At 6:06 PM -0400 10/29/2010, Mystic Prowler wrote:
I understand keeping production of faster and faster processors
could be tough, but look at IBM today! The world's first processor
running at 4.6Ghz without being overclocked! And it has 32-cores.
Defeat Snatched from the Jaws of Victory.
...IMO, Apple was right to go with the Core processors for the
laptops. But they should have stuck with PowerPC for the desktops,
and quickly gone to full POWER chips.
At 3:35 PM -0700 10/29/2010, Joshua Juran wrote:
On a more serious note, why is replacing Intel chips important?
Apple ditched PPC ostensibly because there was no new chip for
laptops. So here we are with Intel, and Apple just released the new
MBA with the *old* Core 2 Duo chip. Why? Because Intel's "upgrade"
offerings are crap - slow, power piggy, and saddled with horribly
slow graphics.
At the higher-end, the Core i3/5/7/9 chips are ok, as long as you're
willing to ignore the seriously high speed POWER chips etc. Just
squeeze your eyes and a** tightly closed and repeat the mantra: We
have to have computers that can also run Windows.
Speed aside (the avg consumer really doesn't need umpteen GHz), IMO,
the reliability issue is the biggie... Back in the PPC days, we
"considered" buying AppleCare because it often never got used. These
days, I will not sell or recommend ANY x86 based Mac without it.
FWIW,
- Dan.
--
- Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth.
--
You received this message because you are a member of the iMac Group, a group
for those using Apple iMacs and eMacs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to imaclist@googlegroups.com
To leave this group, send email to imaclist+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/imaclist
