Two New Lines . . .

AMD in Dell

Digitimes reports that Dell will start selling AMD-based notebooks very soon.

Prices look like they’ll be cheaper than they are for Dell C2D machines, though how much cheaper they’ll really be will have to await the configurator.

(I’ve been doing Dell configurations for others a lot lately, and well, there’s a lot less than meets the eye in their various “sales.” Try as I may, those $650 machines keep turning into $1,100-$1,200 ones once you add things like C2Ds and big warranties and big batteries to them.)

HP of course has been selling AMD-based machines for a while now, and they’ve had some pretty competitively-priced models in the retail markets (but rather less so from the HP Store). The only real gripe I’ve seen about these retail models is low battery life.

The low battery life isn’t really AMD’s fault, either. Those retail models invariably come with six-cell batteries, and no 6-cell battery is going to last extra-long in any mainstream machine, from any company. HP offers 12-cell battery upgrades at a reasonable price at their store, but the store’s overall pricing is less attractive.

Dell offers 9-cell upgrades (at a rather steeper price), we’ll have to see what they offer for these models, and how long the battery will last in those.

If you’re thinking about a notebook soon, it’s probably worth the wait to at least checkout this additional option.

C2D in Apple

On the lighter side, Apple has introduced Meroms into its Macbooks. Upper-end price, though at least they’re decently loaded for the high-price. Certainly not a value purchase, though, maybe the future iBooks will fare better there.

That’s not why we’re mentioning them, though.

Old habits die hard. Apple wouldn’t be Apple if they didn’t come up with their bull creative speed comparisons.

Apple claims that its C2D machines are up to 39% faster than the machines they sold last week, which is certainly news to anyone who’s read any rational comparisons between the two.

Far more amusing, though, is the claim that “Intel Core 2 Duo boosts performance . . . over 7x higher than the fastest PowerBook G4.” This is up from 5X faster from the C2D without the “2”.

In both cases, I could spend a lot of time documenting why rumors of these performance increases are greatly exaggerated, but that’s like killing yourself to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the woman in the local mental health faculty really isn’t Cleopatra.

Instead, let’s relax and enjoy this little thought, perhaps you’d like to share it with your favorite Macfanatic:

Prior to Apple’s Appomattox to Intel, they always made claims that whatever it had was stupendously better than that in the PC world, no matter how ludicrous and laughable PCers justifiably found them. Those claims weren’t meant for us, though, they were meant for Macheads.

After making proper allowances for x86 advances, doesn’t the MacIntel claims really prove, from the horse’s mouth, how horsefecal those earlier claims really were? I mean, these G4 Powerbooks were being made and sold this year. I mean, really, isn’t Apple saying, “Junk that wonderbox POS we sold you last year, or even last March?” I don’t think they were calling those Powerbooks POSs last year or March.

I mean, Apple switches to Intel and all of a sudden, computers get 5X (now 7X) faster?

Of course, no one at Intel, not even a marketer in the middle of a crack overdose, would say that the Meroms were 7X faster than Dothans, or even yesteryear’s Baniases. But if you actually believe this stuff, doesn’t something not register quite right?

Gee, if I were a Mac owner, I’d get more upset about that than a ton of backdated options. 🙂


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply