[mduell]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

You're comparing two different worlds; software and hardware. I don't see a parallel.

UNIX may be old, but it's the best thing currently available for a commerial OS. x86 is not the best thing available for any implementation. So, like I said, I don't get your point.

Keeping in mind the thermal and power limitations, what is a better chip than Core Duo for laptops and thin desktops?

Originally Posted by SEkker

I just visited the Ramjet website for 1 GB modules for an Intel iMac and a MacBook Pro.

I notice that the listed specs are not the same.

I thought these two machines were using the same motherboard?

My guess is the MacBook is using the 945PM chipset (with ICH7M) and the iMac is using the 945GT chipset (with ICH7).

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

UNIX may be old, but it's the best thing currently available for a commerial OS. x86 is not the best thing available for any implementation. So, like I said, I don't get your point.

Best in what? UNIX isn't the best OS in any particular category. VMS is more secure, QNX is more real-time, Windows is often faster, etc. People use UNIX because the currently available implementations are very good in a lot of different categories. They are well balanced designs. x86 is the same way. The currently-available x86 chips have great integer performance. The top-6 fastest CPUs in SPECint, according to aceshardware's SPEC results miner, are x86 chips. They've got good floating-point performance. x86 chips hold 6 of the top ten spots in SPECfp, competing well with chips costing thousands of dollars apiece, which have every other advantage (massive, expensive memory busses, tens of megabytes of cache, etc).

The history of PowerPC implementations, over the last decade, have been chips with lots of potential, but deep-running flaws. There was the G3 with its good integer performance, but poor FPU, the G4 with its great vector unit, but antiquated bus, and the G5 with its awesome FPU, but extreme sensitivity to instruction-scheduling and mediocre integer performance. The Core Duo is the least quirky and most well-balanced Mac processor in a decade. It's one designed for the future of computing (high-level languages, portable, power-efficient computers), instead of the past.

[MarcoF-Foto]

I always thought Apple used Samsung panels. Now I see at the Kodawarisan site (the people that strip every apple device) that the new imacs have an LG Philips panel.
Usually the quality difference isn't in the panels itself, but in the software/firmware controlling it.

any ideas on this? Or did the old G5 iMac use LGs as well? (didn't see a stripped image where the panel was mentioned)

[thiagofll]

I just received my iMac Core Duo....I am not exagerating this thing is blazing FAST! I had the iMac G5 20 inch 2.1 Ghz 2.0 GHZ RAM and it was not half as fast as this thing. Front Row opens instantly. My iPhoto before would bounce 2 times before opening, now it is immediately, widgets, there is no more waiting to update, it is instant!!!!!!!
BUY IT, you will not regret it!

[LagunaSol]

Originally Posted by thiagofll

BUY IT, you will not regret it!

Yeah, I will as soon as someone figures out how to run Windows apps on it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by MarcoF-Foto

I always thought Apple used Samsung panels. Now I see at the Kodawarisan site (the people that strip every apple device) that the new imacs have an LG Philips panel.
Usually the quality difference isn't in the panels itself, but in the software/firmware controlling it.

any ideas on this? Or did the old G5 iMac use LGs as well? (didn't see a stripped image where the panel was mentioned)

My 20" G5 2.0 uses an LG Philips.

Originally Posted by thiagofll

My iPhoto before would bounce 2 times before opening, now it is immediately, widgets, there is no more waiting to update, it is instant!!!!!!!

Yeah, the machine should be quite speedy, and faster than PowerPC consumer Macs at most stuff (if the Intel Mac is running native binaries), but I will point out that iPhoto '06 is fast on PowerPC too, so part of that speedup is from the app update.

BUY IT, you will not regret it!

I wish I could, but I have software and hardware that simply won't run on the Intel Macs.

[chrisutley]

Conversation is the term to describe rude moderator posts. Locked, deleted, or banned are the terms used for everybody else.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

No, we leave confrontation starting to new members.

And I don't see any confrontation going on. I'm having a conversation. Blue stars or not, I'm still a member.

[leery]

Originally Posted by thiagofll

Do you guys know (performance-wise) what would be the Intel Core Duo compared to the Pentium D (Dual Processors). Because from what I understand Intel Core Duo was designed more towards Laptops and Pentium D towards desktops (correct me if I am wrong) ?!?!?!

There are some actual numbers you can look at on Anandtech, albeit on Windows benchmarks. Check the Pentium D vs Athlon 64 X2 numbers here:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2484

and the Core Duo vs Athlon 64 X2 numbers here:

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648

Pay attention to clock speed differences and draw your own conclusions.

I gathered from this that the Core Duo (Yonah) is comparable, clock-for-clock, with the Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (AMD's budget dual-core chip), which is competitive with a much higher-clocked Pentium D 830. (Of course it's not as if you could run a Pentium D, or even an Athlon, in something like an iMac without refrigeration.)

Yonah is not expected to clock much higher than it is now, but the next generation of Core chips will clock faster. And those guys firmly believe Core Duo in notebooks will be "amazing".

[mduell]

Originally Posted by MarcoF-Foto

I always thought Apple used Samsung panels. Now I see at the Kodawarisan site (the people that strip every apple device) that the new imacs have an LG Philips panel.
Usually the quality difference isn't in the panels itself, but in the software/firmware controlling it.

any ideas on this? Or did the old G5 iMac use LGs as well? (didn't see a stripped image where the panel was mentioned)

The 20" ACD uses an LG.Phillips panel.

Originally Posted by leery

Yonah is not expected to clock much higher than it is now, but the next generation of Core chips will clock faster. And those guys firmly believe Core Duo in notebooks will be "amazing".

There are rumors of a 2.5 - 3 Ghz "Extreme Edition" Yonah targeted at desktops later this quarter. Power consumption is estimated to be about double the current Core Duos, or 60W.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

There are rumors of a 2.5 - 3 Ghz "Extreme Edition" Yonah targeted at desktops later this quarter. Power consumption is estimated to be about double the current Core Duos, or 60W.

Intel has announced a Yonah chip at 2.33 GHz to come later this year, and it is rated for 50 Watts.

So, a 60 Watt 2.5 GHz (2.67?) desktop chip rumour would make sense, but it would be unlikely for this quarter. I don't buy 3 GHz either.

[chrisutley]

Originally Posted by baw

So obsolete that Sony and Microsoft are using them in the lastest gaming consoles?

I was just trying to get under the skin of the great Mod himself, Einstein.

[Simon]

Faster Yonahs for desktops makes a lot of sense.

IMHO it's irrelevant in the case of Apple if it's 2.67GHz or 2.5GHz or even 2.3GHz just as it's not really important if it dissipates 50W or 60W - if Apple wants to put something like that in a Mac Pro, I'd assume the really crucial question is if they will support SMP making way for quad core configs.

If not, PowerMac users might have to wait for Merom/Conroe after all.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Simon

Faster Yonahs for desktops makes a lot of sense.

IMHO it's irrelevant in the case of Apple if it's 2.67GHz or 2.5GHz or even 2.3GHz just as it's not really important if it dissipates 50W or 60W - if Apple wants to put something like that in a Mac Pro, I'd assume the really crucial question is if they will support SMP making way for quad core configs.

If not, PowerMac users might have to wait for Merom/Conroe after all.

It is rumored that Intel will release Sossaman, a mutliprocessor capable Yonah, as a (low power) drop-in replacement for the Xeon using the current Xeon chipsets (7500 family I think). That would work pretty well in a Mac Tower Pro (or whatever we're nicknaming it before it exists).

[Simon]

ars was discussing Sossaman already some time ago, but they guessed it would find its way into the iMac because it wasn't a 64bit CPU. At the time they mentioned Merom/Conroe for the Power Mac/Mac Pro and PowerBook/MBP. In the light of the recent releases you could question if Apple will require 64bit CPUs for the professional lines since they already put Yonah in the MBP. OTOH since the MBP is a very early and possibly hurried intro, it's probably not a good idea to extrapolate to Apple's Mac Pro strategy just by looking at MBP's specs.

64bit CPUs are currently of no real benefit to the average iMac user, but for Power Mac/Mac Pro users it's certainly a different story.

I'm anxious to see what Sossaman will offer and where Apple puts it.

[power142]

One factor I haven't seen addressed is that of core/chip interconnects. In the Athlon64 X2 line, there is a dedicated connection between cores, as do Opteron chips. From my understanding, Xeon chips rely on a shared bus bolstered by fat L2 cache to prop up performance.

Anyone have the juice on Yonah and future relatives?

[MORT A POTTY]

Yonah doesn't make sense for the PowerMacs. it's not SMP aware, and it is 32-bit. They'll probably just use Conroe for the PowerMacs and aroudn the same time, put Merom in the PowerBooks (**** MacBook Pro).

Yonah is great for now though in the PowerBook and in the iMac. though a single core Yonah will probably be in the mini and the iBook in a couple months.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by power142

One factor I haven't seen addressed is that of core/chip interconnects. In the Athlon64 X2 line, there is a dedicated connection between cores, as do Opteron chips. From my understanding, Xeon chips rely on a shared bus bolstered by fat L2 cache to prop up performance.

Anyone have the juice on Yonah and future relatives?

While I'm not certain, I would guess there is an on-chip interconnect since the L2 cache is shared between the cores in Yonah (Xeon, G5, and AMD64 all use seperate caches for each core). Sharing the L2 cache can be more efficient when the two cores are working with the same data.

Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY

Yonah doesn't make sense for the PowerMacs. it's not SMP aware, and it is 32-bit. They'll probably just use Conroe for the PowerMacs and aroudn the same time, put Merom in the PowerBooks (**** MacBook Pro).

Conroe is not scheduled to be SMP capable either, as far as I know.
Sossaman (Yonah based) and Woodcrest (Merom based) are Intel's upcoming SMP capable chips.

[MORT A POTTY]

you sure Conroe isn't? hmm. where did I get that from then I wonder.


.............hmm... this is gonna bug the piss outta me now.

EDIT: maybe so, but they may not need anything to be SMP capable int he PowerMacs. the XServe they would though. but I'm not sure that the PowerMacs would need it. Conroe would fit well w/ the PowerMacs, and then Merom would be a nice transition from Yonah for the iMac and PowerBook.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Simon

ars was discussing Sossaman already some time ago, but they guessed it would find its way into the iMac because it wasn't a 64bit CPU. At the time they mentioned Merom/Conroe for the Power Mac/Mac Pro and PowerBook/MBP. In the light of the recent releases you could question if Apple will require 64bit CPUs for the professional lines since they already put Yonah in the MBP. OTOH since the MBP is a very early and possibly hurried intro, it's probably not a good idea to extrapolate to Apple's Mac Pro strategy just by looking at MBP's specs.

64bit CPUs are currently of no real benefit to the average iMac user, but for Power Mac/Mac Pro users it's certainly a different story.

Agreed. The MacBook Pro was a 32-bit laptop, and going to another 32-bit chip (Yonah) is no surprise.

The iMac is a consumer machine, so 64-bit doesn't matter that much, and thus Yonah makes sense for it too.

However, I think the first Tower Macs will be 64-bit. It will not use a Yonah based chip (like Sossaman).

I'm anxious to see what Sossaman will offer and where Apple puts it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sossaman never makes it into a Mac.

[pliny]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Whoa...

http://mactree.sannet.ne.jp/~kodawar...l/01141082.jpg

Please tell me my eyes aren't deceiving me. Is that a socketed CPU...

If so, I think I may have just found the first thing I like about the Intel switch.

This would be great, and a first for Apple iMacs/all-in-ones if I remember right. We'd be able to swap out the cpu.

[leery]

Originally Posted by mduell

There are rumors of a 2.5 - 3 Ghz "Extreme Edition" Yonah targeted at desktops later this quarter. Power consumption is estimated to be about double the current Core Duos, or 60W.

I'm not sure I buy that either, though Intel has announced a more modest speed bump. That fast a Duo doesn't make sense to me, in either technical or marketing sense (though I'm no expert). However, the rumored stripped-down single-core Yonah, with 512K cache--now that I could see as a candidate for extreme overclocking. Or, perhaps the "EE" is a potential niche to be filled by under-spec Meroms or Conroes, per Intel's past m.o.? Anyway, it should be a fascinating year and a half ahead of us.

[leery]

And on the other hand, these guys claim to have gotten their Yonah to 2.76GHz. (Chinese)

http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0601/re...le.asp?id=4866

[hldan]

Originally Posted by thiagofll

I just received my iMac Core Duo....I am not exagerating this thing is blazing FAST! I had the iMac G5 20 inch 2.1 Ghz 2.0 GHZ RAM and it was not half as fast as this thing. Front Row opens instantly. My iPhoto before would bounce 2 times before opening, now it is immediately, widgets, there is no more waiting to update, it is instant!!!!!!!
BUY IT, you will not regret it!

It's not that I don't believe you about your new Mac because I was at Macworld and the new iMac Core Duo is just as fast as you say, on the other hand most of the widgets are internet centric so they require loading from the web. I have a PM dual 2.3Ghz on 6Mbps broadband and if that ain't fast enough to load the widgets "instantly" as you say then I can't see how the MacIntels can do that. They don't update in the background.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by leery

And on the other hand, these guys claim to have gotten their Yonah to 2.76GHz. (Chinese)

http://www.oc.com.tw/article/0601/re...le.asp?id=4866

Overclocking doesn't count. Never has, and never will.

Originally Posted by hldan

It's not that I don't believe you about your new Mac because I was at Macworld and the new iMac Core Duo is just as fast as you say, on the other hand most of the widgets are internet centric so they require loading from the web. I have a PM dual 2.3Ghz on 6Mbps broadband and if that ain't fast enough to load the widgets "instantly" as you say then I can't see how the MacIntels can do that. They don't update in the background.

I have a total of 10 widgets on my Dashboard. Only one accesses the net, and that's just to get the weather.

[hldan]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Overclocking doesn't count. Never has, and never will.


I have a total of 10 widgets on my Dashboard. Only one accesses the net, and that's just to get the weather.

Okay well I have 9 widgets in use and 6 of them access the net. I'm sorry, I'm not getting your point?

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Consoles have always had overheating issues in early revisions, namely the PS2.

What exactly is your point?

Before you decide to whip out your stick you might want to keep in mind the fact that some of the most advanced processors in the world are of the POWER family. Obsolote is not a word that applies to anything coming out of IBM. But if you're dead set on using that word, feel free to use it to describe Intel's 30 year old architecture which is nothing more than a patch on top of a patch.

Actually, Intel's P6 (known as Pentium Pro and subsequently used in PII (iThink), PIII, P4, and Core) processor architecture is a 11 year old heavily upgraded architecture - no older then the PPC and, what's more, completely different from the 8086-586 architecture. It is a RISC based chip, with a front that decodes the x86 code set and converts it to a backend compatible format.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by baw

I didn't say it was a G5. However, it is PowerPC based, the very thing someone called obsolete.

And since we are talking about "obsolete" technology, isn't the Core Duo x86 based?

As I mentioned in my earlier post i686 (that is, modern x86) tech is no more obsolete then PPC.http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...entium-1.ars/1
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paed...entium-m.ars/1

[rhashem]

Originally Posted by MORT A POTTY

you sure Conroe isn't? hmm. where did I get that from then I wonder.
.............hmm... this is gonna bug the piss outta me now.

Intel's "consumer" line hasn't been SMP capable since the PII. The Xeon line is the SMP capable version of whatever is the current Intel consumer chip. Conroe will be Intel's consumer desktop chip based on the Merom architecture, Woodcrest will be its SMP capable Xeon counterpart. If Apple wants to keep a quad in the loop, they'll have to either wait for quad-core consumer chips (which Intel will do eventually), or use the xeon version.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by hldan

Okay well I have 9 widgets in use and 6 of them access the net. I'm sorry, I'm not getting your point?

The point is that you can't assume that delays in Dashboard loading are due to internet access. The bulk of the delay on my machine for Dashboard has absolutely nothing to do with internet access (since 9 of my 10 widgets don't access the net), yet it's still slow.

[MORT A POTTY]

Originally Posted by rhashem

Intel's "consumer" line hasn't been SMP capable since the PII. The Xeon line is the SMP capable version of whatever is the current Intel consumer chip. Conroe will be Intel's consumer desktop chip based on the Merom architecture, Woodcrest will be its SMP capable Xeon counterpart. If Apple wants to keep a quad in the loop, they'll have to either wait for quad-core consumer chips (which Intel will do eventually), or use the xeon version.

yes.

...Apple may bring out a quad but I think that is mainly cause the PPC 970xx hasn't really come along as fast as it (Apple) had been told.

though I do think Apple should use Xeons in the PowerMacs, and SuperXeons in the XServe though I doubt that Apple will use Xeons in the PowerMacs (at least initially) and they'll just stick to Conroe w/ that and save the Xeon (whatev er codename part that is) w/ the XServe.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ryaxnb

Actually, Intel's P6 (known as Pentium Pro and subsequently used in PII (iThink), PIII, P4, and Core)

Pentium Pro, II, !!!, M, and Intel Core are based on the P6 core; the Pentium 4 is P7 (NetBurst).

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

You're comparing two different worlds; software and hardware. I don't see a parallel.

UNIX may be old, but it's the best thing currently available for a commerial OS. x86 is not the best thing available for any implementation. So, like I said, I don't get your point.

No, of course not. That's why they score fastest of consumer processors in SPEC tests and have the highest performance per watt (PPW) of most consumer processors. The evidence is in the air: the PPC G5 has lower PPW then the G4, when it should be higher.

[ryaxnb]

Originally Posted by mduell

Pentium Pro, II, !!!, M, and Intel Core are based on the P6 core; the Pentium 4 is P7 (NetBurst).

cool. ok.

[leery]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Overclocking doesn't count. Never has, and never will.

You probably mean "end user overclocking", because boosting power to increase clock speed sounds like classic overclocking to me. And yes, both AMD and Intel have done plenty of brute-force overclocking. So much so that it became mainstream. Too often over the years the competition between the two seemed to degenerated into a game of chicken, escalating power consumption and heat dissipation for clock speed, alleviated from time to time by miniaturization breakthroughs or genuine design coups. When Intel or AMD overclock, they can cherry-pick parts, test and certify it will work (with the required monstrously large heatsinks and fans and at today's commonly high operating temperatures), but in my book officially sanctioned and perpetrated overclocking is still overclocking.

Come to think of it, though, I'm curious what overclocking actually does to a processor with a variable clock speed and dynamic cache size...

[Eug Wanker]

More benchmarks - Core Duo 2.0:

Native applications: ~1.2X the speed of G5 2.1

Through Rosetta ~0.4X the speed of the G5 2.1

[Drakino]

Dell is going to be selling a factory overclocked system soon for the gamer market. They are taking the Dual Core Pentium 4 Extreme chip and clocking it up to 4.26ghz. It was announced at CES and will be shipping in the spring.

ATI and NVidia have also been adding technology to their video cards to safely overclock them. The Radeon 9800XT was one of the first cards to implement it, where the card would continue to increase the clock rate until a certain thermal threshold was hit.

Overclocking definitely counts. Sure the Chineese site above about the Yohan doesn't sell anything, but plenty of legitimate places provide overclocked solutions for both CPU and GPU products.

[dale]

Originally Posted by Drakino

Dell is going to be selling a factory overclocked system soon for the gamer market. They are taking the Dual Core Pentium 4 Extreme chip and clocking it up to 4.26ghz. It was announced at CES and will be shipping in the spring.

ATI and NVidia have also been adding technology to their video cards to safely overclock them. The Radeon 9800XT was one of the first cards to implement it, where the card would continue to increase the clock rate until a certain thermal threshold was hit.

Overclocking definitely counts. Sure the Chineese site above about the Yohan doesn't sell anything, but plenty of legitimate places provide overclocked solutions for both CPU and GPU products.

A question (from someone that doesn't understand gaming platforms): Will this be based on the red flame decorated box they demonstrated at the show? Also - am I missing something fundamental - Does a multi-$1000 custom built PC really provide a dramatically better gaming experience over a few-$100 dedicated games conole such as Xbox or PS3, when launched?

I'm not a gamer myself, so hopefully one of you can enlighten me

[HattoriHanzo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

More benchmarks - Core Duo 2.0:

Native applications: ~1.2X the speed of G5 2.1

Through Rosetta ~0.4X the speed of the G5 2.1

256mb ram per core

i would like to see this test done with 2gb ram in each - rosetta is a ram hog. I've yet to see one truly fair test.

I've hear people that returned their 2.1g5 and got the inteimac and said its so so much faster in real terms and compared to the g5 its 'a screamer' - they have of course got the upgraded ram and 256mb options.

[Simon]

For native apps, why not? 2 cores vs. 1.

Rosetta will be a different story. Even with a lot of RAM, I guess we'll see roughly equal performance at best.

That said, I agree with you, we finally need some quality benchmarks.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by HattoriHanzo

256mb ram per core

i would like to see this test done with 2gb ram in each - rosetta is a ram hog. I've yet to see one truly fair test.

I think that the fact they used non multi-processor aware applications is the problem here, and not RAM (although more RAM would be better). The second processor is minimally utilised. The Macworld tests just show how nice processor is a single core Yonah compared to a single core G5.

On the other hand, iLife is the application suit which almost eveyone will play with. It is a little surprising that Apple has not yet optimised applications like iMovie for more than one processor.

[SEkker]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

It is a little surprising that Apple has not yet optimised applications like iMovie for more than one processor.

Not really. Until recently, the only dual processor machines were in the profession powermac line, and Apple was always selling those users the multi-processor aware version of their video editing software.

All this demonstrates is that there is still plenty of room for Apple to optimize the software for the new hardware. In other words, the speed difference is only going to get larger over the next year.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by SEkker

Not really. Until recently, the only dual processor machines were in the profession powermac line, and Apple was always selling those users the multi-processor aware version of their video editing software.

Yes, I know this, but if I am not mistaken even the pro machines have iLife on them. I mean Apple should have scheduled long ago a dual CPU consumer Mac (the dual core iMac), I would expect that iLife would be multi-processor ready by now or a little there after. But then they had first to make iLife run happily on Intel.

Anyway, now that we have a mainstream dual core machine, you can bet that Apple works already on the appropriate optimisations.

Originally Posted by SEkker

All this demonstrates is that there is still plenty of room for Apple to optimize the software for the new hardware. In other words, the speed difference is only going to get larger over the next year.

Quite true. These dual core iMacs will only gain in value as time goes by.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

I think that the fact they used non multi-processor aware applications is the problem here, and not RAM (although more RAM would be better). The second processor is minimally utilised. The Macworld tests just show how nice processor is a single core Yonah compared to a single core G5.

Yeah, although it does show that Rosetta is quite a bit slower than Transitive claims.

However, I was under the impression that iTunes was dual-aware.

Also, I could see RAM being an issue. Transitive states that running PowerPC apps on Intel requires additional RAM, and that makes sense. Given that 256 MB is already bare minimum, the low RAM here could be significant. All they had to do was add another 512 MB in each machine and it would be no problem. Why a magazine with the resources Macworld has didn't do this (even as a separate entry in the comparison) is beyond me.

On the other hand, iLife is the application suit which almost eveyone will play with. It is a little surprising that Apple has not yet optimised applications like iMovie for more than one processor.

Absolutely.

[SEkker]

I wonder if the hit with Rosetta is the recently added Altivec converter, and which is clearly much less efficient than the Rosetta core conversion for G3 instructions.

iMovie has always played second fiddle to the other iLife suite -- in the past, some of the 'updates' were definitely less useful than older versions of that SW. If this is the same team programming the conversion to Intel machines, I'm amazed it works at all (let alone efficiently). Come to think of it, that was the app where MacIntouch (I believe) noted several software glitches, with iMovie crashing on both G5 and Yonah machines...

[power142]

Originally Posted by SEkker

All this demonstrates is that there is still plenty of room for Apple to optimize the software for the new hardware. In other words, the speed difference is only going to get larger over the next year.

... and that Apple has done a poor job of optimizing for the existing platform until then.

Originally Posted by SEkker

Come to think of it, that was the app where MacIntouch (I believe) noted several software glitches, with iMovie crashing on both G5 and Yonah machines...

I could be wrong, but I believe Apple uses Objective C or such like for the OS and applications, so if there's a section or two of ugly coding in there, it'll rear its ugly head on both platforms... Xcode just compiles it for both platforms to produce the binaries, it doesn't debug it for them

[ViktorCode]

Originally Posted by dale

Does a multi-$1000 custom built PC really provide a dramatically better gaming experience over a few-$100 dedicated games conole such as Xbox or PS3, when launched?

I'm not a gamer myself, so hopefully one of you can enlighten me

If you look from the point of view of an average console gamer, the answer is 'No'. Because even as we speak programmers keep writing games for previous generation consoles, like PS2 and GameCube, and these games will be fun to play (at least some of them ). Gaming experience is all about fun, and the computing power goes second. However...

However, if you take into account opinion of an average so-called hardcore gamer, the answer will be 'Yes'. Because, say, if you liked to play Halo on original X-Box, then indeed X-Box 360 and revamped version of Halo running on it will provide you even more gaming experience: sharper graphics, more complex visual effects and so on. The difference will be even more tremendous on PC where you can replace a budget videocard with hi-end one (although not in every game, of course).

To put this simple: some people want just play games and have fun (casual gamers), the other people want to play games and have fun on the most powerful hardware possible for their budget (hardcore gamers). The Dell machine is for the people from the second category.