Apple introduces 3.06GHz iMac

This just makes the price and specification of the Mac Mini even more ludicrous. While they had the site down for changes, they should have either lowered the price of the mini or scrapped it altogether! Notice also that Apple seem to be pushing the Mhz myth all over again. Didn't they lose that battle the last time?

Apple uses mobile chips in the iMac and they need to compete against desktop PC's with higher speeds.

I bought a 2.4 GHz machine just about a month ago, at a higher price.

I have of course heard of the MHz Myth. I followed that debate for a long time. Can you clarify how you feel Apple is "using" this myth? Are they perpetrating it, or trying to correct it, or something else?

Please refresh our memory. As I recall, in the past, Apple argued that MHz was not the be-all and end-all. That a mac on the PowerPC architechture could meet or exceed the real-world performance of a PC of greater processor clock speed.

What they offer now, is a computer based on the same PC architechture but with equal or faster clock speeds than their competitors.

Feel free to let us know if you find something in common between these scenarios.

So you're saying that Apple "shouldn't" offer computers with greater speeds than its competitors? By doing so Apple automatically goes along with the MHz myth? Besides, it was the days of the PowerPC, which was very different from the Pentium, design-wise. Things have changes, and now you'll find Intel processors in Macs. So this old argument would not be valid anyway. However, I fail to see a problem here, does... anyone?

Is there a reason to mention the anniversary of iTunes?

And it isn't the anniversary of iTunes. It's the anniversary of the iTunes Music Store. But neither of that have anything to do with new macs...

I think his point is that, since these chips are different than the last chips, you can't just look at the MHz on them and say "Hey, look, they're even faster!".

But, man, can you imagine if Apple offered a a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo with 1GB of memory, a 250GB hard drive, and a Superdrive, all in a small tower case with a couple of PCI Express slots for video card(s) and other expansion? Sell that at $1000, and watch them disappear off the shelves.

But, no, we get 'style' over substance, built-in screens vs. choice. Because if your computer or monitor dies, why in the world would you need the other, right?

I rarely agree with you but you hit it right this time concerning the small tower.

Offer BT and Airport as options to lower the price and have a decent consumer level (non-Intel) graphics card and the world would be right again.

I do find it kind of interesting that all of a sudden, Apple is all about mhz, and PC box makers don't mention it anymore.

In any event, the power PC Macs were faster per mhz than their PC counterparts- but not twice as fast, and thats what they needed to make up the difference. You have to remember in comparing the fastest PPC macs to the fastest C2D macs that (I would think) Apple is doing a better job optimizing for the C2D.

Nonetheless, our desktop is a PPC MDD 867 DP. About eight years old now, but it is hard to justify getting a new machine for home use. It even handles RAW images in iPhoto reasonably well. It functions as an iTunes server flawlessly. One thing I do wonder about is how much it costs us a month on our utility bill- It can basically heat the little office we have it in.