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.
The new AMD Phenom IIs match up very nicely with Penryn Quad core cpus. They aren't quite as fast clock for clock but still are fairly competitive. I wouldn't consider them 'crap' anymore.
Later in the post you said you thought that there was only a 'crack' and not a gulf when comparing iMacs to pcs performance wise. I assume that means you feel that quad core cpus don't offer that much of a benefit performance wise over dual core cpus. If so, are you planning on upgrading to Snow Leopard? If so why?
Well it's about time.. There is no reason whatsoever for the iMac to not have a Core 2 Quad by now. The latest steppings run very cool and hardly use any more power than the original 65nm Core 2 duos used in the iMac before. And not to mention Intel now has low power desktop ones that are way cheaper than the expensive low-power laptop Core 2 Quad chips.
More like your credit card is burning a hole in your pocket. Your iMac G5 still has plenty of life left in it unless its physically dying.
I'm still running a G5 iMac and it's unbearably slow by recent standards. I'm wanting a machine for 3D rendering and a G5 just won't cut it. To give you some idea, my 1.8Ghz G5 takes about four and a half minutes to run the Blender render benchmark. Let's put this in perspective. The current fastest Mac (3.2Ghz Mac Pro) runs this benchmark in a mere 12 seconds. The new Core i7 is pretty impressive. A 2.66Ghz i7 completes the benchmark in a very respectable 22 seconds. Compare this to the current 2.66Ghz 20" iMac which limps home in 53 seconds.
If you're animating at, say, 25 frames per second, these differences soon add up. I've love an i7 iMac (which might be possible with liquid cooling), but any quad core processor would be great.
I've been waiting for a quad core iMac since October and have the money ready. It's for home use, so I can't justify the expense of a Mac Pro. I love OS X, but I'm now realising just how much I'm locked into Apple's release schedule. If I was wanted a Windows or Linux PC, I could go out right now and get a Core i7 machine at a decent price.
These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
Do you have to take the hockey helmet off to lick the glass?
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.
I don't understand your POV on this topic. You are well aware that low power desktop chips are just being introduced, will likely be in the next iMac and that Apple was key in getting Intel to produce them, but you seems to be dogging Apple for not releasing these systems sooner, before the the existed. You also seem to be comparing desktop towers with a svelte desktop that is well known to contain notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
Well it's about time.. There is no reason whatsoever for the iMac to not have a Core 2 Quad by now. The latest steppings run very cool and hardly use any more power than the original 65nm Core 2 duos used in the iMac before. And not to mention Intel now has low power desktop ones that are way cheaper than the expensive low-power laptop Core 2 Quad chips.
Out of curiousity, is there any way to compare the prices of the current Intel chips in the iMac and the assumed quadcore chips that should be coming. I know that the chips weren't on Intel's pricesheet when they came out, but since then I know they have released some official hybrid chips. (I be happy to look it up but I'm able to use my iPhone for Internet access)
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
Really? It depends on what software or tasks you're running... but for anything demanding more cores wins.
I don't understand your POV on this topic. You are well aware that low power desktop chips are just being introduced, will likely be in the next iMac and that Apple was key in getting Intel to produce them, but you seems to be dogging Apple for not releasing these systems sooner, before the the existed. You also seem to be comparing desktop towers with a svelte desktop that is well known to contain notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat.
No I have little info to where Apple's going. My response is primarily aimed at Wu's assertion that Core 2 Duo will still be a part of Apple's lineup. While I can see a low end model for $999 utilizing a C2D I think anything above that price level will be C2 Quad and in fact leverage some of the lower power requirements of the new Intel chips along with a redesign of the iMac casing. I don't see any reason why Apple should cling to the current iMac thinness at the expense of processor options.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Certainly quads will not quadruple performance but I imagine they will handle favorably under load. I think an iMac with a quad core proc and SSD storage will be quite capable under Snow Leopard. I think we often thing about single apps and how they benefit from multicore but what about the largest app of them all? The OS? Grand Central looks to ride on a new kernel that not only supports 64-bit but likely handles parcing out tasks and messages much more fluidly.
I've always felt that OS X lags in ways that signal cruft down low and while fast procs mask it they don't always hide this cruft.
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,
That Gateway from best buy is a CR@P even at 610.
Processor Speed 1.8 GHz - 24" iMac should be at least 2.66GHz
Sys Bus 800MHz - iMac should be at least 1066MHz
Cache Memory 2MB - iMac should be at least 6MB or 8MB
System Memory DDR2 - iMac should be DDR3
GraphicsATI RADEON HD 3200 (Up to 256MB shared) - iMac 9600
I think it's clear that Apple will use quad processors in the iMac in some capacity. Likely as the most expensive configuration.
I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.
Processor Speed 1.8 GHz - 24" iMac should be at least 2.66GHz
Sys Bus 800MHz - iMac should be at least 1066MHz
Cache Memory 2MB - iMac should be at least 6MB or 8MB
System Memory DDR2 - iMac should be DDR3
GraphicsATI RADEON HD 3200 (Up to 256MB shared) - iMac 9600
I bet the iMac will have LED display.....
True in many ways though with PC it only take a few big numbers in RAM or processor
to get consumers thinking these solutions are superior. Who doesn't want to brag "I got
a quad core!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I think it's clear that Apple will use quad processors in the iMac in some capacity. Likely as the most expensive configuration.
I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.
I think Apple has to deliver Quad Core on everything beyond the most entery level Mac. Their current priceband:
$1199
$1499
$1799
$2199
At these prices I expect the next refresh to offer quad cores for all but the entry here. If you do a BOM breakdown of a 20" computer and it has a C2D and lacks an IPS monitor it's going to be hard to justify the $1300-1500 pricepoint.
No I have little info to where Apple's going. My response is primarily aimed at Wu's assertion that Core 2 Duo will still be a part of Apple's lineup. While I can see a low end model for $999 utilizing a C2D I think anything above that price level will be C2 Quad and in fact leverage some of the lower power requirements of the new Intel chips along with a redesign of the iMac casing. I don't see any reason why Apple should cling to the current iMac thinness at the expense of processor options.
Quad doesn't yet offer that much of an advantage that Apple need to abandon dual core for slower quad core.
Because the thinness is sexy and sells machines better than large hulking machines with loud fans.
Quote:
Certainly quads will not quadruple performance but I imagine they will handle favorably under load. I think an iMac with a quad core proc and SSD storage will be quite capable under Snow Leopard. I think we often thing about single apps and how they benefit from multicore but what about the largest app of them all? The OS? Grand Central looks to ride on a new kernel that not only supports 64-bit but likely handles parcing out tasks and messages much more fluidly.
I've always felt that OS X lags in ways that signal cruft down low and while fast procs mask it they don't always hide this cruft.
I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
I recall reading something a number of years ago stating that adding processors has a diminishing return due to process management. So the more processors you have the less benefit you get out of adding each one. I'm not sure how things changed when multi-core processors were put into the mix but the management of the processes spread out between the cores takes still takes up processing time and memory.
That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.
I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.
Actually I think you're going to be surprised here. Take the C2D 3.06 Extreme chip that Apple uses in the top iMac. I'd bet that a properly threaded app and optimized OS like Snow Leopard would probably be able to deliver equivalent performance with in a lower heat signature. It's like the ARM Cortex, The A8 is fast and a single core but the forthcoming A9 MP is going to pop in another core albeit both will run at a lower frequency but for some designes it makes more sense to go wider than higher in frequency.
That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.
Yes I think you take the extra cores which will handle more inflight instructions , mate that with an OS that handles tasks well (Grand Central Dispatch) leverage the GPU (OpenCL and OpenGL) and I think you have very nice multitasking box. Let's face it two cores are nice but it doesn't matter how fast they are ..when they hit the wall they hit the wall.
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.
I actually agree here. I've purchased dozens of Macs for clients and I have to say, the economy has people looking closer at pricing. The last iMac purchase was an easy sell as they wanted a Mac. But I did get a little ribbing at the price. It's hard to get into the details with people who aren't familiar with what differentiates Apple's product from others, aside from appearance and OS X.
I hope Apple is more aggressive in their pricing as I'm sure the component pricing has decreased in this economy. Let savings filter down to the consumer instead of hiking margins at every opportunity. And let's hope this applies to 'upgrading' various components on Apple.com as well. They've made improvements to RAM pricing, and I hope the gap continues to narrow.
For what it's worth, I think Apple needs to go with Quads.
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.
Aside from name calling, I think this is good advice. I have a Mac and went looking for a second computer. Got a great Windows laptop from Best Buy. Duo cord, 2 GB memory, not sure what else as I don't pay too much attention to specs. It runs Vista but I don't run into many malware problems.
Comments
I would rather have a 3GHz dual core than a 2.4GHz Quad.
Really? It depends on what software or tasks you're running... but for anything demanding more cores wins.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was introduced on November 17, 2008. See:
- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf
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.
The new AMD Phenom IIs match up very nicely with Penryn Quad core cpus. They aren't quite as fast clock for clock but still are fairly competitive. I wouldn't consider them 'crap' anymore.
Later in the post you said you thought that there was only a 'crack' and not a gulf when comparing iMacs to pcs performance wise. I assume that means you feel that quad core cpus don't offer that much of a benefit performance wise over dual core cpus. If so, are you planning on upgrading to Snow Leopard? If so why?
More like your credit card is burning a hole in your pocket.
I'm still running a G5 iMac and it's unbearably slow by recent standards. I'm wanting a machine for 3D rendering and a G5 just won't cut it. To give you some idea, my 1.8Ghz G5 takes about four and a half minutes to run the Blender render benchmark. Let's put this in perspective. The current fastest Mac (3.2Ghz Mac Pro) runs this benchmark in a mere 12 seconds. The new Core i7 is pretty impressive. A 2.66Ghz i7 completes the benchmark in a very respectable 22 seconds. Compare this to the current 2.66Ghz 20" iMac which limps home in 53 seconds.
If you're animating at, say, 25 frames per second, these differences soon add up. I've love an i7 iMac (which might be possible with liquid cooling), but any quad core processor would be great.
I've been waiting for a quad core iMac since October and have the money ready. It's for home use, so I can't justify the expense of a Mac Pro. I love OS X, but I'm now realising just how much I'm locked into Apple's release schedule. If I was wanted a Windows or Linux PC, I could go out right now and get a Core i7 machine at a decent price.
It would suck to deliver Snow Leopard and only have quad core support in a small fraction of shipping Macs.
Until mobile quadcore chips are released the majority of Macs will only by dualcore. I hope SL comes long before that happens.
A Core i7 quad-core desktop processor and a matte, anti-reflective screen for me, please.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was introduced on November 17, 2008. See:
- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf
I hope you are expecting those for the Mac Pro, not the iMac.
These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
Do you have to take the hockey helmet off to lick the glass?
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.
I don't understand your POV on this topic. You are well aware that low power desktop chips are just being introduced, will likely be in the next iMac and that Apple was key in getting Intel to produce them, but you seems to be dogging Apple for not releasing these systems sooner, before the the existed. You also seem to be comparing desktop towers with a svelte desktop that is well known to contain notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat.
Well it's about time.. There is no reason whatsoever for the iMac to not have a Core 2 Quad by now. The latest steppings run very cool and hardly use any more power than the original 65nm Core 2 duos used in the iMac before. And not to mention Intel now has low power desktop ones that are way cheaper than the expensive low-power laptop Core 2 Quad chips.
Out of curiousity, is there any way to compare the prices of the current Intel chips in the iMac and the assumed quadcore chips that should be coming. I know that the chips weren't on Intel's pricesheet when they came out, but since then I know they have released some official hybrid chips. (I be happy to look it up but I'm able to use my iPhone for Internet access
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Really? It depends on what software or tasks you're running... but for anything demanding more cores wins.
I don't understand your POV on this topic. You are well aware that low power desktop chips are just being introduced, will likely be in the next iMac and that Apple was key in getting Intel to produce them, but you seems to be dogging Apple for not releasing these systems sooner, before the the existed. You also seem to be comparing desktop towers with a svelte desktop that is well known to contain notebook-grade parts to reduce size and heat.
No I have little info to where Apple's going. My response is primarily aimed at Wu's assertion that Core 2 Duo will still be a part of Apple's lineup. While I can see a low end model for $999 utilizing a C2D I think anything above that price level will be C2 Quad and in fact leverage some of the lower power requirements of the new Intel chips along with a redesign of the iMac casing. I don't see any reason why Apple should cling to the current iMac thinness at the expense of processor options.
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
Certainly quads will not quadruple performance but I imagine they will handle favorably under load. I think an iMac with a quad core proc and SSD storage will be quite capable under Snow Leopard. I think we often thing about single apps and how they benefit from multicore but what about the largest app of them all? The OS? Grand Central looks to ride on a new kernel that not only supports 64-bit but likely handles parcing out tasks and messages much more fluidly.
I've always felt that OS X lags in ways that signal cruft down low and while fast procs mask it they don't always hide this cruft.
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,
That Gateway from best buy is a CR@P even at 610.
Processor Speed 1.8 GHz - 24" iMac should be at least 2.66GHz
Sys Bus 800MHz - iMac should be at least 1066MHz
Cache Memory 2MB - iMac should be at least 6MB or 8MB
System Memory DDR2 - iMac should be DDR3
GraphicsATI RADEON HD 3200 (Up to 256MB shared) - iMac 9600
I bet the iMac will have LED display.....
I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.
That Gateway from best buy is a CR@P even at 610.
Processor Speed 1.8 GHz - 24" iMac should be at least 2.66GHz
Sys Bus 800MHz - iMac should be at least 1066MHz
Cache Memory 2MB - iMac should be at least 6MB or 8MB
System Memory DDR2 - iMac should be DDR3
GraphicsATI RADEON HD 3200 (Up to 256MB shared) - iMac 9600
I bet the iMac will have LED display.....
True in many ways though with PC it only take a few big numbers in RAM or processor
to get consumers thinking these solutions are superior. Who doesn't want to brag "I got
a quad core!"
I think it's clear that Apple will use quad processors in the iMac in some capacity. Likely as the most expensive configuration.
I think the advantages of quad are being over stated. The machines with quad that are being used for comparison are not very impressive. The quad cores the iMac is remored to use are better.
I think Apple has to deliver Quad Core on everything beyond the most entery level Mac. Their current priceband:
$1199
$1499
$1799
$2199
At these prices I expect the next refresh to offer quad cores for all but the entry here. If you do a BOM breakdown of a 20" computer and it has a C2D and lacks an IPS monitor it's going to be hard to justify the $1300-1500 pricepoint.
No I have little info to where Apple's going. My response is primarily aimed at Wu's assertion that Core 2 Duo will still be a part of Apple's lineup. While I can see a low end model for $999 utilizing a C2D I think anything above that price level will be C2 Quad and in fact leverage some of the lower power requirements of the new Intel chips along with a redesign of the iMac casing. I don't see any reason why Apple should cling to the current iMac thinness at the expense of processor options.
Quad doesn't yet offer that much of an advantage that Apple need to abandon dual core for slower quad core.
Because the thinness is sexy and sells machines better than large hulking machines with loud fans.
Certainly quads will not quadruple performance but I imagine they will handle favorably under load. I think an iMac with a quad core proc and SSD storage will be quite capable under Snow Leopard. I think we often thing about single apps and how they benefit from multicore but what about the largest app of them all? The OS? Grand Central looks to ride on a new kernel that not only supports 64-bit but likely handles parcing out tasks and messages much more fluidly.
I've always felt that OS X lags in ways that signal cruft down low and while fast procs mask it they don't always hide this cruft.
I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.
The most demanding software I currently use is Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, and Toast Titanium. None of which can currently take advantage of more than two cores. Most people aren't even using software that sophisticated.
Have any tests been conducted that show 2.4 quads out perform 3.0 dual? Dual processors don't necessarily double performance over single, it's not likely quads will quadruple performance.
I recall reading something a number of years ago stating that adding processors has a diminishing return due to process management. So the more processors you have the less benefit you get out of adding each one. I'm not sure how things changed when multi-core processors were put into the mix but the management of the processes spread out between the cores takes still takes up processing time and memory.
That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.
I would agree with you under similar clock speed. But the gains of using quad processors are lost with significantly slower clock speeds per core.
Actually I think you're going to be surprised here. Take the C2D 3.06 Extreme chip that Apple uses in the top iMac. I'd bet that a properly threaded app and optimized OS like Snow Leopard would probably be able to deliver equivalent performance with in a lower heat signature. It's like the ARM Cortex, The A8 is fast and a single core but the forthcoming A9 MP is going to pop in another core albeit both will run at a lower frequency but for some designes it makes more sense to go wider than higher in frequency.
That being said, if you run multiple programs at once you should see a benefit from more cores and/or more processors. The individual programs don't even need to be able to take advantage of them because the OS will spread the processes out over the available cores to do the tasks. I don't know about you but I usually have at least 6 programs open at once at home and often 10 or more. Sure there are a number of them idle but there are also some constantly running in the background and I'm often switching between 3-4 quite a bit on a regular basis. Because of that the more memory and the more cores they give me at an affordable price the better.
Yes I think you take the extra cores which will handle more inflight instructions , mate that with an OS that handles tasks well (Grand Central Dispatch) leverage the GPU (OpenCL and OpenGL) and I think you have very nice multitasking box. Let's face it two cores are nice but it doesn't matter how fast they are ..when they hit the wall they hit the wall.
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.
I actually agree here. I've purchased dozens of Macs for clients and I have to say, the economy has people looking closer at pricing. The last iMac purchase was an easy sell as they wanted a Mac. But I did get a little ribbing at the price. It's hard to get into the details with people who aren't familiar with what differentiates Apple's product from others, aside from appearance and OS X.
I hope Apple is more aggressive in their pricing as I'm sure the component pricing has decreased in this economy. Let savings filter down to the consumer instead of hiking margins at every opportunity. And let's hope this applies to 'upgrading' various components on Apple.com as well. They've made improvements to RAM pricing, and I hope the gap continues to narrow.
For what it's worth, I think Apple needs to go with Quads.
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.
Aside from name calling, I think this is good advice. I have a Mac and went looking for a second computer. Got a great Windows laptop from Best Buy. Duo cord, 2 GB memory, not sure what else as I don't pay too much attention to specs. It runs Vista but I don't run into many malware problems.
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.
For me it is a race:
Updated Mini or sensible mid-range desktop
Versus
Windows 7 (and a Core i7 desptop to go with it)
Whichever comes first...