You still haven't answered why you think 2 CPUs is sufficient, why draw the line at 2? If you think 1 is insufficient, then it seems 2 would also be, and certainly compared to 20, no?
I'm sorry, I thought you were just playing dumb, I had no idea you wanted a serious answer to this question.
Let's start by pointing out that 2 > 1. Would I rather have 1 Ferrari or 2 @ Ferraris? I'll take 2 every time.
(The Professor can probably explain this better than I) (If he isn't busy lecturing Gilligan on Rocket Science)
Next, let's look to history. Sometime around 10 years ago Apple started offering Dual CPU G4 PowerMacs. Since then we have increased Cores or Ghz with nearly every iteration of the "Pro" line. This new iCan will mark first time that neither has increased and in fact we have retreated BACKWARDS to offering just a single CPU.
It is a cheaper machine, with fewer options.
One of the coolest things about a 3,1 Mac Pro is that you can take a single CPU model, buy a couple parts and have a Dual CPU model. Simple & Cheap upgrade. This was even possible with G4s.
Would I like 4 or 8? Sure, but let's be realistic, that would cost too much money. I would settle for the same old Dual CPU option that has been around for more than a decade.
Do I think it would be awesome if Apple took computers so seriously that they decided to compete at every level and even offered 20 CPU mega server/scientific machines? Absolutely. It would really help cement the brand as being top notch, top to bottom.
While they used to try to be taken seriously as a computer company, they are clearly making this less and less of a priority. So much so that this new iCan seems like an afterthought or an attempt to cloak a VERY de-contented STRIPPER machine and claim it came this way as a "design."
I realize that the Overlords in Cupertino expect the Kool Aid Squad to keep a nice spin on this. They want it to come out looking like a wedding cake fit for a Princess. But let's be honest, they have given you guys a cracked and crumbly turd and a tub of old Buttercream and are expecting miracles.
You can only spread that stuff so thick before it starts peeling back up.
By cutting back on CPU cores they have cut in HALF the quantity of RAM slots. Pointing out that you can just "buy some 32GB sticks" to make up for this is like the producer who read my script and said "Go get yourself some financing and I'll produce it for you".
Telling people that buying $4K of RAM to make up for Apple's corner cutting is an "answer" or "solution" is disingenuous and really shows where the Buttercream isn't covering up the deep cracks.
I have 4 Mac Pros here. I like that I can use old RAM sticks of low density and still end up with a decent quantity of total RAM since I have 8 slots per machine. The MBPs I only buy the MAX size for since I have so few slots.
Does the iCan sound like a fun machine that will be interesting? Yes, it does. Does it sound like a worthy replacement or extension of the line? Not in the least. Had it been called the Super Mini or Mac Pro Jr., who could complain?
But it certainly opens up some unique opportunities. Imagine if you were super clever to the point that you could write an EFI file for a PC motherboard. (they are EFI now, BTW) And you could allow said machine to simply boot into Mac EFI and neither the machine or the OS would see itself as anything other than a Mac Pro. Talk about the ultimate Hackintosh. One that "just worked" without frequent patches and fixes.
But to answer your question, yes, I think 2 is enough, but 4 would be awesome. And I apologize again for not recognizing that you were asking a serious question.
