[neiltc13]

It's silly. Ever since the first announcement people have been going on and on and on about the "next" piece of hardware that's gonna come from Cupertino and everyone's adimant that Apple will always make a Mac that uses Intel's absolute latest processor.

I'm sick hearing about this "Merom" chip and how Apple are going to switch the MacBook Pro to this as soon as it's available. I doubt this is the case. For a start, the MacBook Pro is plenty fast right now and doesn't require a new chip to be attractive to consumers. Why spend valuable dollars updating a product line when it's not gone stale? Remember the saying - if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

I also want to say that it frustrates me that people who have horridly dated systems that use these boards keep saying "I'll wait for Merom" before they buy their MacBook Pro. You have to think clearly about what these processors would actually do better for you.

Second, what's the deal with everyone going on about the new "Mac Pro" coming out at WWDC "because Conroe will be out around about that time too". What if Intel had issues with Conroe and pushed it back, even into 2007, would Apple just delay the launch of their product and leave the horridly stale PowerMac G5's on the shelves for nobody to buy?

Is there any reason why Apple couldn't just jam one, two or four Core Duos in there and have done with it?

I have a newsflash for everyone - Apple aren't just building their computers to be some sort of Intel showpiece.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by neiltc13 It's silly. Ever since the first announcement people have been going on and on and on about the "next" piece of hardware that's gonna come from Cupertino and everyone's adimant that Apple will always make a Mac that uses Intel's absolute latest processor.

In case you missed the past half-decade of online chatter, people have been drawing the same kind of predictions based on Motorola's, IBM's, and Freescale's CPU roadmaps. This is nothing new.

Originally Posted by neiltc13 I have a newsflash for everyone - Apple aren't just building their computers to be some sort of Intel showpiece.

Huh?

[julesstoop]

Originally Posted by neiltc13 I'm sick hearing about this "Merom" chip and how Apple are going to switch the MacBook Pro to this as soon as it's available. I doubt this is the case. For a start, the MacBook Pro is plenty fast right now and doesn't require a new chip to be attractive to consumers. Why spend valuable dollars updating a product line when it's not gone stale?

I think you are wrong here. The Merom is supposedly a drop-in replacement for the present Core Duo with a comparable energy profile.
As soon as Intel sells Meroms, Apple will (have to) use them as will other manufacturers.

[Partial]

You're dumb and wrong. Why wouldn't they use the best products available when every other company (competition) is going to be doing that? That would be moronic and suicide.

[Oompa Loompa]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 Why wouldn't they use the best products available when every other company (competition) is going to be doing that? That would be moronic and suicide.

Well, look at Apple's history! Come on, even Steve Jobs is a self-righteous pig! We all know that. I think neiltc13 has a point!

[Ghost2]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 You're dumb and wrong. Why wouldn't they use the best products available when every other company (competition) is going to be doing that? That would be moronic and suicide.

Exactly what I was thinnking.

[Oompa Loompa]

If Steve Jobs doesn't want to put emphasis on selling you the processor, he will emphasize something else.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by neiltc13 It's silly. Ever since the first announcement people have been going on and on and on about the "next" piece of hardware that's gonna come from Cupertino and everyone's adimant that Apple will always make a Mac that uses Intel's absolute latest processor. I'm sick hearing about this "Merom" chip and how Apple are going to switch the MacBook Pro to this as soon as it's available. I doubt this is the case. For a start, the MacBook Pro is plenty fast right now and doesn't require a new chip to be attractive to consumers. Why spend valuable dollars updating a product line when it's not gone stale? Remember the saying - if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I also want to say that it frustrates me that people who have horridly dated systems that use these boards keep saying "I'll wait for Merom" before they buy their MacBook Pro. You have to think clearly about what these processors would actually do better for you. Second, what's the deal with everyone going on about the new "Mac Pro" coming out at WWDC "because Conroe will be out around about that time too". What if Intel had issues with Conroe and pushed it back, even into 2007, would Apple just delay the launch of their product and leave the horridly stale PowerMac G5's on the shelves for nobody to buy? Is there any reason why Apple couldn't just jam one, two or four Core Duos in there and have done with it? I have a newsflash for everyone - Apple aren't just building their computers to be some sort of Intel showpiece.

Despite this post being quite illogical and in violation of common sense, I will debunk it play-by-play anyway.

1) Why will Apple drop in Merom the second its released to hardware companies? Competition. Apple is a hardware company, first and foremost. Everything they sell is either hardware, or designed to drive you to BUY their hardware. This is why iTMS music only works on iPods. This is why OS X only works on Macs. (Excluding hacks, of course.) To quote Gruber: (source)

Originally Posted by John Gruber For any idea, ask yourself this: Would it help Apple sell more Macs or more iPods? If the answer is “no”, Apple isn’t going to do it, or, if they do, it’d be a genuinely shocking development.

The reverse of this is true as well: Apple will not do anything that hurts hardware sales. Keeping the Core 2 out of the MacBooks for any reason would HURT sales because the competition would have it first. And as much as we all love OS X, (and furthemore, recognize that it is a quantum leap beyond XP) the average user doesn't understand that. Many of the differences between OS X and XP are unquantifiable and therefore hard for simpletons to understand. However, the difference between the Core and the Core 2 is painfully obvious: the Core 2 has a 2 so it must be better. "I'm gettin' a Dell, dude."
And even if you're not a simpleton, the 20% speed increase of the Core 2 is nothing to laugh at. I don't need a new Mac 'till september, so I am waiting for the Core 2. Whatever they have in late August is what I buy.

2) There is a very odd, untrue, but widespread stigma among the unformed that "Mac's are slow." Apple has even created an entire page of their Get a Mac mini-site devoted to debunking this myth. However, letting Dell pull infront of Apple would support that myth, which, is the LAST thing Apple wants.

3) I don't know why you think the PowerMac G5's suck. If you are a creative professional, the PowerMac G5 is the best machine on the market for you. Reason is simple: the Core Duo is a mobile chip. It draws less power and is built from the ground up to be efficient. The Core Duo T2500 is NOT AS FAST as the high-end G5's. It would make little sense to replace the G5 chip with the slower Core Duo.
On the other hand, the Core 2 Duo will probably be faster than the 2.7 GHz G5. However, The Core 2 Duo E Series will be released nearly simultaneously with the Core 2 T series and be incredibly fast.
Intel is pretty good at sticking to their release dates, unlike many other companies. I believe that the Core 2 line will hit in late July/early August, just as their road map says.

As for holding the upgrade, well that's not smart, and that is the one place I agree with you. You should buy computers when you need them, and not wait for an upgrade, because you will ALWAYS be waiting for an upgrade. The MacBook Pro's are plenty fast. Personally, I don't like buying Rev. A (last Rev. A I had was a 12 inch PB, it went to Apple care 3 times in 8 months for various failures, and was promptly replaced with a 15-inch PB which I love once it came back from the third repair) and I don't need a new machine at the moment.

In summary, post-06 Apples will always have the latest Intel chip because they simply can't fall behind the competition.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Kraetos The Core Duo T2500 is NOT AS FAST as the high-end G5's. It would make little sense to replace the G5 chip with the slower Core Duo.

Hey, I'm no expert, but didn't the iMac have a G5 before going to Core Duo? And didn't it experience a dramatic increase in computing power? Wasn't that in last year's keynote?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Anthem Hey, I'm no expert, but didn't the iMac have a G5 before going to Core Duo? And didn't it experience a dramatic increase in computing power? Wasn't that in last year's keynote?

The most dramatic increases have been for the G4 machines that switched to Core Duos.

The top-end Power Mac G5 still outshines the iMac Core Duo, according to independent (read: not Apple's) benchmarks:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...-coreduo.ars/5

[AppleGirl85]

Originally Posted by Anthem Hey, I'm no expert, but didn't the iMac have a G5 before going to Core Duo? And didn't it experience a dramatic increase in computing power? Wasn't that in last year's keynote?

The iMac had a SINGLE CORE processor that was replaced with a DUAL CORE processor.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brad The most dramatic increases have been for the G4 machines that switched to Core Duos. The top-end Power Mac G5 still outshines the iMac Core Duo, according to independent (read: not Apple's) benchmarks: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardw...-coreduo.ars/5

Why oh why did they only put 512 MB in the iMac Core Duo in those tests, yet 4.5 GB(!!) in the Power Mac G5?

How much of the Power Mac G5's performance advantage would remain if you were to test a 2 GB 2.13 GHz MacBook Pro against the same Power Mac G5, except "only" with 2 GB of RAM? Probably not nearly as much. And that would be with the Power Mac G5 having a bus that's not only almost twice as fast, but actually available to both CPU cores simultaneously, and having CPU cores that are clocked slightly higher.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by chucker How much of the Power Mac G5's performance advantage would remain if you were to test a 2 GB 2.13 GHz MacBook Pro against the same Power Mac G5, except "only" with 2 GB of RAM? Probably not nearly as much.

To be fair, several of the benchmarks there are not dependent on needing lots of free RAM (Xbench, Cinebench, QuickTime export), but you are right that they may be skewed nonetheless.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brad To be fair, several of the benchmarks there are not dependent on needing lots of free RAM (Xbench, Cinebench, QuickTime export), but you are right that they may be skewed nonetheless.

512 MB is pretty much the low end on Tiger; unless they disabled lots of stuff (e.g., Spotlight, Dashboard), it will probably have made an impact. It just seems like an unnecessarily limiting decision. They can't match graphics cards easily, for obvious reasons, but they could have at least tried to get the amount of RAM similar.

[LiquidSpace]

You should buy computers when you need them, and not wait for an upgrade, because you will ALWAYS be waiting for an upgrade.

+1

Buy what you need not what is the "coolest"

[spikeh]

Originally Posted by LiquidSpace Buy what you need not what is the "coolest"

And to be honest, if you quantify "coolness" based on the specs of your PC or Mac, chances are you've misunderstood something along the way anyway

Edit: Unless you meant buying hardware which has a low heat output. That would actually make sense as a rule of thumb. Interestingly, the phrase "rule of thumb" comes from Victorian England, where men were encouraged to not use anything with a girth greater than their thumb to beat their wives with. Sorry.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Anthem Hey, I'm no expert, but didn't the iMac have a G5 before going to Core Duo? And didn't it experience a dramatic increase in computing power? Wasn't that in last year's keynote?

Operative phrase: "high end." Yes a Core Duo can take a sub 2.0 GHz solo core G5, but not a 2.0 GHz+ dual core.

[babelfish]

That original post left me speechless.

Thank god everyone else has already debunked neiltc13's post.

o.O

[Partial]

2.0 conroe will kill a 2.0 dual-core g5. It will F it in the A like never before.

[Hobbes]

Actually, I strongly suspect that that bloody lad Apple will want to put Core 2 Duo M, or whatever it will be called, into their MBPs ASAP. The MBP is certainly priced for it, and reduced battery power for higher performance is no-brainer for their flagship "Pro" laptop.

The difference right now between a $1100 MacBook and a MBP at twice the price is surely smaller than Apple would like. Makes the MacBook a great deal, but there's lots of folk currently who are buying them instead of MBPs.

[bassplayinMacFiend]

Not to mention that Merom is 64bit vs. 32 bit in the Yonah chip. Oops, I mentioned it.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend Not to mention that Merom is 64bit vs. 32 bit in the Yonah chip. Oops, I mentioned it.

selfowned

[julesstoop]

But you had already proven that nobody in this thread agrees with you neiltc13, no need to go over all that again.