For all of those who hoped C2D yesterday...

[shadowx]

It does appear, after looking online, that the lower-rated (1.6 & 1.83) Core 2 Duos are more available. I am not reading about too many 2.16 and 2.33 Meroms actually in the hands of people yet.
And marketing is probably keeping Apple from putting a 1.83GHz Core 2 to replace a 2.16 Core (1).

Hmmm... you raise a very interesting point - I have noticed this too as far as availability... T5500, T5600, and T7200 based systems seem to be shipping sooner than T7400 or T7600 systems.

Of course, Apple doesn't seem to have supply issues with the 20in and 24in iMacs with the T7400's...

 

[extraextra]

I feel the same way. My feeling is that my next computer needs C2D. Sure, I may not gain any benefit from it immediately, but considering all processors are headed 64-bit, applications are destined to follow.

But if I'm going to be waiting, I might as well wait for Santa Rosa.

It's going to be awhile before everything is 64-bit. 32-bit will also still be supported for at least a few years.

 

[joebells]

Sony(I know, I know) actually just came out with a new c series I think it is. 13.3 inch in several colors and with dedicated graphics cards, and core 2 duo, for like 1300 or something they actually look like nice little laptops. If they ran osx I would think about it.

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

So wait... You just had a tantrum about how you want a worthy chassis, etc. Then you end on "it is only a chip swap"

Do you want them to just swap the chip without an update to the chassis, etc? Weak way to end that rant.

Besides if anyone has been drinking too much of the iKool-Aid it is you my friend. Apple has you wrapped up. "I stay for the OS." Yeah, ok. Way to stick it to them

This is why Apple isn't updating. They don't have to. You obviously will stick around until they make a move. They are controlling your money, not you. They will update when they get around to it. But wait, then Santa Rosa is right there... maybe they will be a few weeks late. You will wait again. And whine about how much they suck and that "it's only the OS" that is keeping you around.

Pathetic.

Hardly worth responding to. You don't give any solid counters to any of my points. And if you actually knew how to comprehend reading, you would have understood why I talked about the chip swap rather than chassis and GPU.

Also, you might have noticed that one point that I made was that yes - Apple does have me "wrapped up." Drinking the Kool-Aid is thinking that Apple is justified in "controlling my money." They have a monopoly over the customer-friendly stable operating system. It's true, and I'm sure that other consumer-level Mac users will agree. Are you such a fanboy that you'll try to justify Apple holding a monopoly over me? I'd better not see you flaming M$ for any of their practices then, because Apple is little better.

If the MBP were still on G4, and everything else in the line were Intel, would you complain? Some people would be around, still, because of the portability and OS X, but it'll be very obvious that they would be being ripped off. Granted, it's not that exaggerated in CD vs. C2D, but it's a smaller scale of being "ripped off." Maybe we have difference tolerance levels for what acceptable for hardware in a $2500 system.

Is it all right to complain? I would say so. I don't feel like sucking on Apple's banana. I would like to openly say that in terms of processor hardware, Apple is behind, and that there is evidence that proves this. And furthermore, they are becoming more and more behind as the update gets delayed. If you don't want to read, then just don't read. Why waste my time and yours by writing weakly-supported posts?

 

[ZoomZoomZoom]

It really doesn't matter. I have a 15" MBP that I'll open tomorrow after selling my 17" on eBay. Each time I turnover a computer, the cost to me is about $300~$500, depending on how long I had it. To me, $500/year is a reasonable fee to keep up to date with the latest hardware. That works out to about $1.50/day.

I've been thinking about this lately too.

How much more would it cost to update every year, than to update every... 4 years?

If I update once a year, I might lose a couple hundred dollars per transaction. But if I update once every 4 years, my old computer loses a lot of worth. (Not sure how this works out for macs, haven't owned a mac for 4 years yet, and intel might change this scene.)

Tempted to try it out. If the premium isn't too high, maybe it won't be a bad idea to screw waiting for updates and just update the computer every year around September after WWDC. After all, I believe I get my $1.50's worth from my computer every day.

 

[thiagofll]

I don't like to whine or anything but this is starting to piss me off. I sold my MacBook Pro before Sept.14 because I thought that they would update it to Core 2 Duo by Sept. 25 ( I know stupid of me). But the only reason why I believed the rumors this time is because all windows machines are already shipping with the Core 2 Duo chips, so I thought Macs are gonna keep up (was I wrong).

It's not that I want the fastest computer but I like to keep my money's worth, meaning I like to have the latest chip in case one day I wanna sell it, I won't lose more than $100-$150 on it. Also because I don't like having Rev A computers, I rather have a Rev B that have the issues already worked out.
I love Apple's and I do not want to have a Windows only machine, but this suspense is killing me...I am about to give up seriously...

Apple makes so much suspense on their releases that when they don't release what the rumors stated, people get disappointed. I think that they should be straight forward with their release dates just like any other company...Just my opinion...

 

[Nooon]

Apple makes so much suspense on their releases that when they don't release what the rumors stated, people get disappointed. I think that they should be straight forward with their release dates just like any other company...Just my opinion...

Hear hear.

I've been waiting since early september for an update.

 

[generik]

I've been thinking about this lately too.

How much more would it cost to update every year, than to update every... 4 years?

If I update once a year, I might lose a couple hundred dollars per transaction. But if I update once every 4 years, my old computer loses a lot of worth. (Not sure how this works out for macs, haven't owned a mac for 4 years yet, and intel might change this scene.)

Tempted to try it out. If the premium isn't too high, maybe it won't be a bad idea to screw waiting for updates and just update the computer every year around September after WWDC. After all, I believe I get my $1.50's worth from my computer every day.

I think for this strategy to work best you need to have at least a spare bridging computer.

Like let's take the MBP for instance, now is obviously a lousy time to sell, but if you sell it before updates (or rather before updates are expected) you'd get decent resale value. If you wait till an update is released and then sell it, expect to take a further 10% or so hit on value.

 

[gadgetgirl85]

I take the other approach where I buy a computer every few years or so. Suppose I get a little attached to them

 

[Nooon]

Well, I gave in and ordered me a Macbook 2Ghz/1GB/100GB just now.