on your needs and wants etc., but the statement about the $700 computer is just crap.
hmurchison has a habit of making ridiculous hyperbolic statements about this kind of stuff so I just wanted to point out what a lot of crap it is.
The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.
This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.
NIce job. Put him in his place. What a moron, finding a PC that is ON SALE! Regular price, $1400. And the other one doesn't even have a monitor. Great comparison. Just proves what a genius he really is. But that is your typical PC shopper. I am sure both those computers run Vista really well too.
You forgot to mention that you are also getting a piece of shit PC box running Vista. Stop comparing cheap PC's to Macs. If you don't like the price and quality of a Mac, then go to Costco or Best Buy and get your piece of shit PC Box.
This is not helpful nor relevant discussion. Romper Room is thataway ---->
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.
This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.
AMD or Intel Quad parts are not crap parts. You're dreaming and in denial. What "high falutin" parts in the iMac should I be looking for? The 20" doesn't have an IPS monitor anymore and the laptop parts aren't that special. How much do you think a TN monitor costs chief? A 22" is $149 USD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
Simple. When people want to buy a Mac, they are looking at different Mac models. Period. They aren't browsing the aisles at Best Buy looking at PC's that are not Macs. I have helped many people shop for a Mac, and none of them have any interest in PC boxes, nor do they care how cheap a PC box is when they are only looking for a Mac. If people are shopping for a Windows computer, they aren't shopping in the Apple Store, they are shopping for Dell's, etc.
When you are interested in buying a Honda, you don't go to the Toyota dealer to look for one. It is really not that hard to figure out, but apparently you don't have a clue.
I've worked for 2 Mac VAR and the Mac Zone. I'd spoken to thousands of people and sold thousands of Macs. Yes there are people that know they want a Mac and people who are on the fence. Pricing is always a concern regardless of what you're selling provided the product has competition.
Plus let it be noted that I see value in the Mac but not every person out there cares about the beauty of OS X or Jonathan Ive design.
This is not actually a reply to my comment though is it? The original assertion made was that a "better" computer than the iMac could be had for half the price of an iMac.
Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?
And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?
Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?
And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?
Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
Exactly. Say Apple delivers a $999 core 2 duo computer. For Mac users that's already the baseline for Tier 1 Quad Core systems with monitors and beefier specs today. The BS about "that's on sale" doesn't cut muster because PCs are always on sale somewhere. Their price doesn't remain stagnant.
Thus if Apple delivers a $999 C2D iMac...we're going to be living with that price/config for what 6 months. If it ain't cutting it compared to PC at launch what's another 6 months of Intel price cuts going to do to the gulf?
Yes this is a Mac enthusiast sight but we shouldn't fail to lose sight of the market around us. $1299+ should bring a Quad Core. $999 is passable for a fast C2D IMO.
Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
..and that is what we are all waiting for
--
its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.
Thus if Apple delivers a $999 C2D iMac...we're going to be living with that price/config for what 6 months. If it ain't cutting it compared to PC at launch what's another 6 months of Intel price cuts going to do to the gulf?
That's the big issue IMO.
Even if Apple move to the low power desk top quad core cpus, the iMacs aren't going to look like a good value 6 months from now when Nehalem cpus will be pretty common. Maybe Apple will have an update then, who knows.
But a dual core iMacs look like a weak value to me know and will be an absolute embarrassment in 6 months.
And some members here have Stockholm syndrome or something. Hey Virgil and Hillstones, you don't have to apologize for wanting a decent performing iMac. Its ok to want quad core. You don't need to go to confession for dreaming of a quad core iMac. Geez.
its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.
chill out kids
Indeed. Though the incredulity of Apple shipping C2D iMacs when the baseline for a kilobuck PC is rapidly approaching Quad Core/4GB and half Terabyte hard drive.
I like the iMac but it's in a tough spot. Mobile parts aren't helping it remain amongst its priceband in performance. I'm sorry but it still has to perform lest it become "all show ..no go"
its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.
I wish Apple would get their butts into gear, I have been waiting to buy a refreshed iMac for 6 months now, its like they skipped a whole product cycle release, how hard can it be, place a different intel chip in change the rubbish underpowered gpu and send it out!
Oh, jeeez.. just get one of these. You could get a 4 core and toss in another one later.
Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?
Apologies, I didn't catch that part, it was looking like a "pile-on" led by hmurchison form my point of view, in that you were replying to my reply to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?
The "crap parts" comment (and this is aimed at hmurchison too), is that generally speaking, the computers pointed to use AMD processors instead of the intel ones. They also use no-name hard drives most of the time, bulk memory, cheap plastic boxes, etc. etc. Lots of folks don't seem to value this kind of thing, but then if they don't value quality, I can't see why they are buying an Apple product in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
I would agree with the "gulf" for the most part, but I would call it a crack more than a gulf.
Also, I would argue that this "crack" opens up pretty much every year just before Apple updates it's iMac line. I think it makes no sense to talk about how poor the iMac may or may not be, when it's literally on the verge of a massive update. I also think that if you look at the specs overall and take the long view of it, that the iMac is usually the best computer you can get for the price that it sells at on average.
Again, I wasn't really saying anything personal here and certainly not aiming it at you. I merely picked the one sentence out of hmurchisons original post that was (IMO) hyperbolic nonsense and asking him to prove it.
Again, I wasn't really saying anything personal here and certainly not aiming it at you. I merely picked the one sentence out of hmurchisons original post that was (IMO) hyperbolic nonsense and asking him to prove it.
I can't even consider it piling on Apple because , as you correctly state, they've released no hardware and frankly I put little credence towards Wu's claims.
I'm not really attempting to compare the iMac with today's PC but rather discuss the ramifications of not delivering delivering Quad-core alongst a majority of iMac models.
If a person is buying a desktop over a laptop it would seem that they are looking for more speed than what a laptop offers. I think Apple should redesign to accomodate 64W TDP Quad core products and if they want to leverage C2D do it at $999 for a 2.4 or 2.66Ghz model.
It would suck to deliver Snow Leopard and only have quad core support in a small fraction of shipping Macs.
But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.
It really doesn't work that way. The "new" CPU and GPU would probably require a new cooling setup which would mean case modifications. And if you are going to perform case modifications you might as well just do a complete redesign of the case, and now that you have redesigned the case, your motherboard needs to be redesigned to fit that case.
This isn't your normal PC where you go buy an ATX motherboard, a CPU, a PCI Express GPU and slap it in and the computer is built. All these parts are manufactured from scratch for Apple, the Motherboards are different, CPUs are sometime different, cooling systems are very much different. And you go and cram all this into a computer case the size of an LCD monitor. There is a lot of design work and variables to be crunched in order to produce a design.
If it was as easy as throwing a new CPU and GPU in the case they would have done it, but it's not. Plus they already did a CPU refresh when they introduced the 3.06Ghz anything faster is going to require a new chipset to support a faster bus which means a new motherboard.
So sit back, enjoy the products when they do come out and stop whining about not having a new iMac fast enough, you can always buy a Dell and upgrade it yourself whenever you get the need for speed, till then you have got by this long with what you have surely you can go a little longer. After all Macs tend to have a longer life span than your typical PC. Once a year upgrades are more than enough.
Comments
Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.
When people are shopping for a Mac, and want a Mac, they are not price comparing to piece of shit PC boxes. Pull your head out of your ass.
erm.. if this were the case Apple would be bankrupt by now instead of turning a profit from its computers. You know that those looking to get a sub $1000 system are unlikely to be a Mac customer. And those that were teetering around the $1000 mark will probably cough up the extra once they see an iMac or Macbook in person. Especially if they have an iPhone or iPod Touch (and like them !!).
Hey I agree the Mac is a more elegant solution but let's be a bit more pragmatic here. Apple's recent switcher sales have come from frustrated PC users who don't like Vista and/or the security problems that Windows offered.
Windows 7 may not be sexy but if the reports of it's stability and UI improvements strike a chord in consumerdom Apple's not going to find as much success with campy "I'm a Mac" commercials.
Sure sell a dual core $999 computer w/20" LCD. It's a nice computer for basic use. Anything $1200 and up needs to be quad core IMO. Apple need not give people a reason to keep their money in their wallet.
When people are shopping for a Mac, and want a Mac, they are not price comparing to piece of shit PC boxes. Pull your head out of your ass.
Pray tell what considerable experience to you draw upon to glean such insightful commentary?
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US
Intel® Core? 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz
$999 w/24" LCD
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741
AMD Phenom? X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.
This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.
Pray tell what considerable experience to you draw upon to glean such insightful commentary?
Simple. When people want to buy a Mac, they are looking at different Mac models. Period. They aren't browsing the aisles at Best Buy looking at PC's that are not Macs. I have helped many people shop for a Mac, and none of them have any interest in PC boxes, nor do they care how cheap a PC box is when they are only looking for a Mac. If people are shopping for a Windows computer, they aren't shopping in the Apple Store, they are shopping for Dell's, etc.
When you are interested in buying a Honda, you don't go to the Toyota dealer to look for one. It is really not that hard to figure out, but apparently you don't have a clue.
Don't know if I can get a machine with a quad cpu and a monitor for $700, but here's a sample of what is available.
Core i7 machine for $1200 sans a monitor.
A quad core penryn machine for $800 sans a monitor.
Several Phenom machines for under a grand. Most around $800 without a monitor.
I know Apple can't match these specs on the iMac. But they need to get closer. Simply putting slightly faster dual core cpus in the iMac ain't gonna cut it IMO.
I won't buy one and I'm in the market for a new desktop machine this year.
This is not actually a reply to my comment though is it? The original assertion made was that a "better" computer than the iMac could be had for half the price of an iMac. I said to the OP that this is nonsense and to prove it, which none of this does.
Your first item is the same price as the iMac quoted and all the others lack a monitor which would put them in the same range. Also, as above, crap parts etc. ...
I certainly don't deny that there are lots of computers at different price points and some of them might indeed be a better deal than an iMac depending on your needs and wants etc., but the statement about the $700 computer is just crap.
hmurchison has a habit of making ridiculous hyperbolic statements about this kind of stuff so I just wanted to point out what a lot of crap it is.
Mission accomplished IMO.
The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.
This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.
NIce job. Put him in his place. What a moron, finding a PC that is ON SALE! Regular price, $1400. And the other one doesn't even have a monitor. Great comparison. Just proves what a genius he really is. But that is your typical PC shopper. I am sure both those computers run Vista really well too.
You forgot to mention that you are also getting a piece of shit PC box running Vista. Stop comparing cheap PC's to Macs. If you don't like the price and quality of a Mac, then go to Costco or Best Buy and get your piece of shit PC Box.
This is not helpful nor relevant discussion. Romper Room is thataway ---->
The first one is 1400 bucks and the second one is actually lacking a monitor which would put it in the same general price range as the iMac. They both use crap parts by "also-ran" manufacturers and in the end cost out very close to the iMac.
This is not anywhere close to your original assertion (paraphrased) that a "better" computer than the iMac can be had for approximately half it's price.
AMD or Intel Quad parts are not crap parts. You're dreaming and in denial. What "high falutin" parts in the iMac should I be looking for? The 20" doesn't have an IPS monitor anymore and the laptop parts aren't that special. How much do you think a TN monitor costs chief? A 22" is $149 USD.
Simple. When people want to buy a Mac, they are looking at different Mac models. Period. They aren't browsing the aisles at Best Buy looking at PC's that are not Macs. I have helped many people shop for a Mac, and none of them have any interest in PC boxes, nor do they care how cheap a PC box is when they are only looking for a Mac. If people are shopping for a Windows computer, they aren't shopping in the Apple Store, they are shopping for Dell's, etc.
When you are interested in buying a Honda, you don't go to the Toyota dealer to look for one. It is really not that hard to figure out, but apparently you don't have a clue.
I've worked for 2 Mac VAR and the Mac Zone. I'd spoken to thousands of people and sold thousands of Macs. Yes there are people that know they want a Mac and people who are on the fence. Pricing is always a concern regardless of what you're selling provided the product has competition.
Plus let it be noted that I see value in the Mac but not every person out there cares about the beauty of OS X or Jonathan Ive design.
hmurchison has a habit of making ridiculous hyperbolic statements about this kind of stuff so I just wanted to point out what a lot of crap it is.
Mission accomplished IMO.
Yes and Virgil you're just ridicuous. Take a poll if you want and see if your bloviating and nonsensical posting is worth more than mine.
BTW the Dell system
4GB of RAM
640GB HD
24 Inch monitor
I've EXCEEDED the iMac specs in almost every category save for the GPU.
This is not actually a reply to my comment though is it? The original assertion made was that a "better" computer than the iMac could be had for half the price of an iMac.
Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?
And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?
Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?
And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?
Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
Exactly. Say Apple delivers a $999 core 2 duo computer. For Mac users that's already the baseline for Tier 1 Quad Core systems with monitors and beefier specs today. The BS about "that's on sale" doesn't cut muster because PCs are always on sale somewhere. Their price doesn't remain stagnant.
Thus if Apple delivers a $999 C2D iMac...we're going to be living with that price/config for what 6 months. If it ain't cutting it compared to PC at launch what's another 6 months of Intel price cuts going to do to the gulf?
Yes this is a Mac enthusiast sight but we shouldn't fail to lose sight of the market around us. $1299+ should bring a Quad Core. $999 is passable for a fast C2D IMO.
Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
..and that is what we are all waiting for
--
its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.
chill out kids
Thus if Apple delivers a $999 C2D iMac...we're going to be living with that price/config for what 6 months. If it ain't cutting it compared to PC at launch what's another 6 months of Intel price cuts going to do to the gulf?
That's the big issue IMO.
Even if Apple move to the low power desk top quad core cpus, the iMacs aren't going to look like a good value 6 months from now when Nehalem cpus will be pretty common. Maybe Apple will have an update then, who knows.
But a dual core iMacs look like a weak value to me know and will be an absolute embarrassment in 6 months.
And some members here have Stockholm syndrome or something. Hey Virgil and Hillstones, you don't have to apologize for wanting a decent performing iMac. Its ok to want quad core. You don't need to go to confession for dreaming of a quad core iMac. Geez.
..and that is what we are all waiting for
its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.
chill out kids
Indeed. Though the incredulity of Apple shipping C2D iMacs when the baseline for a kilobuck PC is rapidly approaching Quad Core/4GB and half Terabyte hard drive.
I like the iMac but it's in a tough spot. Mobile parts aren't helping it remain amongst its priceband in performance. I'm sorry but it still has to perform lest it become "all show ..no go"
..and that is what we are all waiting for
--
its funny how the absence of a hardware "fix" at macworld09 has made a lot of people cranky and prone to taking, what THEY believe, to be the only truth.
chill out kids
See post 54 Walter.
Repeat after me: Quad core is NOT a SIN.
I wish Apple would get their butts into gear, I have been waiting to buy a refreshed iMac for 6 months now, its like they skipped a whole product cycle release, how hard can it be, place a different intel chip in change the rubbish underpowered gpu and send it out!
Oh, jeeez.. just get one of these. You could get a 4 core and toss in another one later.
Dave
Well I did acknowledge that it couldn't be done fro $700 didn't I?
Apologies, I didn't catch that part, it was looking like a "pile-on" led by hmurchison form my point of view, in that you were replying to my reply to him.
And what 'crap' parts are you referring to later in your post?
The "crap parts" comment (and this is aimed at hmurchison too), is that generally speaking, the computers pointed to use AMD processors instead of the intel ones. They also use no-name hard drives most of the time, bulk memory, cheap plastic boxes, etc. etc. Lots of folks don't seem to value this kind of thing, but then if they don't value quality, I can't see why they are buying an Apple product in the first place.
Nonetheless my point that there is a widening value gulf (at least performance wise) developing between desktop pcs and iMacs still stands. Apple don't need to match pc makers item for item but they need to get closer. That's my point.
I would agree with the "gulf" for the most part, but I would call it a crack more than a gulf.
Also, I would argue that this "crack" opens up pretty much every year just before Apple updates it's iMac line. I think it makes no sense to talk about how poor the iMac may or may not be, when it's literally on the verge of a massive update. I also think that if you look at the specs overall and take the long view of it, that the iMac is usually the best computer you can get for the price that it sells at on average.
Again, I wasn't really saying anything personal here and certainly not aiming it at you. I merely picked the one sentence out of hmurchisons original post that was (IMO) hyperbolic nonsense and asking him to prove it.
Again, I wasn't really saying anything personal here and certainly not aiming it at you. I merely picked the one sentence out of hmurchisons original post that was (IMO) hyperbolic nonsense and asking him to prove it.
I can't even consider it piling on Apple because , as you correctly state, they've released no hardware and frankly I put little credence towards Wu's claims.
I'm not really attempting to compare the iMac with today's PC but rather discuss the ramifications of not delivering delivering Quad-core alongst a majority of iMac models.
If a person is buying a desktop over a laptop it would seem that they are looking for more speed than what a laptop offers. I think Apple should redesign to accomodate 64W TDP Quad core products and if they want to leverage C2D do it at $999 for a 2.4 or 2.66Ghz model.
It would suck to deliver Snow Leopard and only have quad core support in a small fraction of shipping Macs.
But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.
It really doesn't work that way. The "new" CPU and GPU would probably require a new cooling setup which would mean case modifications. And if you are going to perform case modifications you might as well just do a complete redesign of the case, and now that you have redesigned the case, your motherboard needs to be redesigned to fit that case.
This isn't your normal PC where you go buy an ATX motherboard, a CPU, a PCI Express GPU and slap it in and the computer is built. All these parts are manufactured from scratch for Apple, the Motherboards are different, CPUs are sometime different, cooling systems are very much different. And you go and cram all this into a computer case the size of an LCD monitor. There is a lot of design work and variables to be crunched in order to produce a design.
If it was as easy as throwing a new CPU and GPU in the case they would have done it, but it's not. Plus they already did a CPU refresh when they introduced the 3.06Ghz anything faster is going to require a new chipset to support a faster bus which means a new motherboard.
So sit back, enjoy the products when they do come out and stop whining about not having a new iMac fast enough, you can always buy a Dell and upgrade it yourself whenever you get the need for speed, till then you have got by this long with what you have surely you can go a little longer. After all Macs tend to have a longer life span than your typical PC. Once a year upgrades are more than enough.