New iMacs Shipping January 2009? [Archive]

MacRumors

Dec 23, 2008, 12:35 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/23/new-imacs-shipping-january-2009/)

Digitimes (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081223PB202.html) relays news from Chinese-language Economic Daily News about Apple's new iMac.

According to supply chain sources, Apple is expected to launch a new iMac in the first quarter of 2009. Quanta Computer is said to be gearing up for monthly shipments of 800,000 units for Q1 2009. The new iMac will begin shipping in January of 2009.

The news confirms other hints that we've seen that Apple will be releasing a new iMac at Macworld San Francisco. Based on hidden configuration files (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/19/evidence-that-next-imacs-and-mac-minis-to-use-nvidia-chipsets/), it's been revealed that the new iMac will be based on the NVIDIA chipset.

Article Link: New iMacs Shipping January 2009? (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/23/new-imacs-shipping-january-2009/)

naid

Dec 23, 2008, 12:37 PM

We can only hope.

iGuardian

Dec 23, 2008, 12:37 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

BTW

Dec 23, 2008, 12:39 PM

Unibody enclosure and NVIDIA chipset will make it impressive enough. Make it easier to change-out the memory, hard disks, and video card and that would be even sweeter. It should also get Apple's mini-port. :)

twoodcc

Dec 23, 2008, 12:40 PM

i really think this will happen. i just hope the new mini will be shipping in january also

JG271

Dec 23, 2008, 12:40 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

Well, the powerbooks/macbook pros held the same design for a lot longer than that!
I agree i'd be nice, but i can't see it happening - the aluminium design came out not long ago and i don't know what they could change really.

iMacs seem likely... although it says new, does that mean just processor bumps or something else? Or don't we know? :p

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 12:42 PM

32", Blu-ray, 4870-X2 vid and 8GB of memory, please. Ready to buy. :apple:

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 12:43 PM

32", Blu-ray, 4870-X2 vid and 8GB of memory, please. Ready to buy. :apple:

Yes. It is ready to buy. From a PC vendor. And never from Apple.

iGuardian

Dec 23, 2008, 12:46 PM

Yes. It is ready to buy. From a PC vendor. And never from Apple.

I can see Apple releasing an iMac with Blu-Ray, I'm not sure it's that much of a "bag of hurt" anymore.

ZiggyPastorius

Dec 23, 2008, 12:46 PM

Cool. Sometimes I wish I could force myself to buy an iMac, as I'd be getting more computer for less money, but, I can't sacrifice portability (and yes, it has been invaluable to me). Doesn't matter much anymore, as the college I'm going to requires a Macbook Pro.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 12:48 PM

I can see Apple releasing an iMac with Blu-Ray, I'm not sure it's that much of a "bag of hurt" anymore.

Three months is plenty of time for Apple to change their mind. Seeing as they've been on the Blu-ray board since before the first trademark (when the brand was "Blue-ray") and have yet to ship a drive or compatibility. Sure...

Eidorian

Dec 23, 2008, 12:50 PM

Sorely needed with the proliferation of quad cores since 2007.

Slowstick

Dec 23, 2008, 12:51 PM

Three months is plenty of time for Apple to change their mind. Seeing as they've been on the Blu-ray board since before the first trademark (when the brand was "Blue-ray") and have yet to ship a drive or compatibility. Sure...

I am sure it will be awhile before apple hops aboard the blu-ray boat. Still way too expensive and they are still pushing for all media to be downloaded.

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 12:54 PM

Yes. It is ready to buy. From a PC vendor. And never from Apple.

I know that's the convential wisdom, but I'm selling a ton of Sony, HP and Dells with blu-ray players and they start at $900. Blu-Ray has taken off at my store now that they have come down in price. I think Apple somewhere down the road has to start offering consumers a choice to have Blu-ray on their Macs. We'll see.

Rocketman

Dec 23, 2008, 01:00 PM

dwd3885

Dec 23, 2008, 01:03 PM

be careful what you wish for. i'm betting the new imacs won't have FW400, and unlike the unibody laptop designs, there's not much more Apple can do to make the iMac look any better.

eltoko

Dec 23, 2008, 01:21 PM

any educated guesses on the likelihood of an 30 inch (+) iMac?

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 01:22 PM

any educated guesses on the likelihood of an 30 inch (+) iMac?

0-0.01%.

gkarris

Dec 23, 2008, 01:23 PM

Would be cool to come out with a basic iMac (same specs as the basic Aluminum MacBook) for $999... :)

neven

Dec 23, 2008, 01:24 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

No... Even the older, white-plastic version got bumped to Intel. The current Aluminum iMac has always been Intel-based.

It's also a design that's extremely in line with Apple's other hardware. The new MacBooks mirror its aesthetic. A few minor changes may happen - it could always go thinner - but the basic design is here to stay for at least another year or two.

Edit: I realized you may have meant the basic flat-on-foot shape (if you put a white iMac next to an Aluminum one, though, the difference is pretty dramatic). That shape is going to be hard to tweak. Many of us miss the robo-arm, but I don't see that coming back.

We are seeing several hints Apple is backing away a bit from the secrecy meme.

(...)

It is a new meme.

I don't think the word "meme" means what you think it means.

Small White Car

Dec 23, 2008, 01:28 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

Well, since you apparently don't regard the aluminum/glass changes as a redesign, I guess you're talking about something more major.

So I have to ask: What?

It's down to JUST a screen. There's nothing else to remove! So what are you suggesting? That they add extra parts back on to the iMac? Make it bigger?

I'm just guessing what you might have meant. What is it you're actually suggesting?

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 01:30 PM

irun5k

Dec 23, 2008, 01:30 PM

I think Apple somewhere down the road has to start offering consumers a choice to have Blu-ray on their Macs. We'll see.

They absolutely have to! Not doing so would be suicide. Imagine if Apple had never shipped a computer with a DVD drive... e.g. if they just stuck with CD drives.

Frankly, as multimedia centric as Apple is, I have a hard time understanding why they haven't shipped Blu-ray hardware yet. This round of the format war has been over for a while now, and Blu-ray isn't exactly new technology at this point.

themoonisdown09

Dec 23, 2008, 01:31 PM

any educated guesses on the likelihood of an 30 inch (+) iMac?

0-0.01%.

I'm beginning to think that Tallest Skil works at Apple. You sure seem to know a whole lot that others don't.

Small White Car

Dec 23, 2008, 01:33 PM

One word: Chin. :rolleyes::p

But where would they put the Apple logo on the front!?

Didn't think of that, did'ja?

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 01:36 PM

I'm beginning to think that Tallest Skil works at Apple. You sure seem to know a whole lot that others don't.

Hmm... ;)

Darn it, the last post of mine that I can easily find only goes back to December 8th.

I was going to link to one of my posts where I got the specs of the new MacBook Pro correct with only one difference (no 500GB hard drive option).

And then where I got the specs of the current iMacs correct with only one difference.

And then where I got the specs of the Early 2008 MacBook Pro correct, with two differences.

I may not work for Apple, but I'm pretty darn good at figuring specs.

When I'm off, I'm off optimistically, which is really a shame for everyone wanting incredible specs... :(

A 30" iMac would be incredible, but when they're that big, you start to get into Mac Pro territory, price-wise. A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.

Also, with the new iMacs getting LED backlighting, the price would be particularly prohibitive, since the standalone 30" Cinema Display, when updated, will remain at its current price point.

fendol

Dec 23, 2008, 01:39 PM

So Quanta is going to produce a new iMac (what they say all in one PC). Starting out shipping on January so they may start to be shipped after Macworld (or not) :apple:http://www.seoagora.com/img/589/d08l1104oulu/smiley2.gifhttp://www.seoagora.com/img/459/k08q1024glza/ecstatic.gif

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 01:41 PM

They absolutely have to! Not doing so would be suicide. Imagine if Apple had never shipped a computer with a DVD drive... e.g. if they just stuck with CD drives.

Frankly, as multimedia centric as Apple is, I have a hard time understanding why they haven't shipped Blu-ray hardware yet. This round of the format war has been over for a while now, and Blu-ray isn't exactly new technology at this point.

I think the issue is more about how long will blu-ray be around. In my opinion digital media (OnDemand, iTV, digital downloads) will win out and leave blu-ray to die out.

DaBrain

Dec 23, 2008, 01:41 PM

Well, the powerbooks/macbook pros held the same design for a lot longer than that!
I agree i'd be nice, but i can't see it happening - the aluminium design came out not long ago and i don't know what they could change really.

iMacs seem likely... although it says new, does that mean just processor bumps or something else? Or don't we know? :p

Hmmmm let me take a stab at this! Lets see.... Hey how about a Matte screen option? :D

BenRoethig

Dec 23, 2008, 01:46 PM

We are seeing several hints Apple is backing away a bit from the secrecy meme. The new iMac and Mac-Mini attributes in shipping software, the disclosure of case availability of an unreleased product, supply chain notices of shipping iMacs, Steve not leading the talk at Mac World.

It is a new meme.

It's what (some of) you people have been wishing for, and now that Apple is nearing "large" as a company, just what you would expect. Some forward visibility of product offerings.

I miss the good ole days. :)

Rocketman

Depends. Its awfully coincidental that things always leak a few days or weeks before to hype up the event.

I think the issue is more about how long will blu-ray be around. In my opinion digital media (OnDemand, iTV, digital downloads) will win out and leave blu-ray to die out.

Its never going to take off the way it should until the current restrictions are no longer there. With digital movies you have no rights to import your current library, you have no rights to export your digital movies to DVD, and you have no rights to use it on a TV not using the AppleTV set top box.

JayLenochiniMac

Dec 23, 2008, 01:46 PM

unlike the unibody laptop designs, there's not much more Apple can do to make the iMac look any better.

True. While not technically unibody, it's already constructed from a single sheet of aluminum. Since it's not handled like a laptop, the iMac won't benefit from the other advantage of the unibody design.

schneb

Dec 23, 2008, 01:47 PM

Hmmmm let me take a stab at this! Lets see.... Hey how about a Matte screen option? :D
If they keep Firewire, I may consider it, however, I am looking for a headless model that will do the job.

topgunn

Dec 23, 2008, 01:47 PM

I may not work for Apple, but I'm pretty darn good at figuring specs.

When I'm off, I'm off optimistically, which is really a shame for everyone wanting incredible specs... :(

As someone who is interested in an updated iMac, what are your predictions for the next iMac?

schwartzki

Dec 23, 2008, 01:49 PM

i think bluray will be around for as long as dvd's were, mainly because the US doesn't have the backbone for giving out customers HD 1080p on demand media over net connections, I mean trying to watch 720p HD on demand over the internet works but makes the internet almost unusable. Id rather have a disk and dedicated device. Im not saying its not going to happen, it will just i don't think it will happen for 4-5 years. Until then I want bluray in my next computer

iSee

Dec 23, 2008, 01:49 PM

I think Apple will surprise us all an go totally retro on the design:

beige box
SCSI ports
8MB RAM

:D

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 01:51 PM

Wie Gehts

Dec 23, 2008, 01:52 PM

It won't have a keyboard, mouse, firewire, usb, hard drive or even a cpu.

Steve Jobs has deemed all these things unnecessary.

DaBrain

Dec 23, 2008, 01:52 PM

If they keep Firewire, I may consider it, however, I am looking for a headless model that will do the job.

Yep! That would be Great also! I fear a Mac Mini crippled coming soon to a store near you! :confused:

iGuardian

Dec 23, 2008, 01:53 PM

Well, since you apparently don't regard the aluminum/glass changes as a redesign, I guess you're talking about something more major.

So I have to ask: What?

It's down to JUST a screen. There's nothing else to remove! So what are you suggesting? That they add extra parts back on to the iMac? Make it bigger?

I'm just guessing what you might have meant. What is it you're actually suggesting?

What I mean by 'redesign' is a change in the shape of the computer (I wasn't really clear, sorry) The iMac's had the same Screen + Leg design for quite a while, since the G5. I don't know if there's much that should be, or even could be changed to give a refreshing change (Kind of like the change from the G4 iMac to the G5) but I'd like something more drastic than just a new paint job. But then again, Apple know's best, eh?

gkarris

Dec 23, 2008, 01:55 PM

I think Apple will surprise us all an go totally retro on the design:

beige box
SCSI ports
8MB RAM

:D

8Megs RAM - what are you going to do with that much memory??? :eek:

;)

julianna1973

Dec 23, 2008, 01:55 PM

Hmmmm let me take a stab at this! Lets see.... Hey how about a Matte screen option? :D

Your wee creepy crawlie is sooooo....CREEPY. I thought i was on my laptop screen.

Gave me the heebie jeebies

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 01:56 PM

As someone who is interested in an updated iMac, what are your predictions for the next iMac?

Well...

2.4, 2.53, 2.8, and 3.06 GHz (sound familiar? The current iMacs are clocked to "Montevina" speeds, but we'll have the real ones now)
2GB DDR3 RAM standard... MAYBE 4GB standard on the high-end 24"
I see HDD sizes remaining the same... maybe a 500 on the low-end 24"
Same old SuperDrive. No Blu-ray.
9600M in the 20", 9800M GS or GT in the 24"

Sound about right? LED screens, of course, and I want a Mighty Mouse like that one mockup that has been flying around because I want something like that for my Mac Pro.

8Megs RAM - what are you going to do with that much memory??? :eek:

Reminds me of that old Performa commercial. "How many megs of RAM, Carmine?" "Eight!"

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 01:57 PM

It won't have a keyboard, mouse, firewire, usb, hard drive or even a cpu.

Steve Jobs has deemed all these things unnecessary.

That suppose to be funny? So you think Jobs would let things carry the Apple logo if he didn't approve of them?

irun5k

Dec 23, 2008, 01:57 PM

I think the issue is more about how long will blu-ray be around. In my opinion digital media (OnDemand, iTV, digital downloads) will win out and leave blu-ray to die out.

I've heard that argument before. At first glance it sounds valid. But, then you have to realize that even "HD" downloads that we have today are uber-compressed 720p. Think of the bandwidth required for the bitrates you'll get from a full quality, Blu-ray movie... 1080p video with a kick-butt audio profile like DD+ 7.1.

When I can rent something of that quality for 99 cents to $1.99 from a kiosk at the grocery store on the corner and be done with it, why would I want to fuss with letting something download for hours, or more likely, days?

And you know what? When/if residential broadband does catch up with Blu-ray bit rates, a new format will exist that doubles or quadruples Blu-ray capability... and it will be back to playing catchup for broadband. And remember, even when major cities in places like America, Australia, etc. catch up, there are still plenty of rural areas that will lag because of cost and demand issues.

ltcol266845

Dec 23, 2008, 01:57 PM

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 01:59 PM

Needs Quad-Core real bad, prolly not the Core i7's since those are so new.. but would be nice! And I would like an impressive video card, ala nVidia 260 Core 216 with 864MB of RAM or a slightly more practical ATI/AMD 4870 with 1GB of RAM. I likes me video games!

But yeah, if it had a Core i7 Quad and an impressive Video Card, it might halt my plans to build a Hackintosh. I'll get the 24" model with my 24" connected as a second monitor... MMMMMMMMMMM:cool:

Except the only Nehalem processors that exist are desktop processors, and the iMac doesn't use desktop processors. So we won't see Nehalem until Q4 2009.

julianna1973

Dec 23, 2008, 02:00 PM

I think Apple will surprise us all an go totally retro on the design:

beige box
SCSI ports
8MB RAM

:D

Im not fussed on specs. If all they changed is the specs but it looks the same then i will stick to what i have. I would love them to go retro. I loved the clamshell ibooks. I would love them to bring out funky laptops again.

Roy Hobbs

Dec 23, 2008, 02:01 PM

I think the issue is more about how long will blu-ray be around. In my opinion digital media (OnDemand, iTV, digital downloads) will win out and leave blu-ray to die out.

I am sure digital media will win eventually, but until I can download 1080p movies with uncompressed sound I will stick with Blu-Ray

ltcol266845

Dec 23, 2008, 02:03 PM

Except the only Nehalem processors that exist are desktop processors, and the iMac doesn't use desktop processors. So we won't see Nehalem until Q4 2009.

but what is their big need for using Mobile CPUs? The current crop of CPUs from Intel run very cool. sure, they require more power than a mobile chip, but the desktop variants are so much more powerful, capable and cheaper!

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 02:03 PM

.:Meh:.

Dec 23, 2008, 02:03 PM

Can someone link me to the Mock Up Mighty Mouse you were talking about?

topgunn

Dec 23, 2008, 02:04 PM

2.4, 2.53, 2.8, and 3.06 GHz (sound familiar? The current iMacs are clocked to "Montevina" speeds, but we'll have the real ones now)
2GB DDR3 RAM standard... MAYBE 4GB standard on the high-end 24"
I see HDD sizes remaining the same... maybe a 500 on the low-end 24"
Same old SuperDrive. No Blu-ray.
9600M in the 20", 9800M GS or GT in the 24"

If you're right then I will be buying a refurb iMac with the 8800GS after the price drops.

hokullani

Dec 23, 2008, 02:04 PM

Why on earth is everyone complaining about not having bluray on macs!? Why would you need super high def on something that is 20"? Everyone chill out, BluRay is stupid on a desktop and it's not gonna happen.... just move on!

As for a redesign I really don't know what they could change. Sure the overall design has been the same since the G5 but there's nothing wrong with the way it looks now. I could see them adding an LED backlight, Nvidia chipsets, mini display port, more memory, faster processors, maybe even a quad core in the top line, but that's about it. There isn't much else to update. It looks great and fits in with the macbooks and macbook pros as well as the LED display so nothing needs to change yet. Apple has pretty much finished it's "looks" transition, from plastic to aluminum with shiny black accents, now's not really the time to change to something else.

Oh and possibly solid state drives??

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 02:05 PM

Can someone link me to the Mock Up Mighty Mouse you were talking about?

This'll work. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=620729) There's a bigger thread on it somewhere.

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 02:05 PM

Can someone link me to the Mock Up Mighty Mouse you were talking about?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=619716

OriginalMacRat

Dec 23, 2008, 02:07 PM

It's down to JUST a screen. There's nothing else to remove! So what are you suggesting? That they add extra parts back on to the iMac? Make it bigger?

Dual screens!

Round screens?

:D

talkingfuture

Dec 23, 2008, 02:07 PM

Wow, rumours are getting to be like buses. You wait ages for when then several turn up at once.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 02:07 PM

Everyone chill out, BluRay is stupid on a desktop and it's not gonna happen.... just move on!

Oh and possibly solid state drives??

No, it's not. Blu-ray isn't even stupid on a laptop. Watching Blu-ray movies on a screen with a resolution lower than 1920x1200 is stupid. Being able to burn Blu-ray disks for data on a desktop or laptop is not stupid at all.

And silly me, I forgot an SSD option in my specs.

alexbates

Dec 23, 2008, 02:10 PM

winterspan

Dec 23, 2008, 02:10 PM

Hmm... ;)
....A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.

Well if these "professionals" exist, they certainly didn't need a Mac Pro if a larger iMac fit the bill. You are talking about a system that uses a single dual-core processor, 4GB max RAM, and weak (laptop) GPUs versus a full-size dual-socket quad-core Xeon platform capable of ~64GB of RAM, and a Quadro GPU.

Except the only Nehalem processors that exist are desktop processors, and the iMac doesn't use desktop processors. So we won't see Nehalem until Q4 2009.

Not only are the current Nehalem/i7s desktop CPUs, they are the high-end quad-core "bloomfield" versions that use the X58 with quickpath. I think it's highly unlikely an iMac will see a Nehalem chip before H2 2009 (which is sad.. :( )

Why on earth is everyone complaining about not having bluray on macs!? Why would you need super high def on something that is 20"? Everyone chill out, BluRay is stupid on a desktop and it's not gonna happen.... just move on!

Oh and possibly solid state drives??

Thankfully you are not Apple's product manager. HD movie playback is a function of a Blu-ray drive, but just as/more importantly would burning capability for video pros, HD consumer cams, not to mention large data backups/transfers...

SSDs are usually much more important in a laptop than a desktop considering there are no power issues and you can get fast 10K RPM drives (and RAID setups). However, the iMac is an exception with laptop components, so i guess it is possible... The real issue is that Apple is using craptasticly slow SSDs...

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 02:14 PM

lkrupp

Dec 23, 2008, 02:16 PM

be careful what you wish for. i'm betting the new imacs won't have FW400, and unlike the unibody laptop designs, there's not much more Apple can do to make the iMac look any better.

You do know that FW800 is completely backwards compatible with FW400 don't you? You do know that FW400<->FW800 cables are cheap and plentiful don't you? You do know that a FW400 port is totally unnecessary and redundant don't you? You do know this, right?

kobefan234

Dec 23, 2008, 02:17 PM

Hope to see the nvida graphics for them ;)

iGuardian

Dec 23, 2008, 02:18 PM

You do know that FW800 is completely backwards compatible with FW400 don't you? You do know that FW400<->FW800 cables are cheap and plentiful don't you? You do know that a FW400 port is totally unnecessary and redundant don't you? You do know this, right?

I think what he intended to say is that the new iMacs (perhaps the lower end model at least) may not have FireWire (That is, if Apple follows it's current trend.)

BenRoethig

Dec 23, 2008, 02:21 PM

but what is their big need for using Mobile CPUs? The current crop of CPUs from Intel run very cool. sure, they require more power than a mobile chip, but the desktop variants are so much more powerful, capable and cheaper!

There's an outside change 65w small form factor quad cores could find themselves in the next group of iMacs. Apple already uses a 55w hybrid design chips in revision B aluminum iMacs. For its audience, the iMac offers a reasonably power machine in a compact, elegant, and quiet package. The perfect family computer. Using mobile parts helps Apple achieve this. The problem here is not the design of the iMac, its that Apple's current design philosophy expects to you use it in roles that the all in one form factor is not well suited for.

needs a bigger HD

Easiest way to make more money is to either move forward the upgrade cycle with less memory and a smaller hard drive or make the user pay $200 for an upgrade that costs Apple $15.

wilycoder

Dec 23, 2008, 02:24 PM

If the new iMacs do NOT have quad core I will be disappointed.

I guess I will save for a few more weeks and get a Mac Pro if there isn't quadcore iMacs...

J the Ninja

Dec 23, 2008, 02:24 PM

Not only are the current Nehalem/i7s desktop CPUs, they are the high-end quad-core "bloomfield" versions that use the X58 with quickpath. I think it's highly unlikely an iMac will see a Nehalem chip before H2 2009 (which is sad.. :( )

Not to mention the heat........they'd be going from a 45w part to a 130w part. The Core i7s are far and away hotter than anything the iMacs have ever had. It's got to be more than even the G5s. Then again apparently you can dissipate 280w with this thing, so maybe they could work something out:

http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5096
http://www.nordichardware.com/image3.php?id=5097

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 02:24 PM

Except the only Nehalem processors that exist are desktop processors, and the iMac doesn't use desktop processors. So we won't see Nehalem until Q4 2009.

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

A report published last month by Taiwanese rumor site DigiTimes claimed the company has been waiting on a new family of quad-core chips from Intel that are designed for small form-factor PCs like the Mac mini and all-in-one systems like the iMac.
Link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/23/next_gen_imacs_due_in_january_says_paper.html)

Running with that a bit:

There will be a total of three new chips, according to the report, including the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2), which will cost $245, $320 and $369, respectively, in lots of 1000.
Link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/19/apple_waiting_on_quad_core_desktop_chips_from_intel.html)

How different are the iMac/Mac Mini chips from the notebook chips? If they both are mobile, couldn't they be placed in a MBP? This would give something for a Rev. B update before WWDC 09.

BTW Tallest - your posts have been really informative for me. I now know more about processers and spec updates than I had ever wanted. The plus is that I'm better at predicting specs.

jholzner

Dec 23, 2008, 02:26 PM

Well, the powerbooks/macbook pros held the same design for a lot longer than that!
I agree i'd be nice, but i can't see it happening - the aluminium design came out not long ago and i don't know what they could change really.

iMacs seem likely... although it says new, does that mean just processor bumps or something else? Or don't we know? :p

The Alu design came out in August 07. Not sure they will replace the design so soon.

Berzerker

Dec 23, 2008, 02:30 PM

32", Blu-ray, 4870-X2 vid and 8GB of memory, please. Ready to buy. :apple:

4870 X2?? bwahaha You don't want that pile of garbage.

Meet the GTX 295 (http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/18/nvidia-geforce-gtx-295-gets-mostly-official/).

edgew8

Dec 23, 2008, 02:33 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...Check out this leaked design of the new iMac:apple: I found online that I am showing everyone:D

irun5k

Dec 23, 2008, 02:34 PM

I hope you are right. I like Blu-Ray but it doesn't seem to be catching on with the masses. The idea of paying $30-35 for a new Blu-Ray where the new DVD is $15-20 just doesn't seem practical right now. Cheapest Blu-Ray player is $150ish? Where the cheapest DVD player maybe $20 or so.

Just doesn't seem like it is latching on to me.

Well, I paid over $300 for a run of the mill Sony DVD player back in the 2001 time frame (I'm still using it, in fact!)

BUT... a couple reasons why Blu-Ray adoption will be slower than DVD. First, DVD offered monumental gains over VHS. Many of us had been waiting patiently for something better. The average Joe is just going to see Blu-Ray as a "different kind of DVD" just like many can't even tell they're watching an HD broadcast.

Second, retailers didn't seem to push Blu-Ray very hard this holiday season, and with the economy the way it is, people may be inclined to spend their money on something entirely new as opposed to replacing one disc player with another.

I can actually see "online" rentals on demand partially replacing DVDs. I think the technology may be good enough at some point soon to duplicate DVD quality. Thankfully, Blu-ray does have other benefits, such as dramatically increased data storage capacity, which should help its adoption in the PC industry.

saisrujan

Dec 23, 2008, 02:40 PM

My guesses...

The black dust-collecting back of the current iMac will be replaced with clean all aluminum block like the new 24" CD with a dark-grey Apple logo on the back. LED Backlighting is obvious.

I guess the chin will go too. A smaller Apple logo will be placed on a black bezel, just like the 24" LED CD.

The usual change of ports, usual processor bump-up. Usual nVidia graphics similar to Macbook Pro.

They might bring down prices, provide a single 20" configuration and multiple 24" configurations.

I want free upgrade licenses to Snow Leopard.

I don't expect blue-ray even if I want one.

A new mighty-mouse is still a dream. They have made so many advances to the trackpad that they might introduce a new pointing device for the iMac with more gestures. No, they will not be backward compatible.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 02:42 PM

I want free upgrade licenses to Snow Leopard.

You'll only get Snow Leopard if it:

A. Ships at MacWorld (not happening) and therefore the new computers would have it preinstalled.
B. ... That's it. If new iMacs are announced at MacWorld and Snow Leopard is announced to ship in June, you won't get a free upgrade.

BenRoethig

Dec 23, 2008, 02:44 PM

A 30" iMac would be incredible, but when they're that big, you start to get into Mac Pro territory, price-wise. A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.

Professionals need more than just a pretty design and a big price tag. A 30" iMac Pro would have the same drawbacks as the 20" and 24" iMacs. Processor performance, storage space, memory capacity, and video card performance would all be lacking compared to a tower workstation. The main difference is that while consumers would be willing to stand for it, professionals who depend on their hardware to make a living would tell Apple where to go. A 30" iMac would be another cube. Really cool looking, but the professionals would continue to buy much more capable tower machines and the consumers who drool over it, couldn't afford it.

Airforcekid

Dec 23, 2008, 02:46 PM

I think Apple will surprise us all an go totally retro on the design:

beige box
SCSI ports
8MB RAM

:D

:apple:No way I would ever use 8MB of ram I would settle for 4 and I have never buy a mac without SCSI ports!:apple: I bet the price will go below $1000 and they will drop the 2.4 and make 2.6 standered.

heisetax

Dec 23, 2008, 02:49 PM

Hmm... ;)

Darn it, the last post of mine that I can easily find only goes back to December 8th.

I was going to link to one of my posts where I got the specs of the new MacBook Pro correct with only one difference (no 500GB hard drive option).

And then where I got the specs of the current iMacs correct with only one difference.

And then where I got the specs of the Early 2008 MacBook Pro correct, with two differences.

I may not work for Apple, but I'm pretty darn good at figuring specs.

When I'm off, I'm off optimistically, which is really a shame for everyone wanting incredible specs... :(

A 30" iMac would be incredible, but when they're that big, you start to get into Mac Pro territory, price-wise. A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.

Also, with the new iMacs getting LED backlighting, the price would be particularly prohibitive, since the standalone 30" Cinema Display, when updated, will remain at its current price point.

A 30" iMac would be great. I'm not sure that the 30" iMac would be purchased by Intel MacPro people though at any higher rate than they purchase the 24" Intel iMac. The difference between the iMac & Intel MacPro is not really anything to do with screen size. It has more to do with the fact that the Intel MacPro has slots in it that allows the owner to make changes & additions to their computer. This could be RAID arrays, capture cards, multiple networks, up to 32 GB of memory & many, many more things. Maybe the number of screens as I have had 4 hooked up to my Intel MacPro over 27 months now.

The same can be said about the Intel MacBook Pro. It has a PCI/e slot that the Intel MacBook & Intel iMac does not have. The PCI buss on my PPC 17" PowerBook has allowed me to add eSATA, 802.11n & other items.

NC MacGuy

Dec 23, 2008, 02:50 PM

This is a surprise to anyone?

Airforcekid

Dec 23, 2008, 02:51 PM

I wish that we could see something like this iMac with a see through screen. It is obviously fake and would never happen, but that would be a cool design for the future. This is what the actual 20-in iMac that is coming out should have:
-2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
-2GB memory
-320GB HD
-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 256MB memory
-$1099

:apple:IT CAN HAPPEN with sonys organic tvs in 20 years that will probley be the new monitors.:apple:

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 02:53 PM

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

Link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/23/next_gen_imacs_due_in_january_says_paper.html)

Running with that a bit:
Link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/19/apple_waiting_on_quad_core_desktop_chips_from_intel.html)

How different are the iMac/Mac Mini chips from the notebook chips? If they both are mobile, couldn't they be placed in a MBP? This would give something for a Rev. B update before WWDC 09.

If the Digitimes rumour is correct, and I believe it is, then we should see quad core iMacs. If Intel haven't developed quad cores for all in ones, then there isn't much Apple can do. The iMac can use a custom desktop chipset if Apple want to and that's what the 9400 chipset was designed for anyway. The mini and MBP will continue to use mobile processors.

BenRoethig

Dec 23, 2008, 02:53 PM

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

Link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/12/23/next_gen_imacs_due_in_january_says_paper.html)

Running with that a bit:
Link (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/19/apple_waiting_on_quad_core_desktop_chips_from_intel.html)

How different are the iMac/Mac Mini chips from the notebook chips? If they both are mobile, couldn't they be placed in a MBP? This would give something for a Rev. B update before WWDC 09.

The Mac Mini uses stock 35w mobile chips as did the iMac until the April revision. Those chips are 55w custom order chips sort of half way between mobile merom and desktop wolfdale chips.

bking1000

Dec 23, 2008, 02:54 PM

As a non-pro, I "upgraded" recently to a 20" 2.16 intel white imac. No interest in sub-par, glossy screens, and 24" is too big for my desk space. If they want to give more options and improve the screen colors and technology, I'll consider getting a new one.

I would, however, be much more interested in a mini that can drive a 1080p HDTV.

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 03:01 PM

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 03:03 PM

If the Digitimes rumour is correct, and I believe it is, then we should see quad core iMacs. If Intel haven't developed quad cores for all in ones, then there isn't much Apple can do.

Well the problem with the DigiTimes report is that those chips aren't on the Intel roadmap. The Yorkfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Yorkfield.22_.2845_nm.29) chips flip the bill, but they are desktop units. Would they work in a iMac/Mac Mini? They are Quads.

As for notebooks, there are Penryn XE's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Penryn_XE.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_65_nm.29). They would be 45nm and could work. But we're still in 2-core territory with those. Penryn QC might be a contender.

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 03:13 PM

Well the problem with the DigiTimes report is that those chips aren't on the Intel roadmap.

I think when we consider Apple are the number one all in one manufacture (probably shipped over 3 million last year), Intel's relationship with Apple and Apple's secracy issues I think that these could be comming despite no roadmap information. I mean they are probably all going the three companies cited in the article anyway so it's not like Intel need to be making much of a deal about it.

I certainly wouldn't be suprised to see the iMacs using these with a desktop version (Socket 775) of the 9400 chipset in January.

DYER

Dec 23, 2008, 03:13 PM

Yes. It is ready to buy. From a PC vendor. And never from Apple.

Never ever ever under any circumstances use the word never
You may just regret it.

As for new imacs not too botherd but bring them on...

rickdollar

Dec 23, 2008, 03:13 PM

A little OT but...No Mac Pro rumors yet? It's nearly as overdue as the iMac. Sheesh.

On the Blu-Ray topic....It wasn't too long ago (about 10 years if I remember correctly) that every PC manufacturer was selling machines with built in CD burners and the Mac was almost 2 years behind in offering that option. I remember Jobs saying at one point that they "missed the boat with the CD burning." It was like, "duh". I remember having to pay $269 for an external 4x CD burner. I used a Mac. I had no choice.

It seems the same thing may be happening again with BR.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 03:17 PM

Never ever ever under any circumstances use the word never
You may just regret it.

Except that in no conceivable future do I see Apple using desktop chips in the iMac, thereby negating the possibility of the current Nehalem chips going into the next iMac.

And... whatever else he said. I don't remember.

A little OT but...No Mac Pro rumors yet? It's nearly as overdue as the iMac. Sheesh.

More overdue, actually. They won't be updated until late February at the earliest.

winterspan

Dec 23, 2008, 03:17 PM

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

Yeah a lowpower quadcore penryn is not unexpected. We were talking about intels nehalem/i7. In my mind it is ridiculous... We are talking about a $2000 'desktop' computer that still doesn't have a quadcore from the old generation of chips when PCs now have quadcore nehalems!! Penryn to nehalem is a big leap too... This is not merom->penryn...

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 03:17 PM

A little OT but...No Mac Pro rumors yet? It's nearly as overdue as the iMac. Sheesh.

The processors they will use (Xeon 5500 series) are probably not comming until the end of March. So expect new Mac Pros from the middle of May to early June.

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 03:19 PM

Yeah a lowpower quadcore penryn is not unexpected. We were talking about intels nehalem/i7. In my mind it is ridiculous... We are talking about a $2000 'desktop' computer that still doesn't have a quadcore from the old generation of chips when PCs now have quadcore nehalems!! Penryn to nehalem is a big leap too... This is not merom->penryn...

The iMacs aren't going to have the latest processors anytime soon unless the laws of physics suddenly change. They just put out too much heat.

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 03:21 PM

Hi folks;

It should be obvious that iMac is ready for a major revision, the question is is intel ready with the required chips. If they aren't I would expect much more than a speed bump.

To me the key to a totally redesigned IMac is Intel having a suitable i7 processor available for release in Janurary. If not there is little reason for Apple to do more than a speed bump. I7 simply offers the incentive to go whole hog into the innovation cycle. Let's face it throwing a 9400M into an iMac and adding a slightly faster CPU isn't exactly going to fill people with excitement.

I still think the bigger revision will be the Mini. Of course that machine is so old just about any revision would look huge. Here a quad core and a 9400M are very likely along with some unexpected innovation.

In any event MWSF is very close and all this stuff is being offered up for the poorest month of the year.

Dave

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 03:22 PM

The Mac Mini uses stock 35w mobile chips as did the iMac until the April revision. Those chips are 55w custom order chips sort of half way between mobile merom and desktop wolfdale chips.

Take a look at this one: Penryn QC-6M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Penryn_XE.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_45_nm.29)
Highlights are:

Four cores @ 2.0 GHz
6mb Cache
45W.
1333 MHz FSB (can throttle down to 1066 MHz)
$350
Release Date: 1Q 09

Maybe there was a special order of these. I could see Apple ordering these in 5,000 unit bulk and getting them for $200. There would need to be some special ordering to get them to 2.33, 2.4 and 2.5.

Or I could see those chips being used in the iMacs and the Penryn-3M in the Mac Mini. That has:

Two cores @ 2.53 GHz
3mb Cache
25W
1066 MHz FSB
$241
Release Date: 1Q 09

BenEndeem

Dec 23, 2008, 03:22 PM

Hopefully these rumours are right, I've been holding off buying an iMac and waiting for the next revision for quite a while.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 03:23 PM

...i7...

What part of "It's a desktop chip, it's too hot, and they don't use desktop chips." didn't you get?

eastcoastsurfer

Dec 23, 2008, 03:23 PM

I've heard that argument before. At first glance it sounds valid. But, then you have to realize that even "HD" downloads that we have today are uber-compressed 720p. Think of the bandwidth required for the bitrates you'll get from a full quality, Blu-ray movie... 1080p video with a kick-butt audio profile like DD+ 7.1.

When I can rent something of that quality for 99 cents to $1.99 from a kiosk at the grocery store on the corner and be done with it, why would I want to fuss with letting something download for hours, or more likely, days?

And you know what? When/if residential broadband does catch up with Blu-ray bit rates, a new format will exist that doubles or quadruples Blu-ray capability... and it will be back to playing catchup for broadband. And remember, even when major cities in places like America, Australia, etc. catch up, there are still plenty of rural areas that will lag because of cost and demand issues.

I hope you are right. I like Blu-Ray but it doesn't seem to be catching on with the masses. The idea of paying $30-35 for a new Blu-Ray where the new DVD is $15-20 just doesn't seem practical right now. Cheapest Blu-Ray player is $150ish? Where the cheapest DVD player maybe $20 or so.

Just doesn't seem like it is latching on to me.

For most people regular DVDs are good enough. I don't have stats handy, but I would guess that most of the HDTVs purchased are in the 32"-40" range. In that range 1080p makes very little visual difference, but often a huge price difference. If you want to talk about sound 7.1 surround, etc... isn't cheap either.

I'm not going to say that BR will never be adopted by the masses or that what we have now is all we'll ever need, but few people feel the push to go from DVD to BR like the push they had from VHS to DVD. The benefits aren't as large, the cost is more prohibitive, and there are many more ways to deliver content to the home now.

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 03:26 PM

What part of "It's a desktop chip, it's too hot, and they don't use desktop chips." didn't you get?

I think it's the "desktop" part. iMacs are mobile so people tend not to think of them as using mobile chips.

Bonte

Dec 23, 2008, 03:39 PM

Jobs made it clear he had no interest in Blu-Ray

He said 'BlueRay is a pain'
He most probably meant the special software, DRM and licenses.

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 03:50 PM

Yeah a lowpower quadcore penryn is not unexpected. We were talking about intels nehalem/i7. In my mind it is ridiculous...

It isn't rediculous if you consider that such a processor means a whole new generation iMac.

As to the constantly whined about heat yeah the are hot but no where as bad as the G5s. Notably they are very hot for the fastest models but Apple doesn't need the fastest in an IMac they only need faster than what they have today. Go i7 today and Apple can leverage Intels process improvements and shrinks for at least a couple of years. In any event the G5 was possible so an intel processor that uses less power overall is possible.

As to the cost in a $2000 computer it is managable and is not excessive compared to mobile CPUs. Plus we have to remember that Apple isn't paying list price or even 1000 piece lot prices for it's CPUs.

We are talking about a $2000 'desktop' computer that still doesn't have a quadcore from the old generation of chips when PCs now have quadcore nehalems!! Penryn to nehalem is a big leap too... This is not merom->penryn...
Well obviously if Apple wants to go quad core Penryn it can. Let's be honest though that is nothing more than a speed bump. Further if they go with Penryn and a 9400M as some have suggested just what will be the life span of that machine. Let's face it, the machine would hardly make it to summer before people start to complain about it's hardware.

In any event it is a stretch to go i7 but it does allow Apple to significantly overhaul the machines. Frankly the mechanical desgin really could use more work than the electronic. At times I really think Apple has swallowed a dumb pill when it comes to it's all in one products. For example why is the LCD screen not on a hinge to allow for quick and easy maintenance? From the standpoint of large companies this could make Apple hardware far more appealing. Even me as a lowly individual would rather have a desktop Mac that was easy to service. I know a major reconsideration on Apples part would be required but if we don't suggest they likely will never consider.

Dave

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 03:50 PM

He said 'BlueRay is a pain'
He most probably meant the special software, DRM and licenses.

If that's all that he meant, we would have seen Blu-ray drives that could natively burn data disks in Macs back in 2005.

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 03:52 PM

It isn't rediculous if you consider that such a processor means a whole new generation iMac.

As to the constantly whined about heat yeah the are hot but no where as bad as the G5s. Notably they are very hot for the fastest models but Apple doesn't need the fastest in an IMac they only need faster than what they have today. Go i7 today and Apple can leverage Intels process improvements and shrinks for at least a couple of years. In any event the G5 was possible so an intel processor that uses less power overall is possible.

As to the cost in a $2000 computer it is managable and is not excessive compared to mobile CPUs. Plus we have to remember that Apple isn't paying list price or even 1000 piece lot prices for it's CPUs.

Well obviously if Apple wants to go quad core Penryn it can. Let's be honest though that is nothing more than a speed bump. Further if they go with Penryn and a 9400M as some have suggested just what will be the life span of that machine. Let's face it, the machine would hardly make it to summer before people start to complain about it's hardware.

In any event it is a stretch to go i7 but it does allow Apple to significantly overhaul the machines. Frankly the mechanical desgin really could use more work than the electronic. At times I really think Apple has swallowed a dumb pill when it comes to it's all in one products. For example why is the LCD screen not on a hinge to allow for quick and easy maintenance? From the standpoint of large companies this could make Apple hardware far more appealing. Even me as a lowly individual would rather have a desktop Mac that was easy to service. I know a major reconsideration on Apples part would be required but if we don't suggest they likely will never consider.

Dave

What notebook chipsets would support an i7 chip?

kbmb

Dec 23, 2008, 03:54 PM

Well the problem with the DigiTimes report is that those chips aren't on the Intel roadmap. The Yorkfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Yorkfield.22_.2845_nm.29) chips flip the bill, but they are desktop units. Would they work in a iMac/Mac Mini? They are Quads.

As for notebooks, there are Penryn XE's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Penryn_XE.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_65_nm.29). They would be 45nm and could work. But we're still in 2-core territory with those. Penryn QC might be a contender.

Well I know that Dell is using the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processors in their XPS ONE systems (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_one?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&redirect=1)

I'm not an expert on chipsets so I have no idea what kind of chip that is and whether it would work in an iMac.

I know from a dimensions standpoint, the XPS is 18.0"H x 26.8W x 7.9"D and the iMac is: 20.5"H x 22.4"W x 8.1"D. (this is for the 24" versions).

-Kevin

freiheit

Dec 23, 2008, 03:59 PM

Monthly shipment of 800,000 units seems highly unlikely. In Apple's best sales quarter, they only shipped (correct me if I'm wrong) 2.5 million Macs in total, which includes the very popular notebooks. 800,000 per month would just about reach that number with iMacs alone.

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 04:01 PM

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 04:02 PM

Well I know that Dell is using the Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processors in their XPS ONE systems (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/xpsdt_one?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&redirect=1)

I'm not an expert on chipsets so I have no idea what kind of chip that is and whether it would work in an iMac.

I know from a dimensions standpoint, the XPS is 18.0"H x 26.8W x 7.9"D and the iMac is: 20.5"H x 22.4"W x 8.1"D. (this is for the 24" versions).

-Kevin

I'm inclined to think this is the 65W version mentioned by Digitimes, but I haven't seen the XPS ONE 24 in person to make a better judgement. It does add weight to iMacs getting quad core though.

Shiner

Dec 23, 2008, 04:03 PM

32", Blu-ray, 4870-X2 vid and 8GB of memory, please. Ready to buy. :apple:

Keep dreaming!!! Apple would never release such a computer to the consumers. If they did it would be 3 years after everyone else did. Blu-ray is not going to happen and a decent video card is not going to happen period.

greeneggs28

Dec 23, 2008, 04:04 PM

Maybe they might make the iMac look more like the 24inch ACD...(Chinless with a white logo on the front, and aluminum on the back...)

I don't think that would make it better, but it would be different. Blu-ray would be nice too!

The option to keep FW400 and Matte is all I would really want. :D

k86

Dec 23, 2008, 04:05 PM

My PC blew up a few weeks ago so I’ve decided to move over to an iMac but I’m holding off until MacWorld09 but here are a few things I would like to see in the new Macs:

Intel Quad core CPU
3-4GB RAM as standard
More USB ports. 3 isn’t enough in the back of the machine
Snow Leopard. If not then at least a free upgrade or money off coupon
Some Memory Card reader options (maybe the reader could be attached to the keyboard?)
Maybe an increase of screen size to 26 or 28 inches but I don’t see it happening
On the topic of Blu-Ray, I don’t care. I’ve had DVD drives on my PC’s and Laptops for years and I’ve never once sat down at my desk to watch a film. Either way I prefer to watch Blu-Ray films on my 47inch HD TV with 5.1 surround sound instead

billystlyes

Dec 23, 2008, 04:09 PM

iMacs are lame education machines. I want an i7-based tower for the same price.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 04:09 PM

3-4GB RAM as standard

Sweet dreams...

Maybe an increase of screen size to 26 or 28 inches but I don’t see it happening

There would also be no point, as every display from 24" to 29" uses 1920x1200.

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 04:10 PM

Add the Mac Mini to the 800,000 units.

The title was "Quanta to supply monthly shipments of 800,000 all-in-one PCs to Apple in 1Q09, says paper"

Monthly shipment of 800,000 units seems highly unlikely. In Apple's best sales quarter, they only shipped (correct me if I'm wrong) 2.5 million Macs in total, which includes the very popular notebooks. 800,000 per month would just about reach that number with iMacs alone.

Yes it's quite ridiculous. Apple sold 3.7m desktops in 2008 and desktop sales are on the decline. To suggest they would sell ~75% of the 2008 numbers in Q1 2009 doesn't make sense.

winterspan

Dec 23, 2008, 04:13 PM

The iMacs aren't going to have the latest processors anytime soon unless the laws of physics suddenly change. They just put out too much heat.

What part of "It's a desktop chip, it's too hot, and they don't use desktop chips." didn't you get?

I was with you on that until I looked up the history of the iMac. I didn't really get involved with Apple products until the Intel transition, so I wasn't real familiar with the PowerPC days. Now granted the iMac has undergone revisions and I'm sure it is thinner than iMac G5 of 2005, but that thing had to dissipate some massive heat. I can't find exact specs for the fastest model, but it looks like the whole machine could easily draw 150 watts! Whatever the exact specs were, I'm sure it was noisier and hotter than today's iMac. Still, I don't think its a stretch that Apple could use desktop processors or higher TDP mobile parts in future models.

The current 130W TDP Nehalem platform is still probably much too hot, but the future clarksfield/lynnfield quad-core (which has the northbridge on the CPU, and thus no Quickpath) should be a shoe-in for the iMac in H2 2009.

nick9191

Dec 23, 2008, 04:16 PM

My PC blew up a few weeks ago so I’ve decided to move over to an iMac but I’m holding off until MacWorld09 but here are a few things I would like to see in the new Macs:

Intel Quad core CPU Yes on the higher end.
3-4GB RAM as standard Yes on the higher end
More USB ports. 3 isn’t enough in the back of the machine No
Snow Leopard. If not then at least a free upgrade or money off coupon No
Some Memory Card reader options (maybe the reader could be attached to the keyboard?) Buy a USB card reader
Maybe an increase of screen size to 26 or 28 inches but I don’t see it happening No.

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 04:19 PM

What part of "It's a desktop chip, it's too hot, and they don't use desktop chips." didn't you get?
1.
Apple has used desktop chips in the past in iMacs. The G5 is one good example of a very hot chip in an iMac. A processor that notably had a very hot support chip. So having the label desktop chip slapped on a processor doesn't make it impossible.
2.
How hot it would be in the regime that Apple would apply is an open question. Plus one needs to take into account that power used by the chip also includes the memory interface hardware. It is the overall system power that makes the difference. That overall power demand might not be that bad if Nvidia had a 9400M like device with the new bus interface. You can't look at an i7 and automatically assume that it will result in to much power usage. It depends on the mix off chips and what the housing can reasonably cool.

3.
As to not using desktop chips nothing is wrtten in stone here as I pointed out in item #1 above. They could even switch to todays desktop chips if they wanted. They reality is the more cores you have on chip the more important the path to memory becomes. The move to quad cores could force Apples hand even on current generation intel cores. This doesn't even touch upon the possibility of using an AMD processor which might lead to a power profile lower than i7. I just think it is silly to be addament about no desktop processors in an iMac. Historically it has happened and there are "desk top processors" that could go into an iMac today. It is a question of what they want to achieve and how much they want to leverage quad cores.

4.
If this was a discussion about the Mini I might be more inclined to agree. There you have obvious thermal issues that limit the design. IMac though has far more potential thermally as has been demonstrated in the past.

I'm actually thinking that the iMac will just get a stop gap revision. Mostly because of the total lack of leaks and other excitment. That is verybsad actually.

Dave

kenned

Dec 23, 2008, 04:25 PM

You are forgetting one important thing

They have the PSU inside the iMac, and it is very limited how big it can be.

shawnce

Dec 23, 2008, 04:31 PM

If that's all that he meant, we would have seen Blu-ray drives that could natively burn data disks in Macs back in 2005.

While burning data disc is helpful and a useful feature it would be hard to say (from a marketing perspective) that they have Blu-ray drives yet you can't play Blu-ray movies, etc. with them. In that type of situation better to leave out the feature until you can bring out "full" support.

(leave it to a 3rd party to fill the need in the short term)

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 04:31 PM

What notebook chipsets would support an i7 chip?

What are you talking about here?

Go i7 and you get intels new bus tech quickpath. That means new tech for the support chips. Apple and Nvidia for example could be working on a quickpath based 9400M for the low end. Don't forget about PA Semi either, Apple may be promoting them as chip engineers for iPods but really that much engineering talent could be doing a lot more. How about a custom north bridge with quickpath and an interface to Nvidia graphics chips? They certainly could do that low power.

Dave

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 04:32 PM

While burning data disc is helpful and a useful feature it would be hard to say (from a marketing perspective) that they have Blu-ray drives yet you can't play Blu-ray movies, etc. with them.

That's how the Windows world works. There are far more non-HDCP monitors, graphics cards, and chipsets than HDCP compatible ones.

GeekLawyer

Dec 23, 2008, 04:38 PM

iMacs are lame education machines. I want an i7-based tower for the same price.

I want a pony. I wish Apple would stop screwing around and make one for me.

Let me soften that up a bit.

It's unlikely that Apple will plug that hole in their product line-up. I don't see why the iMac is lame, nor why anyone would relegate it to being merely an education machine.

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 04:41 PM

What are you talking about here?

Go i7 and you get intels new bus tech quickpath. That means new tech for the support chips. Apple and Nvidia for example could be working on a quickpath based 9400M for the low end. Don't forget about PA Semi either, Apple may be promoting them as chip engineers for iPods but really that much engineering talent could be doing a lot more. How about a custom north bridge with quickpath and an interface to Nvidia graphics chips? They certainly could do that low power.

Dave

Correct me if I'm wrong, alright?

The current iMac uses an Intel logic board (What I'm calling a chipset, is that the wrong term?) They are moving towards an Nvidia board. Still building off the Mobile Montivia Platform.

i7 is a desktop chip. There isn't a Mobile Montivia platform that will accept the chip. (At least I'm not aware of any.)

I also think you are putting a little too much faith in a non-SJ keynote at MWSF. I think Spec bump to 4-core Penryn chips and maybe a case design to look like the new ACD.

iMacmatician

Dec 23, 2008, 04:45 PM

According to supply chain sources, Apple is expected to launch a new iMac in the first quarter of 2009.
...
The news confirms other hints that we've seen that Apple will be releasing a new iMac at Macworld San Francisco. Based on hidden configuration files (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/12/19/evidence-that-next-imacs-and-mac-minis-to-use-nvidia-chipsets/), it's been revealed that the new iMac will be based on the NVIDIA chipset.I'm all for iMacs and Mac minis at MWSF now, due to the quad-core rumor and the redesigned Mac mini rumor.

I really hope that with this iMac, Apple jumps on the quad-core bandwagon (about time too). It's a good time, due to the 65 W desktop quad-cores coming in Q1 too. I suppose we could see these configurations:

24" iMac: Quad-core (2.33~2.67 GHz), Firewire 800, 4 GB RAM (?)
20" iMac: Midrange dual-core (2.53~2.8 GHz), no Firewire (?), 2 GB RAM
High-end Mac mini: Low-end dual-core (~2.0 GHz), no Firewire, 2 GB RAM
Existing Mac mini: One of the existing Mac minis at $499 :DSo that's a fairly wide range.

kadicel

Dec 23, 2008, 04:45 PM

iMacmatician

Dec 23, 2008, 04:51 PM

1.
Apple has used desktop chips in the past in iMacs. The G5 is one good example of a very hot chip in an iMac. A processor that notably had a very hot support chip. So having the label desktop chip slapped on a processor doesn't make it impossible. I heard somewhere (on these forums I think) that the G5 in the iMacs was 55 W. Since the largest display size then was 20", it's not a stretch to imagine 65 W in the 24" iMacs.

And no, Core i7 can't go in the iMacs, as it is 130 W, far too hot for the iMacs. Besides chipset considerations, Apple would have to either downclock it like crazy or disable 2 cores, and then they might as well use a quad-core Penryn.

And a case design isn't impossible, as the iMac G5's case was tweaked a bit a year in. Whether it's likely or not is another story.

bilbo--baggins

Dec 23, 2008, 04:53 PM

be careful what you wish for. i'm betting the new imacs won't have FW400, and unlike the unibody laptop designs, there's not much more Apple can do to make the iMac look any better.

I agree. I'd be really surprised to see Firewire 400 on any new Macs from now on. It's going to be Firewire 800 or nothing. My guess is the next generation of iMacs WILL have Firewire 800.

I'm expecting the following in January:

Same case design
LED Backlit 24" display (same as the 24" Cinema display)
NVIDIA chipset
Firewire 800 (no Firewire 400)
Mini-display port
DD3 memory

Hopefully Quad core processor.

winterspan

Dec 23, 2008, 05:01 PM

Go i7 and you get intels new bus tech quickpath. That means new tech for the support chips. Apple and Nvidia for example could be working on a quickpath based 9400M for the low end. Don't forget about PA Semi either, Apple may be promoting them as chip engineers for iPods but really that much engineering talent could be doing a lot more. How about a custom north bridge with quickpath and an interface to Nvidia graphics chips? They certainly could do that low power.

Dave

// For the people who are going to interpret your comment incorrectly, he means an nVidia chipset with the 9400 integrated GPU that supports Quickpath for the current Nehalem processors, *not* a GPU that connects via Quickpath //

Does anyone know if Intel has licensed the new architecture to nVidia to make motherboards?

While burning data disc is helpful and a useful feature it would be hard to say (from a marketing perspective) that they have Blu-ray drives yet you can't play Blu-ray movies, etc. with them. In that type of situation better to leave out the feature until you can bring out "full" support.

(leave it to a 3rd party to fill the need in the short term)

Well, I know it is unlikely, but they could just sell the drives for video and data burning purposes (and non-hollywood video) and just say that full Blu-ray movie support will come in a future software update. Then they would have an installed base once it is ready..

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 05:02 PM

8Megs RAM - what are you going to do with that much memory??? :eek:

;)

HDR photography, 3D modeling and animation, and multitrack recording using lots of soft synths and plugins. Lots of PCs I sell are coming with 6-8GB ram. I don't expect the iMac to come with 8GB on the base model, but it would be nice to be able to expand the memory to what current comsumer PCs can do.

topgunn

Dec 23, 2008, 05:08 PM

The iMacs aren't going to have the latest processors anytime soon unless the laws of physics suddenly change. They just put out too much heat.
Remember the G5 iMac?

philipxz

Dec 23, 2008, 05:09 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

What are you looking for? It's already the perfect design. There's really nothing to change except maybe making it thinner.

econoline06

Dec 23, 2008, 05:11 PM

Eidorian

Dec 23, 2008, 05:13 PM

It was something like 49W @ 2.0Ghz for the venerable PowerPC 970FX.

I don't expect anything beyond 55-65W processors in the iMac. That's the cooling suggestion and not the power draw.

Surprisingly enough the iMac keeps getting a boost in the power supplies since the switch over to Intel. Remember the Core Duo models being called super, green? We're almost at 300W today.

topgunn

Dec 23, 2008, 05:14 PM

You are forgetting one important thing

They have the PSU inside the iMac, and it is very limited how big it can be.
Dear Apple,

Please remove the PSU from the iMac and use a power brick instead and then you will be free to remove the iMac's chin.

Thanks,

BenRoethig

Dec 23, 2008, 05:14 PM

Take a look at this one: Penryn QC-6M (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#.22Penryn_XE.22_.28standard-voltage.2C_45_nm.29)
Highlights are:

Four cores @ 2.0 GHz
6mb Cache
45W.
1333 MHz FSB (can throttle down to 1066 MHz)
$350
Release Date: 1Q 09

Maybe there was a special order of these. I could see Apple ordering these in 5,000 unit bulk and getting them for $200. There would need to be some special ordering to get them to 2.33, 2.4 and 2.5.

Or I could see those chips being used in the iMacs and the Penryn-3M in the Mac Mini. That has:

Two cores @ 2.53 GHz
3mb Cache
25W
1066 MHz FSB
$241
Release Date: 1Q 09

Possible, but i think there's a better chance of the 65w SFF quad cores. A lot more power for the money than the 2ghz quad core penryn. Then again, with how obsessed Apple is with thinness these days...

What notebook chipsets would support an i7 chip?

None. There isn't going to be a mobile chipset that supports quickpath for well over a year.

Remember the G5 iMac?

A bit thicker form factor.

4God

Dec 23, 2008, 05:16 PM

Dear Apple,

Please remove the PSU from the iMac and use a power brick instead and then you will be free to remove the iMac's chin.

Thanks,

*Homer Simpson Voice* Mmmm.........wall wort......

econoline06

Dec 23, 2008, 05:16 PM

Needs Quad-Core real bad, prolly not the Core i7's since those are so new.. but would be nice! And I would like an impressive video card, ala nVidia 260 Core 216 with 864MB of RAM or a slightly more practical ATI/AMD 4870 with 1GB of RAM. I likes me video games!

But yeah, if it had a Core i7 Quad and an impressive Video Card, it might halt my plans to build a Hackintosh. I'll get the 24" model with my 24" connected as a second monitor... MMMMMMMMMMM:cool:

I like video games too, thats why I built a gaming PC :). The video cards in the current iMacs are pretty lame honestly. Even the highest end 8800 is beat easily by the 9800 GTX (which by the way is $150 on tiger direct).

dpmusic

Dec 23, 2008, 05:21 PM

I've been holding out on buying a new apple for a few months now for this exact reason. :)

Still trying to decide between iMac and Mac Pro -- if iMac upgrades to QuadCore (which I'm certain they will).. and in result opening room for more memory, I think that will definitely sway me in the iMac direction!

As for Blu-Ray, I think it's highly unlikely at this point.. my guess would be January of 2010.

I don't see the FW400 going away at all, too many external systems and HD's depend on it.

I highly doubt any external changes, although it'd be sweet. I don't think we have much to complain about as far as the iMac appearance goes. Most changes this year will be internal.

Can't wait! :)

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 05:25 PM

What are you looking for? It's already the perfect design. There's really nothing to change except maybe making it thinner.

Perfect ? You're kidding, aren't you ? Seriously.

Why thinner ? Good grief, is anorexia contagious ? :eek: It would be helpful if it was an inch thicker so that it could offer better access to it's components for complete upgrades and better heat dissipation.

LukeW16

Dec 23, 2008, 05:25 PM

Eidorian

Dec 23, 2008, 05:25 PM

One more thing, as much as I do love Core i7 it only excels at video encoding and server-side memory intensive applications.

Games aren't getting much of a benefit from it.

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 05:28 PM

Oh god, I can't imagine how much a 30" imac would cost.

Anyway, I hope that somehow the new imacs will be able to support desktop hardware. Pretty unlikely, but would be nice to have some real high end hardware.

$2,499. Yes it would be or at least have the possibility to do upgrades without being forced to get the MacPro.

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 05:30 PM

None. There isn't going to be a mobile chipset that supports quickpath for well over a year.

Well than that is the nail in the coffin of an i7 in an iMac. I don't think it's well over a year though. More like WWDC announcement of a MBP-Quad and shipping in September or a special event in October. Regardless, sometime in 2009.

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 05:36 PM

One more thing, as much as I do love Core i7 it only excels at video encoding and server-side memory intensive applications.

Games aren't getting much of a benefit from it.

That's been a very interesting aspect of the i7 reviews that I have seen. Gaming gets almost no benefit from the new i7 improvements. Odd.

ahoover

Dec 23, 2008, 05:39 PM

OK oh spec meister, will we ever see an upgrade for the 17" MBP?

Inquiring minds want to know ;-)

Hmm... ;)

Darn it, the last post of mine that I can easily find only goes back to December 8th.

I was going to link to one of my posts where I got the specs of the new MacBook Pro correct with only one difference (no 500GB hard drive option).

And then where I got the specs of the current iMacs correct with only one difference.

And then where I got the specs of the Early 2008 MacBook Pro correct, with two differences.

I may not work for Apple, but I'm pretty darn good at figuring specs.

When I'm off, I'm off optimistically, which is really a shame for everyone wanting incredible specs... :(

A 30" iMac would be incredible, but when they're that big, you start to get into Mac Pro territory, price-wise. A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.

Also, with the new iMacs getting LED backlighting, the price would be particularly prohibitive, since the standalone 30" Cinema Display, when updated, will remain at its current price point.

BenRoethig

Dec 23, 2008, 05:42 PM

Well than that is the nail in the coffin of an i7 in an iMac. I don't think it's well over a year though. More like WWDC announcement of a MBP-Quad and shipping in September or a special event in October. Regardless, sometime in 2009.

Apple can't announce anything if the part doesn't yet exist.

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 05:45 PM

OK oh spec meister, will we ever see an upgrade for the 17" MBP?

Inquiring minds want to know ;-)

Of course we will. If Apple kills the 17" MacBook Pro, the Mac Pro is next.

2.8GHz standard with 3.06 BTO (if there is a quad core "Montevina" Penryn, we might see that)
320GB HDD standard with an SSD and maybe 500GB as BTO
4GB DDR3 RAM
9400M+9600M combo
SuperDrive

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 05:46 PM

OK oh spec meister, will we ever see an upgrade for the 17" MBP?

Inquiring minds want to know ;-)

I'm not a spec meister, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. Yes, at MacWorld. :apple:

k86

Dec 23, 2008, 05:46 PM

Sounds like you need to fix your PC and stop whining

I'm not whining thank you very much. Just adding my thoughts on what I would like Apple to do with the upgrade at MacWorld

Incase you forgot what the term "upgrade" means here are a few definitions for you

Main Entry: improve
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To advance to a more desirable state.
Synonyms: ameliorate, amend, better, help, meliorate

Main Entry: promote
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To raise in rank.
Synonyms: advance, elevate, jump, raise

Main Entry: improvement
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: The act of making better or the condition of being made better.
Synonyms: amelioration, amendment, betterment, melioration

Main Entry: advancement
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: A progression upward in rank.
Synonyms: elevation, jump, promotion, rise

If I was whinning then my orignal post would have gone like this:

Why hasn't it got the Intel i7 CPU? If it doesn't have one then I'm not going to get one
I want 16GB of RAM standard
Why hasn't the iMac got more than 3 USB ports? My last PC had 10
I want Snow Leopard. If not then at least a free upgrade or money off coupon otherwise I'm suing
Some Memory Card reader options. Why hasn't it already got any?
A 50 inch display with Blu-Ray drive

mikecorp

Dec 23, 2008, 05:46 PM

they don't ship the new Imacs in January, I'm going to buy PC :D

I'm tired of Apple having so limited hardware upgrades.

I need new Imac and better graphic card for Mac PRO. :D

Eric S.

Dec 23, 2008, 05:52 PM

but what is their big need for using Mobile CPUs?

Probably cost. For Apple, that is. The fewer parts they have to support, the cheaper it is for them. They get to order in bigger quantities, and it simplifies their development and testing processes.

He said 'BlueRay is a pain'
He most probably meant the special software, DRM and licenses.

Pretty much. This was the exact quote: "Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace."

Ambrose Chapel

Dec 23, 2008, 05:56 PM

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 06:04 PM

Apple can't announce anything if the part doesn't yet exist.

Clarksfield is the Nehalem processor that is due 2nd 1/2 of 09. That means one of two things.

1) It'll be late = January/Febuary 2010
2) It'll be on time = WWDC announcement or special event.

production [of Clarksfield] beginning in the second half of 2009 Link (http://www.pcworld.com/article/152473/intel_mobile_nehalem.html?tk=rss_news)

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 06:09 PM

Probably cost. For Apple, that is. The fewer parts they have to support, the cheaper it is for them. They get to order in bigger quantities, and it simplifies their development and testing processes.

Pretty much. This was the exact quote: "Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace."

Cost ? If Apple was selling cheap computers that cost logic would make sense.

Do you believe he is being truthful about that ?

It was a smart *ss one liner for getting a laugh. It's a cop out. I sell lots of computers with a Blu-ray burner. None of those companies have complained about Blu-ray being a "bag of hurt." It's a lame crack and a lousy excuse for Steve preventing customers from having Blu-ray on their Macs that other computer users have access to for less money than Macs without them.

The only reason Macs don't have Blu-ray is iTunes.

illegallydead

Dec 23, 2008, 06:20 PM

8Megs RAM - what are you going to do with that much memory???
HDR photography, 3D modeling and animation, and multitrack recording using lots of soft synths and plugins.

The guy was making a joke. He specifically said Megs, as in MEGAbites. Harkening back to the "good 'ol days"

Lots of PCs I sell are coming with 6-8GB ram. I don't expect the iMac to come with 8GB on the base model, but it would be nice to be able to expand the memory to what current comsumer PCs can do.

Apple is not one to really care what consumer PC's can do. They make their money off people getting fed up with consumer PCs and switching, then keeping them sucked in buying new macs every 2 years (or less) out of fear of switching back, even tough PCs work just dandy. The thought of "going back" keeps people buying Mac even though they are comparatively under-speced...

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 06:24 PM

I'm expecting this or the next rev of the iMac to bump the 24" screen down to the midrange model. i think with every version of the iMac (except maybe the G3) eventually only entry-level model had the small screen.

thanks to everyone clarifying the quad/Nehalem situation. is it still realistic to expect iMac-ready quad-core Nehalem chips (Clarksfield?) towards the end of 2009? i'm holding out for that in my next iMac...

And to think I was worried the processor conversation was a little dry for others to follow.

I'd expect a Nehalem processor in an iMac sometime 1Q '10 next year. Laptops will be updated a little earlier (October '09.) This is more optimistic than some others will say.

Kwill

Dec 23, 2008, 06:31 PM

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

It was redesigned 15 months ago. Perhaps you didn't notice with all the glare. :rolleyes:

Ambrose Chapel

Dec 23, 2008, 06:33 PM

And to think I was worried the processor conversation was a little dry for others to follow.

I'd expect a Nehalem processor in an iMac sometime 1Q '10 next year. Laptops will be updated a little earlier (October '09.) This is more optimistic than some others will say.

heh well i have a vested interest in all this talk - my G5 is showing its age and i am getting upgrade fever. but 2010?? and that's optimistic? yikes, maybe i won't be holding out for nehalem.

xhambonex

Dec 23, 2008, 06:37 PM

they could do this extensive redesign where they remove that glass and give us a matte screen:rolleyes:

Bubba Satori

Dec 23, 2008, 06:48 PM

The guy was making a joke. He specifically said Megs, as in MEGAbites. Harkening back to the "good 'ol days"

Apple is not one to really care what consumer PC's can do. They make their money off people getting fed up with consumer PCs and switching, then keeping them sucked in buying new macs every 2 years (or less) out of fear of switching back, even tough PCs work just dandy. The thought of "going back" keeps people buying Mac even though they are comparatively under-speced...

:D

True enough. And it's hard to argue with Apple's strategy and success. And to be honest, most of my Mac customers could care less about the latest hardware or upgradabilty. That's not why they're buying Macs.

mathcolo

Dec 23, 2008, 07:04 PM

iMacs????? I want Snow Leopard!

katewes

Dec 23, 2008, 07:14 PM

they could do this extensive redesign where they remove that glass and give us a matte screen:rolleyes:

Hey how about a Matte screen option? :D

The option to keep FW400 and Matte is all I would really want. :D

they could do this extensive redesign where they remove that glass and give us a matte screen:rolleyes:

Apple needs to bring back the matte screen. If you search for online polls, search for "macbook matte glossy polls", consistently between 40% to 55% want matte. Apple doesn't care about customers needs. All it cares about is sales figures and producing artistic design. But lots of customers need something that they have to work with for hours, and staring at a glossy screen is really aggravating for some (40-50%). So please don't reply to say you love the glossy screen. Fine, have your glossy screen. But those other half who want matte screens should get the option too. We're not saying change everything to matte, just give us the option.

Apple, if its money you're after, charge us more for it. Rip us off. Make if financially worthwhile for you to offer the matte screen, but do it.

rockdog

Dec 23, 2008, 07:14 PM

I like video games too, thats why I built a gaming PC :). The video cards in the current iMacs are pretty lame honestly. Even the highest end 8800 is beat easily by the 9800 GTX (which by the way is $150 on tiger direct).

I think that is some peoples beef with the iMacs. For things such as gaming they have to go to the expense of buying a separate computer just to game when you should be able to do everything with one machine. Windows users do. (I don't really consider the Mac Pro to be an all in one gaming machine. But that is just me)

djellison

Dec 23, 2008, 07:24 PM

Still way too expensive

For whom? Laptops costing half as much as an MBP have BR drives in them. There is no excuse. Apple are simply stalling to eek out the absolute max profit from every over-priced machine they sell.

iMacmatician

Dec 23, 2008, 07:25 PM

online pollsI already doubt those numbers.

Eric S.

Dec 23, 2008, 07:35 PM

Cost ? If Apple was selling cheap computers that cost logic would make sense.

It makes sense for Apple, just not for us as customers.

Do you believe he is being truthful about that ?

It was a smart *ss one liner for getting a laugh. It's a cop out. I sell lots of computers with a Blu-ray burner. None of those companies have complained about Blu-ray being a "bag of hurt." It's a lame crack and a lousy excuse for Steve preventing customers from having Blu-ray on their Macs that other computer users have access to for less money than Macs without them.

The only reason Macs don't have Blu-ray is iTunes.

All I can assume is that Apple hasn't figured out how to make what they consider would be sufficient profit from Blu-Ray, otherwise they would be jumping into it.

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 07:40 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, alright?

The current iMac uses an Intel logic board (What I'm calling a chipset, is that the wrong term?)

Unfortunately yes it is a bit confused. A chipset gets soldered to a motherboard with a lot of other stuff, so you are not exactly on the same page here. Generally a Intel chipset consisted of the processor, and the so called north and south bridges. The level of integration generally increased with each new revision of these chipsets. Not too this isn't the whole computer as a number of other things get connected to the chipsets including RAM and some form of ROM/Flash.

They are moving towards an Nvidia board.

That is they are going to a Nvidia chipset of some sort. That based on the info leaked in Apples latest software releases. Note that we don't know exactly what variant of the 9400M this might be. It could be the very same mobile chip used in the new MacBooks, it could be a variant clocked faster or it could be another member of the family with a different feature set.

The important thing to remember is that Nvidia has already acknowledged that what became the 9400M was initially suggested to Apple as a desk top chip. There is a good possibility that there is a faster 9400M type chip with a desktop interface in the wings.

Still building off the Mobile Montivia Platform.

Could be or it could be Intels current desktop chips. I'd love to see i7 but that would imply that Nvidia has a variant of 9400M ready to go with a quickpath interconnect.

My point is that the iMac does not require a mobile chip. If the computer is scheduled for a redesign they can throw anything they want into it. The only limitation being thermal management within Apples noise guidelines. Going desktop does however allow them to keep more current with processor specs.

While it probably doesn't mean much now, people have rightly pointed out iMacs lack of a quad core CPU. It would be far easier for Apple to keep the specs competitive if they used desktop chips. I mentioned now on purpose because for most uses dual core does pretty damn good with todays software and the demands of a general user. That may not be the case in the future so arguments about iMac trailing in CPU count may have more basis in reality.

i7 is a desktop chip. There isn't a Mobile Montivia platform that will accept the chip. (At least I'm not aware of any.)

Well not that we know of. You are assuming that a mobile platform is required though and that is what I'm having trouble with. It isn't and frankly the current iMacs are a bit of a hybrid design as it is. Apple can be very creative with respect to what they put into the iMac.

Further the finds about the iMacs coming GPU really don't indicate that that GPU is using a mobile bus interface. Just recently Nvidia announced a variant of the 9400M with a bus interface for ATOM. They could just as well have an interface for the desktop processors of today or even quickpath.

I also think you are putting a little too much faith in a non-SJ keynote at MWSF. I think Spec bump to 4-core Penryn chips and maybe a case design to look like the new ACD.

Well frankly I don't know what to think of the lack of SJ at MWSF. I don't believe it has anything to do with what comes out at MWSF, except for the possibility of a blockbuster device. Remember last years MWSF was kinda underwhelming as it was and Apple had weekly product releases for about two months after MWSF. They might not have anything of substance for the show but for me that is speculation right now. It really looks like dropping out of MWSF has been in the works for a couple of years now. I'm more worried that there haven't been any juicy leaks yet.

In any event I'd be the first to admit that i7 is a stretch. It would however be good to see Apple really stretching to innovate and bring bleeding edge products to the market. Further if they don't go i7 but do deliver a totally redesigned iMac, using the older mobile technology, that would mean that i7 would be a long time coming to a general Apple desktop machine. That would be enough to cause me to punt with respect to any new iMac.

Dave

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 07:55 PM

// For the people who are going to interpret your comment incorrectly, he means an nVidia chipset with the 9400 integrated GPU that supports Quickpath for the current Nehalem processors, *not* a GPU that connects via Quickpath //

Yeah that is a little clearer! On the other hand if you have an integrated chip, then the GPU is more or less connected via quickpath. This isn't much different than some of the AMD/ATI chipsets. It does offer a small performance advantage and may be interesting given the move to GPGPU computing.

Does anyone know if Intel has licensed the new architecture to nVidia to make motherboards?

That I don't know, but if Apple is involved we wouldn't know until a product came out. I still fall back to what Nvidia described as the original concept for what became the 9400M. All speculation for now, but for somebody that was concerned about compute power over graphics, i7 and a 9400M + quickpath would be very appealing.

Even it they don't go i7 i'm very curious as to what the 9400M's top clock speed is. All indications are that it runs much cooler in the laptops than intels old parts so bumping up the speed for the desktop seems to be a real possibility.

Well, I know it is unlikely, but they could just sell the drives for video and data burning purposes (and non-hollywood video) and just say that full Blu-ray movie support will come in a future software update. Then they would have an installed base once it is ready..

I suspect we will never see Apple supporting BluRay. There would have to be a drastically more aggressive adoption of BluRay by consumers. With consumers rejecting the DRM associated with BluRay I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Dave

M!M!C

Dec 23, 2008, 07:57 PM

Ok, i'm tired of reading no Quad, too much heat!

a) If the iMac was not so anorexic, Apple could supply decent cooling. Seriously, who ever says their iMac is too thick? I don't remember looking at the side profile EVER!! So she gets a little thicker with age, who doesn't :D

b) If others such as Dell can do it, why not ?

Dell $1989

PROCESSOR XPS One™ with 24-inch widescreen display and Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8200 processor edit
OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1 edit
KEYBOARD XPS One® Wireless Keyboard including trackpad and media controls
INTEGRATED SPEAKERS Premium JBL speakers with integrated subwoofer (25W total) and Soundblaster Audigy software
MOUSE XPS One ® Wireless Mouse
PRODUCTIVITY Microsoft Works 9.0
MEMORY 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800Mhz - 2 DIMMs
VIDEO CARD 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 9600M GT
HARD DRIVE 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER 8-in-1 Media Reader Included
OPTICAL DRIVE 8X Slot load CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW)
SOUND CARD SoundBlaster® Audigy™ HD Software Edition
TV TUNER & VIDEO XCELERATOR HD Capable Analog/Digital TV Tuner and Remote Control

Apple $2269

24"
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB
750GB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS w/512MB GDDR3
Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard (English) + User's Guide

Now if Dell can put a better system together for less, why can't Apple do the same. Heck, I don't even mind paying more NOT to have M$!

Blu-Ray for burning would be very nice!
30" For this semi-pro would be very nice! (i can't afford the big rig)

Again, i can understand if NO ONE is doing it and we are asking for the impossible. BUT when you can buy a system today that is all in one with these specs, how can anyone say Apple can't?? I thought Apple was the more intelligent, more forward thinking than the rest?? If not, perhaps they need to license their OS so we can put it on REAL hardware.

So the choice is a horrible OS on great hardware, or a great OS on horrible hardware. :eek:

wizard

Dec 23, 2008, 08:13 PM

Heck, I don't even mind paying more NOT to have M$!

I've never minded the little extra for a Mac but on some systems it is a lot more than a little more. This mostly due to Apples long upgrade times.

Blu-Ray for burning would be very nice!
30" For this semi-pro would be very nice! (i can't afford the big rig)

Well BluRay doesn't look like it is in the cards. 30 inches always impresses but Apple would need a suitably high resolution screen.

Again, i can understand if NO ONE is doing it and we are asking for the impossible.

Even if no body was doing it, it still is possible. Remember when the iMacs first came out nobody was doing all in one like that.

BUT when you can buy a system today that is all in one with these specs, how can anyone say Apple can't??

I'm not sure a lot of people are saying Apple can't rather I think they are hung up on Apple only ever using mobile chips. That is a big limitation in my mind.

I thought Apple was the more intelligent, more forward thinking than the rest?? If not, perhaps they need to license their OS so we can put it on REAL hardware.

One of the reasons I'd like to see Pystar succeed isn't that I want to buy their hardware but rather I want Apple to take a long hard look at the hardware they are selling. That doesn't mean that the iMac must go or move to desktop chips but rather we need to see more variety from Apple that addresses concerns raised here.

Apple needs at least one machine that is easy for them to keep current. Neither iMac or Mini are the sorts of machines that can be quickly rev'ed and thus remain current.

So the choice is a horrible OS on great hardware, or a great OS on horrible hardware. :eek:

I don't think either the iMac nor the Min are horrible, they each have a purpose in life. What is horrible is not having a lineup that is broad enough to service a good cross section of the user community. Not to revive the xMac debate but that type of PC is a lot easier for Apple to update and keep current, especially if based on desktop processors.

Dave

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 08:16 PM

30 inches always impresses but Apple would need a suitably high resolution screen.

And the 2560x1600 H-IPS screens that they ship now are... unsuitable?

Umbongo

Dec 23, 2008, 08:21 PM

Now if Dell can put a better system together for less, why can't Apple do the same.

Well they can and probably will, but I guess that was the point of your post.

Also the Dell isn't really a better system (in my eyes). Quad 2.33GHz vs. dual 2.8GHz means the iMac is going to be faster for most things the intended audience of these systems will be using them for. The iMac also has a faster GPU and a better display panel (H-IPS vs. S-PVA).

Obviously the Dell has advantages, blu ray and a tv tuner for starters, but if the new iMacs are quad core with LED displays Dell aren't going to be taking away potential iMac customers.

Saladinos

Dec 23, 2008, 08:35 PM

One word: Chin. :rolleyes::p

Yup. They could make it look more like the LED cinema display. That thing is just stunning!

Remove the chin and make it look like the LED display (full black/glass front, thin aluminium bezel).

They could also offer an option to have an LED panel installed in to the iMac in place of the CCFL one.

jackfrost123

Dec 23, 2008, 09:01 PM

if apple use the current tdp core i7 (what dumbf. name) nehalem cpus with their humongous 120tdps in place of their current 45watts ones, they might as well do this with the imac:

http://merecat.org/home/2006/img/imac-fireplace.jpg

not to mention them using cooling fans akin to these ones:

http://www.freewebs.com/overed/huge%20fans.gif

:D:D:D

jackfrost123

Dec 23, 2008, 09:05 PM

It was a smart *ss one liner for getting a laugh. It's a cop out. I sell lots of computers with a Blu-ray burner. None of those companies have complained about Blu-ray being a "bag of hurt." It's a lame crack and a lousy excuse for Steve preventing customers from having Blu-ray on their Macs that other computer users have access to for less money than Macs without them.

The only reason Macs don't have Blu-ray is iTunes.

So true, what a load of bull. Itunes is the reason they've made the radio remote for the ipod classic incompatible with the iphone. I HATE IT SO MUCH that they want to force me to buy from itunes and listen to it on my iphone instead of letting me listen to fm like every $5 phone on the globe, and I KNOW that's the reason they are doing it, I am SURE, tactics like these to me are not excusable....

Eidorian

Dec 23, 2008, 09:38 PM

if apple use the current tdp core i7 (what dumbf. name) nehalem cpus with their humongous 120tdps in place of their current 45watts ones, they might as well do this with the imac:

not to mention them using cooling fans akin to these ones:

:D:D:DI take it you've never used a Dell Studio XPS. I'm a little surprised that X58 is hitting a µATX form factor so quickly.

jackfrost123

Dec 23, 2008, 09:54 PM

I take it you've never used a Dell Studio XPS. I'm a little surprised that X58 is hitting a µATX form factor so quickly.

nope never have, never will, just like back in high school I had a bunch of decent but average looking broads going after me, and they werent bad kids but I dissed them in favour of better things. If you do go that way congratulations you got a 6% of extra superfloous power and a fugly machine.

Btw, technically speaking I am sure you can appreciate the difference it makes putting the cpu in a big old ugly box and squizing it in 1.5 cm thin aluminum and plastic sheets.

iMacmatician

Dec 23, 2008, 10:04 PM

AidenShaw

Dec 23, 2008, 10:10 PM

No, it's not. Blu-ray isn't even stupid on a laptop. Watching Blu-ray movies on a screen with a resolution lower than 1920x1200 is stupid.

Actually, watching BD movies on a 1280x800 screen is not stupid at all.

If you own the BD version of the movie, you should be able to watch it wherever you want. Do you think that one should buy the DVD version as well for the laptop?

The Hammer

Dec 23, 2008, 10:13 PM

I'd hoped they would release an updated iMac and Snow leopard together.

NyMetsFan08

Dec 23, 2008, 10:14 PM

Tallest Skill I am pretty confident about the new Nvidia iMac's in January but how confident are you out of 1-100%. You seem to know a lot about apple stuff and so do I. I am 100% confident on the new Mac Mini and wouldn't it be sick if they make the new iMac similiar to the new cinema display??? I think the iMac needs a change it has the same similar looks since the G5 was out. I know they change it too thinner and aluminum but if you think of it, its still the same iMac since the G5 was around. It would be nice if they can make it swivel etc. similar to the new Dell monitors. Just a new look would be nice overall the iMacs are great computers. I like the all in ones but I prefer a Mac Mini Pro which will never happen since the Mac Pro will always be on top. For the money its worth it but a lot of people don't have that money only graphic designers etc. So that is where the iMac comes to play. Overall, Macworld is going to be good too bad Steve not going to be doing it since its the last. I have to say a preview of Snow leopard, Mac Mini re-designed, iMac specs upgraded, and one more thing iphone nano maybe not not sure. It just not sure why someone would leak cases if there not going to be one. We will all soon find out.

Eidorian

Dec 23, 2008, 10:18 PM

nope never have, never will, just like back in high school I had a bunch of decent but average looking broads going after me, and they werent bad kids but I dissed them in favour of better things. If you do go that way congratulations you got a 6% of extra superfloous power and a fugly machine.

Btw, technically speaking I am sure you can appreciate the difference it makes putting the cpu in a big old ugly box and squizing it in 1.5 cm thin aluminum and plastic sheets.Slightly amusing but we are talking about a lot more then 6% superfluous performance. I'm quite sure you'd by whatever Apple would sell regardless of the actual computer hardware in it though.

Eric S.

Dec 23, 2008, 10:23 PM

I'd hoped they would release an updated iMac and Snow leopard together.

Maybe they will - next June.

jackfrost123

Dec 23, 2008, 10:44 PM

Finally, the PowerBook G5 Quad is possible! :D

hahahahahhahah, good one, had me in stitches...:D:D

jackfrost123

Dec 23, 2008, 10:51 PM

Slightly amusing but we are talking about a lot more then 6% superfluous performance. I'm quite sure you'd by whatever Apple would sell regardless of the actual computer hardware in it though.

no we are not, best case senarios at the moment, in purely synthetic test is that nehalem is 15% in performance gain, but that doesn't affect MOST desktop application PLUS the bottleneck here is the hd right now, so I d much rather have right now a macbook pro with one of the super fast new intel just released ssd's not letting dell fool me with their dispeakably ugly big box to think I am getting any sort of performance out of it, while I wait for the great ssd enabled imac in a few months time.

Yeah I would buy pretty much anything apple, and most often than not I would be on the right side and vindicated. Enjoy your new dell, enjoy vista, and windows 7, and 8 and 9 and maybe if they ever get to it 10 and 10.6 so they can finally compete with snow leopard....:D

Tallest Skil

Dec 23, 2008, 10:53 PM

Actually, watching BD movies on a 1280x800 screen is not stupid at all.

If you own the BD version of the movie, you should be able to watch it wherever you want. Do you think that one should buy the DVD version as well for the laptop?

Oh, no. The capability is not stupid, but you just won't get the full... potential, let's say, of the video. :D

how confident are you out of 1-100%. I am 100% confident on the new Mac Mini and wouldn't it be sick if they make the new iMac similiar to the new cinema display???

93% for iMac updates and 93% for Mac Mini updates. I believe that they will keep the chin on the iMac. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from removing the chin, but if the iMac looks exactly like the Cinema Display, what's to stop someone from reselling a Cinema Display as an iMac? The purchaser wouldn't know until they received it and found out that it was only a monitor. It's just a little dangerous now that the display shares the aesthetics... and the webcam... and the speakers... and the microphone...

fleshman03

Dec 23, 2008, 10:55 PM

Apple needs to bring back the matte screen. If you search for online polls, search for "macbook matte glossy polls", consistently between 40% to 55% want matte. Apple doesn't care about customers needs. All it cares about is sales figures and producing artistic design. But lots of customers need something that they have to work with for hours, and staring at a glossy screen is really aggravating for some (40-50%). So please don't reply to say you love the glossy screen. Fine, have your glossy screen. But those other half who want matte screens should get the option too. We're not saying change everything to matte, just give us the option.

Apple, if its money you're after, charge us more for it. Rip us off. Make if financially worthwhile for you to offer the matte screen, but do it.

Those polls are from MacRumors? I'd bet that the population is bit different in the "real world." Matted would be nice, but is unlikely. (Unfortunately.)

Well frankly I don't know what to think of the lack of SJ at MWSF. I don't believe it has anything to do with what comes out at MWSF, except for the possibility of a blockbuster device. Remember last years MWSF was kinda underwhelming as it was and Apple had weekly product releases for about two months after MWSF. They might not have anything of substance for the show but for me that is speculation right now. It really looks like dropping out of MWSF has been in the works for a couple of years now. I'm more worried that there haven't been any juicy leaks yet.

In any event I'd be the first to admit that i7 is a stretch. It would however be good to see Apple really stretching to innovate and bring bleeding edge products to the market. Further if they don't go i7 but do deliver a totally redesigned iMac, using the older mobile technology, that would mean that i7 would be a long time coming to a general Apple desktop machine. That would be enough to cause me to punt with respect to any new iMac.

That is where we agree. Nvidia could have something in the works to bring i7, it's just highly unlikely. The addition of P.A Semi would make an interesting addition to this. However I'm hoping that the P.A Semi gains would be a little more than an i7 processor on the iMac. Maybe a Tablet or unknown device.

BTW- thank you for the correction.

Actually, watching BD movies on a 1280x800 screen is not stupid at all.

If you own the BD version of the movie, you should be able to watch it wherever you want. Do you think that one should buy the DVD version as well for the laptop?

The point is that you're not getting the full HD effect. You paid for it, why not expect it?

AidenShaw

Dec 23, 2008, 10:56 PM

For whom? Laptops costing half as much as an MBP have BR drives in them.

Please, it's BD - Blu-ray Disc. Look at the logo - it's a "B" and a "D".

http://www.blu-raydisc.info/images/bda_logo.gif

Keep it simple - CD, DVD, BD.

Please.

AidenShaw

Dec 23, 2008, 11:05 PM

Oh, no. The capability is not stupid, but you just won't get the full... potential, let's say, of the video. :D

Agree - but I don't see the relevance.

The question is not "will the laptop do perfect 1080p".

The question is "can I put my disc in the laptop and watch my movie?".

We agree that the 50 GB data capability is definitely a plus.

I just don't think that it's "stupid" to expect to be able to play my BD movies on a laptop with less than 1080p native resolution.

Eidorian

Dec 24, 2008, 12:07 AM

not letting Apple fool me with their dispeakably thin box to think I am getting any sort of performance out of it, while I wait for the great ssd enabled Dell in a few months time. I have fixed it for you.

NyMetsFan08

Dec 24, 2008, 12:24 AM

Haha your right tallest skill I should of thought of that before I wrote. For example ebay you wont know until you get it haha. Then you tried to get your money back??? oops you can't haha. You turn it on.... 5 seconds later what the heck is it broke haha. Then your like hmm??? I know it a cinema display im screwed haha. Apple will never do something like that but yea either or it going to be a great end to Macworld with some awesome products. Thanks tallest skill.

outsidethebox

Dec 24, 2008, 12:27 AM

Apple is losing me as a possible new iMac OR MBP customer simply for the fact that they are not offering matte screens anymore. Some people couldn't care less about matte or glossy, for for someone who does professional photography, or video editing, it makes a huge difference. I usually have an external monitor hooked up anyways, but restricting choice to glossy only is just ridiculous.

queshy

Dec 24, 2008, 12:33 AM

Please, it's BD - Blu-ray Disc. Look at the logo - it's a "B" and a "D".

http://www.blu-raydisc.info/images/bda_logo.gif

Keep it simple - CD, DVD, BD.

Please.
Thanks for clearing that up!

Anyways, Apple's new iMacs will have to be VERY appealing for me to ditch my 24" white iMac. I will most likely upgrade to something seriously more powerful when Snow Leopard comes out. I've always wanted a 30" ACD, though...so maybe we will see a 30" iMac (haha probably not!).

Let's hope MacWorld is very Mac focused and not iPhone focused.

Sehnsucht

Dec 24, 2008, 12:54 AM

any educated guesses on the likelihood of an 30 inch (+) iMac?

I would kill for one. :eek:

igazza

Dec 24, 2008, 01:08 AM

I would kill for one. :eek:

Maybe new imacs be 23 and 27 inch

why did apple change the cinema display to 24 ;)

Umbongo

Dec 24, 2008, 07:15 AM

Maybe new imacs be 23 and 27 inch

why did apple change the cinema display to 24 ;)

They changed because 23" S-IPS panels aren't being made anymore. They come in 20", 24", 26" and 30" and H-IPS (24"iMac and LED display) doesn't come in 20".

M!M!C

Dec 24, 2008, 07:44 AM

I don't think either the iMac nor the Min are horrible, they each have a purpose in life. What is horrible is not having a lineup that is broad enough to service a good cross section of the user community. Not to revive the xMac debate but that type of PC is a lot easier for Apple to update and keep current, especially if based on desktop processors.

Dave

Thanks, that was a great follow up...

Well they can and probably will, but I guess that was the point of your post.

Also the Dell isn't really a better system (in my eyes). Quad 2.33GHz vs. dual 2.8GHz means the iMac is going to be faster for most things the intended audience of these systems will be using them for. The iMac also has a faster GPU and a better display panel (H-IPS vs. S-PVA).

Your fist point goes to what Wizard was saying; 'the intended audience', whereby i would want more cores as i run more apps at the same time. However, most consumers would not. Apple does not give people like me a step between their home use desktop and their workstation.

Your second point has be lost.

Looking at Nivida's site, i see your point! I played the dumb consumer and just glanced over the model number! :(

A GeForce 9800 GT would be the logical step forward.

Thanks

bowdeni

Dec 24, 2008, 08:54 AM

I've just upgraded (for free :) ) from a g5 iMac to the new current model. For those who said that you can get a hot chip in the iMac.... yes you can but I don't think my fan ever turned off in my old mac. Give it any work to do and it was a very loud machine.

I think the iMac should come with 5 USBs, given the ones in the keyboard aren't powered. 3 is an annoying amount. I frequently find myself having to swap devices around.

ddTaylor

Dec 24, 2008, 09:33 AM

I can see Apple releasing an iMac with Blu-Ray, I'm not sure it's that much of a "bag of hurt" anymore.

Especially with the current BULK pricing on slot-loading BRD players and R/W's.

In quantity you can buy a BRD ROM for under $30. Plus - when has Apple been concerned with price?

D

ddTaylor

Dec 24, 2008, 09:46 AM

Jobs made it clear he had no interest in Blu-Ray

Then he is ignorant as to the wants and needs of his customers. He also says many things contrary to what actually happens - like video iPod's, phones and PDA's (as that IS what the iPod touch is - along with a gaming system and music player).

Apple is not about to drop the ball on HD media. If you stream, DL or On Demand content - it is not the same nor as portable. What about games on the PS3? What is you wanted to take a game with you to a friends house but it was only available as a download? Now what? I am sure Sony and other companies would not allow you to drop the game on an external HD to play it at a friends house. You CAN do that with the disc.

I think Apple will get on board - it is not like it will cost them anything...please! It is a DRIVE! No royalties are paid directly by Apple to BR other than from the cost of the drive - and Apple will pass that along to the consumer - at a 4x premium over other companies.

D

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 09:51 AM

Then he is ignorant as to the wants and needs of his customers.

Doy. Apple gives us what Steve wants in a product. Extrapolated from this, Steve doesn't listen to the radio, use voice dialing, or own a Blu-ray player. Deal with downloads; Apple isn't going to kill iTunes by offering Blu-ray.

Apple is not about to drop the ball on HD media. If you... ...DL... ...it is not the same nor as portable.

No, because the 1/1000 of a yoctogram that the electrons of a digital copy weigh are not as portable as a spinning disk. I realize that the download is on a hard drive, but it's just as portable; stop kidding yourself.

...please! It is a DRIVE! No royalties are paid directly by Apple to BR other than from the cost of the drive

H. D. C. P.

Mal

Dec 24, 2008, 09:52 AM

Then he is ignorant as to the wants and needs of his customers. ...

I think Apple will get on board - it is not like it will cost them anything...please! It is a DRIVE! No royalties are paid directly by Apple to BR other than from the cost of the drive - and Apple will pass that along to the consumer - at a 4x premium over other companies.

D

Who's ignorant? Steve Jobs knows that BD is primarily for movies right now, and there are significant licensing fees involved. Royalties are paid far beyond the cost of the drive for the technology involved, and he's not willing to submit to the ridiculous demands that go along with it. Until we get a BD drive with no limitations, which means the licensing is worked out to his satisfaction, we're not going to get one at all.

jW

hectrobeing

Dec 24, 2008, 10:13 AM

Can someone link me to the Mock Up Mighty Mouse you were talking about?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=619716&highlight=mighty+mouse

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 10:18 AM

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=619716&highlight=mighty+mouse

You're the third person to do it. I think we got it covered. ;)

mastershakess

Dec 24, 2008, 10:20 AM

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=619716&highlight=mighty+mouse

djellison

Dec 24, 2008, 10:24 AM

he's not willing to submit to the ridiculous demands that go along with it.

So are Sony/HP/Acer etc burning their children or putting their body parts on Ebay to fund <£1k BD drivers - or is Steve Jobs just lying.

I know what I think.

The most ridiculous demands are the demands made on Mac users when paying for hardware at a 50% margin.

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 10:25 AM

So are Sony/HP/Acer etc burning their children or putting their body parts on Ebay to fund <£1k BD drivers - or is Steve Jobs just lying.

I know what I think.

The most ridiculous demands are the demands made on Mac users when paying for hardware at a 50% margin.

Sony INVENTED the tech...

And I don't get it.

The margins are no more than 30%.

Umbongo

Dec 24, 2008, 10:35 AM

So are Sony/HP/Acer etc burning their children or putting their body parts on Ebay to fund <£1k BD drivers - or is Steve Jobs just lying.

I know what I think.

The most ridiculous demands are the demands made on Mac users when paying for hardware at a 50% margin.

The issue isn't hardware prices. Apple have to pay for Blu-Ray licensing on OSX. Those companies don't have that cost.

tom844

Dec 24, 2008, 10:41 AM

Sony INVENTED the tech...

And I don't get it.

The margins are no more than 30%.

No, Sony didn't. Not by itself anyway.

A guy named Shuji Nakamura invented the blue laser used in the technology (even though Sony tried and failed).

There are 17 companies that hold IP to the BluRay technology.

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 10:43 AM

There are 17 companies that hold IP to the BluRay technology.

So how many are shipping the tech that weren't part of the creation?

pwille

Dec 24, 2008, 10:53 AM

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 10:56 AM

Is there any rumor as to the speed bump (both CPU and GPU) from the current 3.06GHz iMac and the future rumored iMac? Trying to figure out if its worth buying the refurbed 3.06 with NVIDIA GPU at $1899 or not.

The CPU won't be bumped, since they're already at "Montevina" speeds. The GPU should get somewhat better. Barely, but somewhat.

pwille

Dec 24, 2008, 10:58 AM

The CPU won't be bumped, since they're already at "Montevina" speeds. The GPU should get somewhat better. Barely, but somewhat.

That's what I figured as well. At $1899, it seems like a decent price, but I'm sure the same/similar config will come down a bit in price, don't you think? Should be an interesting MacWorld either way.

agentmouthwash

Dec 24, 2008, 11:37 AM

most of the people I know including myself don't want Blu-ray.

I have over 1000 DVDs. I dont buy them anymore and I am not about to replace my entire collection with blu-ray discs. I watch Netflix on my xbox 360 or I get netflix in the mail.

I don't care about blu-ray.

Neither does apple. They want you to own an itv and buy or rent movies from itunes.

I don't understand why none of you get this....

Mackilroy

Dec 24, 2008, 11:41 AM

I don't understand why none of you get this....
You may not understand it, but some people want Blu-Ray for reasons besides watching movies. They have their needs, you have yours. Why be so snippish about it?

agentmouthwash

Dec 24, 2008, 11:52 AM

You may not understand it, but some people want Blu-Ray for reasons besides watching movies. They have their needs, you have yours. Why be so snippish about it?

what other reasons? I am not being "snippish" I am just confirming what Job's said "Bag of hurt" Apple clearly has no desire to put Blu-ray in their computers.

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 11:53 AM

what other reasons? I am not being "snippish" I am just confirming what Job's said "Bag of hurt" Apple clearly has no desire to put Blu-ray in their computers.

DATA BACKUPS.

Or maybe you'd lose 50 gigs of data and not bat an eyelash.

farmboy

Dec 24, 2008, 12:22 PM

I wish that we could see something like this iMac with a see through screen. It is obviously fake and would never happen, but that would be a cool design for the future. This is what the actual 20-in iMac that is coming out should have:
-2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
-2GB memory
-320GB HD
-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 256MB memory
-$1099

With all the ridiculous, endless bitching about the slightly transparent menu bar in Leopard you think a semi-transparent screen will be forthcoming? It is not only not cool, it's retarded.

iMacmatician

Dec 24, 2008, 12:27 PM

Is there any rumor as to the speed bump (both CPU and GPU) from the current 3.06GHz iMac and the future rumored iMac? Trying to figure out if its worth buying the refurbed 3.06 with NVIDIA GPU at $1899 or not.There will probably be a 133 MHz speed bump, assuming they stay at mobile dual-core. That would bring the 3.2 GHz version to 55 W, just like the current 3.07 GHz version.

DATA BACKUPS.

Or maybe you'd lose 50 gigs of data and not bat an eyelash.External HDs.

MrZebra

Dec 24, 2008, 12:34 PM

External HDs.

That can fail just like your primary hard disk.

Shiner

Dec 24, 2008, 01:08 PM

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 01:14 PM

That can fail just like your primary hard disk.

And Blu-ray disks can be scratched, instantly ruining everything on them.

Blu-ray is an unnecessary addition.

saisrujan

Dec 24, 2008, 01:55 PM

DATA BACKUPS.

That can fail just like your primary hard disk.

And Blu-ray disks can be scratched, instantly ruining everything on them.

Time Capsule!

Tightly integrated and automated backups with OS X, add as much capacity, security and reliability as you want (It might be possible to hook up a RAID system through USB if I am not wrong).

We consumers want everything under the sun in our Mac. Don't we? :)

djellison

Dec 24, 2008, 01:55 PM

what other reasons? I am not being "snippish" I am just confirming what Job's said "Bag of hurt" Apple clearly has no desire to put Blu-ray in their computers.

Backing up 50 gig to a single optical disk. Yes please
Watching HD content. Yes please
Authoring HD content. Yes please.

Lots of reasons that I want a BD drive. You may not share them - but Apple can not suggest they are a 'Pro' platform if you can't master HD content.

Doug

NT1440

Dec 24, 2008, 01:57 PM

DATA BACKUPS.

Or maybe you'd lose 50 gigs of data and not bat an eyelash.

Apple wants you to use THEIR product, time machine, for backups.

wizard

Dec 24, 2008, 02:12 PM

Those polls are from MacRumors? I'd bet that the population is bit different in the "real world." Matted would be nice, but is unlikely. (Unfortunately.)

While I don't want to start an argument I have to agree that the comments in favor of matt screens are highly biased in the forums. I don't know how good Apples research on the subject is but I'm not really convinced that all of the so called professional want matt screens. Then you have the reality that if it is a problem you can simple put a matt coating or glare reduction screen over that glossy screen.

That is where we agree. Nvidia could have something in the works to bring i7, it's just highly unlikely.

I do disagree with it being unlikely, Nvidia will have to support Quickpath sooner or later. One could argue that the current 9400M would be a little low end for i7 but really it is all about timing. Also Quickpath implies that the integrated chipsets can drop some of it's internal logic. This means more room for GPU execution units or simply a lower power device. For Nvidia to stay around they need to support Quickpath sometime in the future, how soon in the future is the big question.

The addition of P.A Semi would make an interesting addition to this. However I'm hoping that the P.A Semi gains would be a little more than an i7 processor on the iMac.

I don't know what is up with PA Semi. Apple originally made allusions to PA making chips for iPods. This sounds reasonable as their would have been a huge payoff there. Then during all the legal wrangling with IBM over Papermaster they declare that PA was part of the Mac Division. Now it is one thing to make public declaration to throw off your competitors it is another thing to go into a court room and make statments that are misleading. It could very well be that PA is working on desktop hardware. Either that or Apple reorganized operations quickly when faced with IBMs Papermaster challenges. In any event it does bring into question just what PA is doing for Apple.

One thing Apple could do is to have PA team up with Nvidia to improve the I/O and other chipsets functions on the 9400M. PA did some interesting things with the integration of serial I/O on their PPC chips. Honestly though I'm not sure nvidia would be open to the idea of external IP in their integrated chipsets. So this comes back to us with the question of just what PA is doing for Apple. Are they working on desktop/laptop chips? If so what would the advantage be for Apple? If they aren't then what is holding up the 17 inch MBP replacement? What would be the advantage of PA working on an ARM SoC when Samsung could tie together all the little IP blocks themselves.

PA Semi is more of a mystery at Apple now then when they where first purchased. I just hope that they don't go the way of Racer and a lot of other Apple purchases.

Maybe a Tablet or unknown device.

Let's just call it an unkown device. In anyevent if it is an ARM based device I have to wonder why they just dont get Samsung to do the design? For most devices I could imagine all the functionality required can be found in existing IP blocks. So I fall back to what IP could Apple justify creating on it's own? For the small device class it is hard to say, on the otherhand Apple has a long history of making chipsets for it's desktop machines.

BTW- thank you for the correction.

The point is that you're not getting the full HD effect. You paid for it, why not expect it?

The biggest problem with HD on Apples laptops is that density high enough for HD movies is to high for app use. At least for many of us old folks ;). Support for HD will be more exceptable when resolution independencevactually makes to Mac OS.

In other words I agree that you should get the full resolution if you want to play a movie. I just don't want to see regular app usage suffer.

Dave

PuckDaddy

Dec 24, 2008, 02:24 PM

Dear Santa,

I'd like to see
24" LED display
2.66 Core2Quad Q9400 / 2.83 Core2Quad Q9550 (12mb / L2)
4gb DDR3 Ram (up to 8gb)
500gb 7200rpm HDD (up to 1gb)
nVidia GeForce 9600M GT (512) + GeForce 9600M GT (512MB) w/ MiniDisplayPort or HDMI out for Dual-Link with new 24" Cinema Display
ExpressCard /34
-- and / or -
1 eSata
1 Firewire 800
4 USB ports
SDHC / MMC memory card reader

Options:
Blu-Ray, I don't think it's a necessary option, but at least gives those who might want it (crippled or not), let them have it. My argument for using it as a backup is defeatable if a fast transport is available like eSata (which I'm a big fan of seeing added, especially if Firewire is removed)

MrZebra

Dec 24, 2008, 02:29 PM

And Blu-ray disks can be scratched, instantly ruining everything on them.

Yes, but while I can prevent from scratches the DVDs I use for extremely important backups by paying attention, there's nothing I can do to keep my time capsule from failing.

An integrated BD writer would be very handy for me, even though it's not something I can't live without.

NT1440

Dec 24, 2008, 02:35 PM

Yes, but while I can prevent from scratches the DVDs I use for extremely important backups by paying attention, there's nothing I can do to keep my time capsule from failing.

An integrated BD writer would be very handy for me, even though it's not something I can't live without.
Just asking, but does anyone have any data on the average failure rate across the board for HD's right now?

Tallest Skil

Dec 24, 2008, 02:36 PM

Just asking, but does anyone have any data on the average failure rate across the board for HD's right now?

The 160MB HDD in my LC 575 that we bought in 1994 hasn't failed. HDD failures are zero to none.

Except for the Seagate 1.5TB. That thing is a worthless piece of...

fleshman03

Dec 24, 2008, 02:38 PM

Then he is ignorant as to the wants and needs of his customers.

Oh no he didn't. haha :rolleyes:

NT1440

Dec 24, 2008, 02:40 PM

The 160MB HDD in my LC 575 that we bought in 1994 hasn't failed. HDD failures are zero to none.

Except for the Seagate 1.5TB. That thing is a worthless piece of...

lol, thats what Im saying tho. There are certain drives that fail more often than others, i was just wondering if there have been any statistics done on the average fail rate. I know its low, and having a backup drive kinda protects you almost entirely, but some people always live with the "just in case" mentality. Not necessarily a bad thing.

MrZebra

Dec 24, 2008, 02:41 PM

Just asking, but does anyone have any data on the average failure rate across the board for HD's right now?

That's a good question and I have the impression that it's not such a widespread problem but if you use your machine to make a living you surely wouldn't want that to happen to you, right? ;)
Actually my point isn't about the necessity of BD in the new iMacs, I was just responding to the user who pointed out the HDD solution for backups. Of course I already use them but from work I got this habit to use DVDs to back up as I feel much more confortable this way, and I think that the BD drive option would be very useful to me.
If it won't be added then I'll be fine anyway.

MrZebra

Dec 24, 2008, 02:42 PM

some people always live with the "just in case" mentality.

Oh, I can relate to that :D

NT1440

Dec 24, 2008, 02:43 PM

That's a good question and I have the impression that it's not such a widespread problem but if you use your machine to make a living you surely wouldn't want that to happen to you, right? ;)
Actually my point isn't about the necessity of BD in the new iMacs, I was just responding to the user who pointed out the HDD solution for backups. Of course I already use them but from work I got this habit to use DVDs to back up as I feel much more confortable this way, and I think that the BD drive option would be very useful to me.
If it won't be added then I'll be fine anyway.

Well really, what are the odds of both your internal HD and your external backup failing at the same time??

But yes, other than licensing, i dont really see a reason blu-ray shouldnt go into their desktops.

MrZebra

Dec 24, 2008, 02:46 PM

Well really, what are the odds of both your internal HD and your external backup failing at the same time??

But yes, other than licensing, i dont really see a reason blu-ray shouldnt go into their desktops.

Point taken ;)

wizard

Dec 24, 2008, 02:50 PM

Your fist point goes to what Wizard was saying; 'the intended audience', whereby i would want more cores as i run more apps at the same time.

By intended audience I'm think more about how Apple designs a machine and how they get to a performance level for a PC. Let's face it the vast majority of people buying computers don't know RAM from a Goat and would be shocked at having to figure out what processor counts or OpenCL support means to them.

The problem with Apple is that they market to two crowds. One crowd knows nothing about computers and just trusts Apple to sell them a machine that will do the job. The other is the Mac Pro power user crowd that is never happy with machine performance.

In between there are people, like you, that have good reason to want more processors in a reasonably priced machine. It is a very large group that Apple has not addressed well at all recently. Basically it is the group of users that would benefit from a machine with desktop chips and a bit of expandability.

However, most consumers would not. Apple does not give people like me a step between their home use desktop and their workstation.

Exactly. It is a group of people whom could truly benefit from somthing more than an iMac but less than a Mac Pro. It is the group of people that understand desktop systems and the demand that they place on them.

Your second point has be lost.

Looking at Nivida's site, i see your point! I played the dumb consumer and just glanced over the model number! :(

A GeForce 9800 GT would be the logical step forward.

Thanks

It is interesting that I see Snow Leopard and OpenCL driving what Apple considers to be a minimal system. The fact that Mac Book got a much better GPU, one that supports OpenCL, indicates to me that Apple has new expectations as to what is required to support their software properly in the future. It is in a way Apple defining what is required for the intended market. Since MB has never been about gaming the intended market is the modest user. Thus Apple is saying that the intended user class of the modest or novice user will need an OpenCL compliant machine in the near future. Notably this class of user has no idea what all of this means.

Dave

wizard

Dec 24, 2008, 02:59 PM

Just asking, but does anyone have any data on the average failure rate across the board for HD's right now?

it may be a year or two old now but Google once had a very detaled analizise of disk failures in their data centers. At least I think it was Google. If anybody should know about disk failures it would be them.

In any event there is always the risk of the interface causing " disk failures ". I've seen more than a couple examples of this myself.

Dave

iMacmatician

Dec 24, 2008, 03:01 PM

The biggest problem with HD on Apples laptops is that density high enough for HD movies is to high for app use. At least for many of us old folks ;). Support for HD will be more exceptable when resolution independencevactually makes to Mac OS.

In other words I agree that you should get the full resolution if you want to play a movie. I just don't want to see regular app usage suffer. I would like the option of a higher-resolution display. Actually, I'd rather like high-res displays as default with the option of a lower-resolution one.

djellison

Dec 24, 2008, 04:20 PM

HDD failures are zero to none.

You could not be more wrong, or more naive.

I work in a company that had 3 workstations. The HDD's on all three died. The replacements, all died. That was IBM Deskstar drivers for you. 6 out of 6 failures.

We have a large number of WD and Segate drives for video based projects. I would rate failures at about 1 in 20 across a sample of 60 or so drives.

Laptop drives - two failures, probably used 10 in my time.

HDD failures zero to none? Good luck.

djellison

Dec 24, 2008, 04:25 PM

Apple wants you to use THEIR product, time machine, for backups.

I don't. It's crap. I even bought a time capsule, and it's utterly unusable. If someone wants my 500gb Time Capsule - they can have it for £100 inc UK postage.

NT1440

Dec 24, 2008, 04:26 PM

I don't. It's crap. I even bought a time capsule, and it's utterly unusable. If someone wants my 500gb Time Capsule - they can have it for £100 inc UK postage.

I was just saying thats the reason its there. Apple thinks backups to disks is way too cumbersome for your average user so they introduced something easier.

What exactly is it you dont like about time machine. Also note that time capsule != time machine.

ddTaylor

Dec 24, 2008, 04:57 PM

Doy. Apple gives us what Steve wants in a product. Extrapolated from this, Steve doesn't listen to the radio, use voice dialing, or own a Blu-ray player. Deal with downloads; Apple isn't going to kill iTunes by offering Blu-ray.

Apple is not about to drop the ball on HD media. If you... ...DL... ...it is not the same nor as portable.

No, because the 1/1000 of a yoctogram that the electrons of a digital copy weigh are not as portable as a spinning disk. I realize that the download is on a hard drive, but it's just as portable; stop kidding yourself.

H. D. C. P.

Apple does not pay for that - the manufacturer of the hardware/software does and that price is passed on tot he consumer - so it is not a function of cost - to Apple. And what is more portable? A 128GB Flash Drive? Yes. A 250GB external HD? No. A small spinning BR disc? You bet! And with the disc the limitations hat can be imposed on portable media do not exist.

D

ddTaylor

Dec 24, 2008, 05:00 PM

Who's ignorant? Steve Jobs knows that BD is primarily for movies right now, and there are significant licensing fees involved. Royalties are paid far beyond the cost of the drive for the technology involved, and he's not willing to submit to the ridiculous demands that go along with it. Until we get a BD drive with no limitations, which means the licensing is worked out to his satisfaction, we're not going to get one at all.

jW

Funny how only the most high Steve has this problem, huh? What about the other companies that offer it as an option? Do they have those problems? The problems and fee structures are over-hyped to cover the ass of Apple. Period. Have you read the agreements for BR? I might suggest it. It would help you form an opinion more logically.

D

NT1440

Dec 24, 2008, 05:01 PM

Apple does not pay for that - the manufacturer of the hardware/software does and that price is passed on tot he consumer - so it is not a function of cost.

D
Who makes the software and hardware for macs.........

wizard

Dec 24, 2008, 05:53 PM

Funny how only the most high Steve has this problem, huh? What about the other companies that offer it as an option? Do they have those problems?

The other company would be MicroSoft. I'm not sure if SUN supports Blue- Ray or not, if they do that would imply joining the club and paying the fees. Besides those two who else has an interest in supporting Blu-Ray in their OS?

The problems and fee structures are over-hyped to cover the ass of Apple. Period. Have you read the agreements for BR?

Have you? Do you really think that playing in this club comes free of charge. Further do you really believe that MS plugged up their OS with overbearing D because they wanted to or for that matter the studios themselves have put significant restrictions on how their digital content can be delivered.

I might suggest it. It would help you form an opinion more logically.

D

The appearance of a lack of logic seems to be flowing in the other direction. Step back a moment and look at all the trouble iTunes goes through to sell digital music. All of that due to the content providers restricting the sales behaviour of iTunes and the way the content is delivered.

It is not like Steve Jobs or Apple in general want to be involved in excessive DRM but rather they have limited choices.

Dave