I just read that apple is now inside the top 5 computer makers (they were 6th before), granted it was on a fan site but if it's true that says a lot for the little ipod company that could. In addition I've read that because the information is not split up into two seperate processors just one processor using two cores the single dual core is faster then the dual single core's, but come on who's going to even wanna look at a single dual core processor anymore when they have the "quad" out. It's soooo beautiful. ::wipes drool from chin::

I'm sort of with jack on the memory issue. I think that they have to offer the memmory in pairs because that's how the destributed information works (hince hwy no single 2gb stick). However I would LOVE to have the option of just buying two 2gb sticks (ecc or not) instead of 4 1gb sticks and then upgrading whenever I got the job or money to pay for it. The intereting thing to me is that the hard drives aren't quite as big of a rip off as I thought they would be.500gb sata for $500.

Just bought the new dual 2.7 a few months ago. Ugggg.

BUT, it's great that Apple continues on with pushing the edge even further! Plenty of items for the Christmas list this year.

The Xeons are a joke. AMD's dual cores are waaaaay better. Apple is waiting for the next gereration of Intel chips, the Xeons were just pushed out there to prove they are in the dualcore game.

I read a performance review of the new machines, can't remember where... basically, a dualcore 2.3 beats a dual processor 2.5... but not by much. Essentially dualcore has advantages in memory sharing speeds... think of the path between processors now being shorter and a wider set of lanes. Is that worth something to you? Probably not, but the new video cards, larger memory expansion and set of PCI Express slots might make the newer, "faster" machines worthwhile.

Mark, you do have a good point about the Intel deal. I have to admit, with knowing that's down the road, I'm likely to hesitate on getting anything new until that point (since my most recent G5 is just a couple of months old)

...But I think for anyone who was going to buy a new computer between today and the point of the Intel Apple's becoming available will be very lucky to have this G5.

As far as the AMD thing. You may be right, I don't know, as I have not done graphic or video work on a PC since 1998. For me though, it's not just the speed alone, it's the whole workflow/interface/programs that Apple provides that appeals to me.

well for us its like i said its in your need and software capabilities...

our bottle neck for us has always been the procs, especially when rendering, after effects, dv to mpg, and lightwave stuff...if i can squeeze out an extra 15 minutes out of procoder its worth it to me...

the new xeons might very well be a joke...i will wait till the ht dualcores come out before i make any judgements..

I didn't mean to imply these aren't great machines... in fact, I think if you need something for the next 2 years, these are a great way to go... But if you JUST bought, how much improvement are these machines performance-wise? We have to wait for FCP, After Effects, etc. tests to really know. Then people can make informed decisions... but dualcore vs. dual processors, dualcore done well will win.

For those waiting for the Intel macs... do you REALLY want your biz to rely on a NEW OS on a NEW processor running NEW apps? I think most of us will wait for the second revisions and a lot of bug fixing before making the dive, performance increase or not, if you have to deal with crashes, that gain is lost. But the prospects are exciting...

Didn't take it that way at all. It's all good. :)

One of my friends tells me EVERY day that an AMD is faster, but I remind him, I don't like Windows and I'm a much bigger fan of Final Cut Pro. I've been using it for 6 years now.

Of course, I agree with him that had Apple gone to AMD instead of Intel, I wouldn't be buying a Quad to keep me out of Intel for an extra year or two (which translates to 4 years).

heath