When are Apple going to properly update the iMac?

[*Mozart*]

Does anybody have any information on when Apple are going to launch a PROPERLY upgraded iMac? They've just announced a new version with some upgraded integrated graphics, more memory and storage, but when are we going to see an iMac with Quad-Core processing and Blue-Ray? Let's face it, this is what everyone is waiting/hoping for.

I've been waiting to buy a new 24" iMac for over a year - I've even got the money waiting in the bank! However I'm not going to buy until they properly refresh the range. We've seen the laptop range refreshed and the Mac Pro range upgraded, but they just seem to be dithering about a bit with the iMac. Why?

I actually looked at just going for a Mac Pro instead of waiting, but they are so much more expensive than an iMac I can't justify it. C'mon Apple - I love your product but am waiting for the REAL upgrade! Don't keep me waiting forever!

[munson]

I would also like to see an upgrade in the screens for the 20"

Doesn't really make much sense to me why you can't run 1900x1200 on a 20" iMac when you can on a 17" MBP. There is also a noticeable lack of quality when watching any darker videos, or things with lots of gradients/varying degrees of black.

At least they gave them the new graphics update finally.

[OldCorpse]

The mini update was great, but the iMac was a bust. The first thing they should have done is fix the damn screen! I mean, that's the one element you can't change, so it needs to be good - you can always swap out the hard drive, swap an optical drive (even blu ray one day), add memory and so on, but you're stuck with the screen. And the screen sucks big time, and they did NOTHING.

They need to go LED pronto! Like, yesterday! I refuse to buy this weak upgrade. What did they really improve - NOTHING.

My recommendation: AVOID THE iMac.

[Perfectionist]

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=663726 ;)

[RemarkabLee]

Does anybody have any information on when Apple are going to launch a PROPERLY upgraded iMac? They've just announced a new version with some upgraded integrated graphics, more memory and storage, but when are we going to see an iMac with Quad-Core processing and Blue-Ray? Let's face it, this is what everyone is waiting/hoping for.

I've been waiting to buy a new 24" iMac for over a year - I've even got the money waiting in the bank! However I'm not going to buy until they properly refresh the range. We've seen the laptop range refreshed and the Mac Pro range upgraded, but they just seem to be dithering about a bit with the iMac. Why?

I actually looked at just going for a Mac Pro instead of waiting, but they are so much more expensive than an iMac I can't justify it. C'mon Apple - I love your product but am waiting for the REAL upgrade! Don't keep me waiting forever!

If Apple could have released a quad core iMac and still be within the same heat envelope and at the same price point, they would have done it by now.

[RemarkabLee]

The mini update was great, but the iMac was a bust. The first thing they should have done is fix the damn screen! I mean, that's the one element you can't change, so it needs to be good - you can always swap out the hard drive, swap an optical drive (even blu ray one day), add memory and so on, but you're stuck with the screen. And the screen sucks big time, and they did NOTHING.

They need to go LED pronto! Like, yesterday! I refuse to buy this weak upgrade. What did they really improve - NOTHING.

My recommendation: AVOID THE iMac.

If they released an LED backlit iMac with a $300 premium, a LOT more people would have complained about the price.

[Dmac77]

If they released an LED backlit iMac with a $300 premium, a LOT more people would have complained about the price.

Exactly, people will always complain about something.

I don't think we'll be seeing any Mac with BR for quite awhile. And where not going to see a quad-core iMac until we see a quad-core MBP. The iMac is made of notebook parts after all (sans HDD).

Don

[Sebby]

Other than the price, I think it's a great machine. I was initially disappointed about the new ones not being LED backlit, but having read the opinions of some members that have both the ACD and iMac, it seems to be a non-issue. Quad core... Well it runs nice as it is. It would have been nice, but again, it's a non-issue. If you want the power, go for the Mac Pro. Like I say, the price is just a bit high, at least here in the UK, but hey, it's only money at the end of the day. :cool:

[Tallest Skil]

...Blue-Ray?

Just give it up. Seriously. We won't see this for half a decade. It will get here when/if it gets here.

[RemarkabLee]

The price of HDD storage for data storage and the sheer convenience of networked media players for the large screen TV... I really don't care either way if it comes to the Mac or not.

[zhenya]

The mini update was great, but the iMac was a bust. The first thing they should have done is fix the damn screen! I mean, that's the one element you can't change, so it needs to be good - you can always swap out the hard drive, swap an optical drive (even blu ray one day), add memory and so on, but you're stuck with the screen. And the screen sucks big time, and they did NOTHING.

They need to go LED pronto! Like, yesterday! I refuse to buy this weak upgrade. What did they really improve - NOTHING.

My recommendation: AVOID THE iMac.

While I was hoping that they would put LED screens in the new models, frankly there is NOTHING wrong with the 24" iMac screen. It's better than any screen I've ever seen for less than $800 - and the feedback we're hearing from people using them side-by-side with the new LED cinema display is that there is little difference - and the iMac screen might be a bit better. If you're holding off buying an iMac because it doesn't have an LED screen, the only one you are harming is yourself...

[MH01]

Just give it up. Seriously. We won't see this for half a decade. It will get here when/if it gets here.

I completely agree. This comes up every time Apple refreshes a product, they have their agenda so do not expect it soon.

[Sebby]

While I was hoping that they would put LED screens in the new models, frankly there is NOTHING wrong with the 24" iMac screen. It's better than any screen I've ever seen for less than $800 - and the feedback we're hearing from people using them side-by-side with the new LED cinema display is that there is little difference - and the iMac screen might be a bit better. If you're holding off buying an iMac because it doesn't have an LED screen, the only one you are harming is yourself...

I agree. :cool:

[HyperSnake]

Q3/Q4 2009 or Q1 2010. That is when mobile Nehalem processors come out and these are gonna kick butt! They'll probably be dual core since quad cores in laptops generates too much heat and take up too much space(you can google quad core laptops and you'll realize they are all 2"+ thick). If you are not familiar with what Nehalem is, I can tell you it is a new way of designing processors which greatly improves performance in many ways. Blu-Ray will be around 2013. That's just life.

[themoonisdown09]

The price of HDD storage for data storage and the sheer convenience of networked media players for the large screen TV... I really don't care either way if it comes to the Mac or not.

The problem with Blu-Ray not being in the Mac is that I can't rip Blu-Ray movies for my iPod. I recently got a HDTV and have been buying Blu-Ray instead of standard DVDs. I used to always rip the movie for my iPod so I can watch it during my lunch break at work, but I can't do that anymore.

I don't think I'll use Blu-Ray for storage seeing as I don't use DVDs or CDs that way, I just want to be able to play Blu-Rays and rip them on my Macs.

[RemarkabLee]

The problem with Blu-Ray not being in the Mac is that I can't rip Blu-Ray movies for my iPod. I recently got a HDTV and have been buying Blu-Ray instead of standard DVDs. I used to always rip the movie for my iPod so I can watch it during my lunch break at work, but I can't do that anymore.

I don't think I'll use Blu-Ray for storage seeing as I don't use DVDs or CDs that way, I just want to be able to play Blu-Rays and rip them on my Macs.

There are always exceptions, granted.

A work around would be, if you own the movie on Blu-Ray, you could arguably download an iPod ready version of the film from the Internet for free and not be worried about copyright?

[craig1410]

Does anybody have any information on when Apple are going to launch a PROPERLY upgraded iMac? They've just announced a new version with some upgraded integrated graphics, more memory and storage, but when are we going to see an iMac with Quad-Core processing and Blue-Ray? Let's face it, this is what everyone is waiting/hoping for.

I've been waiting to buy a new 24" iMac for over a year - I've even got the money waiting in the bank! However I'm not going to buy until they properly refresh the range. We've seen the laptop range refreshed and the Mac Pro range upgraded, but they just seem to be dithering about a bit with the iMac. Why?

I actually looked at just going for a Mac Pro instead of waiting, but they are so much more expensive than an iMac I can't justify it. C'mon Apple - I love your product but am waiting for the REAL upgrade! Don't keep me waiting forever!

If you've been waiting for over a year then you have let two upgrades pass you by. To me all that is happening is that you are missing out on a great computing experience with each passing day...

Quad core might come or it might not but, until Snow Leopard proves otherwise, 4 cores won't make much difference over 2 cores except in a few key, "multi-core friendly" applications. As for Blu-Ray, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it never comes to the Mac and the only company to blame is Sony for making licensing so complicated. I personally believe that broadband speeds are now at the point (in the UK at least) where downloaded content (SD and HD) is practical and this will only improve over the next few years. I for one have absolutely no intention of buying Blu-ray as I feel it would be a backward step from having all my media loaded onto a hard disk which is what I have now.

As for the comments someone made about the iMac screen being crap - nothing could be farther from the truth! The screen is gorgeous! And I say this as someone who never thought they could ever use a glossy display until I went to view the iMac prior to buying it... Some people just can't accept glossy displays ( I thought I was one of them) but after seeing it in the flesh I was sold on it.

So, in summary, now is as good a time as ever to buy an iMac. It is very unlikely to be upgraded in the near future (maybe same time next year) so if you want one then just buy it now - you won't regret it!

[Shivetya]

If Apple could have released a quad core iMac and still be within the same heat envelope and at the same price point, they would have done it by now.

Not really, Apple would do exactly as they have done to give those must have the latest/greatest something new to upgrade too.

Sorry, if Dell can use the chip without issue so can Apple. So it either is the chip sets they chose don't support it or they see future marketing potential.

Same goes for LED screens... future market opportunity, why use your cards now when you know the same people will buy yet again? It makes financial sense when you have an easily exploitable customer base.

[DarkRyan323i]

You've been waiting over a year??

I waited since I got my tax return back (maybe a few weeks) and I was already getting antsy! What do you need the computer for? I got the low-end 24" and I think it's a great deal for the larger screen size! Factor in the education discount and its much less that a 20" would have cost me with similar specs before the update. :)

[iamthedudeman]

I would also like to see an upgrade in the screens for the 20"

Doesn't really make much sense to me why you can't run 1900x1200 on a 20" iMac when you can on a 17" MBP. There is also a noticeable lack of quality when watching any darker videos, or things with lots of gradients/varying degrees of black.

At least they gave them the new graphics update finally.

Actually they did upgrade the screens. New screen model numbers. Different screens entirely. The 09 models display millions of colors without dithering.
The screens your talking about was along time ago. Even the late 08 models have the fixed screens. The 09 models have sharp colors and the brightness is also fixed. Can't tell the difference other than size on my 09 24 at work and my 20 at home other than the size.

[Aegelward]

LG are manufacturing e-IPS displays now, i have a dell 2209W that uses one and it looks great. apple might even be able to bring down the average cost of the iMac if they decide to start using these, as well as upgrade the screen in the 20" iMac cost effectively.

The only really 'modern' feature an imac is missing is ESATA, it seems to be the new standard which apple is sourly missing out on, unless they are banking on USB 3.0

Personally i rather get a pro right now.

[The Hammer]

The 09 models display millions of colors without dithering.
That's not what I'm reading in reviews. I hope the magazine reviewers are wrong and that you are correct.

[RemarkabLee]

LG are manufacturing e-IPS displays now, i have a dell 2209W that uses one and it looks great. apple might even be able to bring down the average cost of the iMac if they decide to start using these, as well as upgrade the screen in the 20" iMac cost effectively.

The only really 'modern' feature an imac is missing is ESATA, it seems to be the new standard which apple is sourly missing out on, unless they are banking on USB 3.0

Personally i rather get a pro right now.

If the recent iMac had eSATA I may not have felt the need to get a Mac Pro so much.... Storage bandwidth was a concern.

[RemarkabLee]

Actually they did upgrade the screens. New screen model numbers. Different screens entirely. The 09 models display millions of colors without dithering.
The screens your talking about was along time ago. Even the late 08 models have the fixed screens. The 09 models have sharp colors and the brightness is also fixed. Can't tell the difference other than size on my 09 24 at work and my 20 at home other than the size.

The 20" is still the 6bit+DFC TN panel with the reduced viewing angle, so objectively they are quite a bit different to the 8bit IPS panel of the 24". It may be an improved DFC, but its not true 24.7 million colours that an 8bit panel can produce.

[jmpage2]

As for Blu-Ray, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it never comes to the Mac and the only company to blame is Sony for making licensing so complicated.

They have just simplified licensing. All licensing is now handled by a 3rd party company, and a single fee, something like $35.

Don't blame Sony when Apples real motivation for not adopting blu-ray is that they want to sell more downloads.

[Lexlee]

As for the comments someone made about the iMac screen being crap - nothing could be farther from the truth! The screen is gorgeous! And I say this as someone who never thought they could ever use a glossy display until I went to view the iMac prior to buying it... Some people just can't accept glossy displays ( I thought I was one of them) but after seeing it in the flesh I was sold on it.

So, in summary, now is as good a time as ever to buy an iMac. It is very unlikely to be upgraded in the near future (maybe same time next year) so if you want one then just buy it now - you won't regret it!

I laughed out loud when I read that my 24' iMac screen was crap. I just walked through Best Buy and thought how much more gorgeous my screen was then the majority of other monitors.

The average consumer like me does not need Quad Core. I can rip a dvd with handbrake, watch a movie on iTunes, have Hulu full screen, mail app, safari and firefox, VLC, and video chat all at the same time with out making my 24' iMac stutter. I did all this just to test the system and it's a beast.

[Mike in Kansas]

Guys - no need to get all defensive and uptight. This inflammatory post was the OP's first post on here and he has yet to reply. He's just out there to stir the pot, then step back and watch us all jump over ourselves trying to prove him wrong. Just move along...

[Lexlee]

Guys - no need to get all defensive and uptight. This inflammatory post was the OP's first post on here and he has yet to reply. He's just out there to stir the pot, then step back and watch us all jump over ourselves trying to prove him wrong. Just move along...

His post reminded me of Kramer from Mad Money explaing how he started Apple rumors to try and effect the price of the stock.

[belvdr]

Guys - no need to get all defensive and uptight.

Who is doing that? All I see are some opinions and comments.

[pinchy]

For some reason I thought the iMac display was the same as the ACD. Dang it! How do the two displays really compare?

[Lexlee]

For some reason I thought the iMac display was the same as the ACD. Dang it! How do the two displays really compare?

I went to my local Bestbuy and played with every Mac in the store. I was blown away by the 24' iMac screen. I would find some place to test out the machine before you laid any money down. You can't go by these forums. Most people around here have agendas that have little to do with the quality of Apple products.

[iMacmatician]

when are we going to see an iMac with Quad-Core processingEarly 2011. Earlier if we're lucky.

If Apple could have released a quad core iMac and still be within the same heat envelope and at the same price point, they would have done it by now.They'll probably be dual core since quad cores in laptops generates too much heat and take up too much space(you can google quad core laptops and you'll realize they are all 2"+ thick).Quad-cores are 45 W, cooler than the previous iMac's 3.07 GHz dual-core (55 W). And while the 2.27 GHz and 2.53 GHz versions are expensive ($851, $1038), the 2.0 GHz version is only $348, cheaper than a few dual-cores.

For comparison, the CPUs the iMac is using are 2.67 GHz ($316 for 35 W, $348 for 25 W), 2.93 GHz ($530), and 3.07 GHz ($851). (I don't know if they're using the 25 W CPUs or the 35 W ones.)

I think that if Apple really wanted to put quad-core in the iMacs, they would have upgraded the cooling for the 65 W desktop CPUs, or used the mobile ones even as options. But it almost seems like they're holding off on quad-cores for the consumer segments for as long as possible - hence my "early 2011" prediction. Snow Leopard might change things, but as my signature says, I won't be optimistic on that (for now).

If I went slightly more optimistic, I might say quad-core iMacs with 32 nm versions of Clarksfield in mid-2010. :)

[Whackintosh]

I went to my local Bestbuy and played with every Mac in the store. I was blown away by the 24' iMac screen. I would find some place to test out the machine before you laid any money down. You can't go by these forums. Most people around here have agendas that have little to do with the quality of Apple products.

The 24 inch Imacs have beautiful screens, but I do find the LED ACD screen is even more impressive. In all likelihood, calibration can make them both look close enough to one another that the differences shouldn't be deal breakers.

[RemarkabLee]

Early 2011. Earlier if we're lucky.

Quad-cores are 45 W, cooler than the previous iMac's 3.07 GHz dual-core (55 W). And while the 2.27 GHz and 2.53 GHz versions are expensive, the 2.0 GHz version is only $348, cheaper than a few dual-cores.

I think that if Apple really wanted to put quad-core in the iMacs, they would have upgraded the cooling for the 65 W desktop CPUs, or used the mobile ones at least as options. But it almost seems like they're holding off on quad-cores for the consumer segments for as long as possible - hence my "early 2011" prediction. Snow Leopard might change things, but as my signature says, I won't be optimistic on that (for now).

If I went slightly more optimistic, I might say quad-core iMacs with 32 nm versions of Clarksfield in mid-2010. :)

Perhaps they are waiting to replace the entire consumer range with quad cores so it will be easier for consumers to get a relative understanding of performance by looking at the GHz number alone.

[iMacmatician]

Perhaps they are waiting to replace the entire consumer range with quad cores so it will be easier for consumers to get a relative understanding of performance by looking at the GHz number alone.Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know if I've posted this before, but I think that by 2011, quad-cores will be cheap enough and each core will have enough performance (probably 2.0 GHz is too slow) for Apple to get them into all the iMacs, and they'll do one big change then.

But I just realized that the 2.67 GHz dual-cores are already $3xx. Maybe it's because of the big gap in price between the 2.0 GHz and 2.27 GHz, most of the line would be 2.0 GHz.

Hopefully the 32 nm Clarksfield will help here.

[RemarkabLee]

Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know if I've posted this before, but I think that by 2011, quad-cores will be cheap enough for Apple to get them into all the iMacs, and they'll do one big change then.

But I just realized that the 2.53/2.67 GHz dual-cores are already $3xx. Maybe Apple is getting discounts on the 2.53 GHz? :confused: (The 2.0 GHz in the 2007 iMacs was $241.)

I guess they'll need to sort out any cooling issues on the Macbook range first and then follow up with the Mac mini and iMac. Consumers will invariably compare the performance between the two so they'll want to make the switch as close together as possible. 2011 is a long way off though, by then I'd have thought Corei7 in the consumer range!

I'm sure Intel would want this new tech out as soon as possible to distance themselves away from AMD.

[iMacmatician]

I guess they'll need to sort out any cooling issues on the Macbook range first and then follow up with the Mac mini and iMac. Consumers will invariably compare the performance between the two so they'll want to make the switch as close together as possible. 2011 is a long way off though, by then I'd have thought Corei7 in the consumer range!

I'm sure Intel would want this new tech out as soon as possible to distance themselves away from AMD.First of all sorry for the edits, I keep having to clarify/correct myself.

I agree with the MacBook comparison in that when it first got dual-core, its clock speeds were the same as the iMac's (to the surprise of many).

Core i7 is for the high-end desktop market, if you meant Nehalem, then it'll be here in Q3 2009 for mobile quad-core (Clarksfield, 45 nm) and Q4 2009 for mobile dual-core (Arrandale, 32 nm). But the thing is that Clarksfield doesn't seem to help (much) in price or TDP compared to quad-core Penryn. The lowest-end Clarksfield will reduce its TDP by 10 W, although that would probably make it more expensive if anything. I'm hoping the 32 nm shrink of it will help with both prices and TDPs, opening the door to quad-core iMacs and MacBook Pros. My guess of 2011 is on the pessimistic side.

I think that if the MacBook can handle 35 W (currently it uses 25 W), the switch would be fairly close together. If it can only handle 25 W, then who knows.

[TTTT]

What is really needed ia a lower end machine in the Mac Pro Line
with fewer features. This would allow the use of quad core NON-MOBILE processors which are readily available, and allow power gamers, and animators, such as myself a good machine they could actually afford to buy.
Apple is also hurting their business market by failing to meet the needs of the mid-level user who needs customization without a workstation price.

Pricing could be shaved by using a smaller tower, one network card, fewer drive bays and ports, but allow for upgradeable video. Price it around 1700, with no monitor and you have a machine that can be customized and upgraded(..how big will the displays get in two years??) and also keeps the machine usable for longer and doesn't put the machine in the landfill when the display tanks.

[jessica.]

What is really needed ia a lower end machine in the Mac Pro Line
with fewer features. This would allow the use of quad core NON-MOBILE processors which are readily available, and allow power gamers, and animators, such as myself a good machine they could actually afford to buy.
Apple is also hurting their business market by failing to meet the needs of the mid-level user who needs customization without a workstation price.

Pricing could be shaved by using a smaller tower, one network card, fewer drive bays and ports, but allow for upgradeable video. Price it around 1700, with no monitor and you have a machine that can be customized and upgraded(..how big will the displays get in two years??) and also keeps the machine usable for longer and doesn't put the machine in the landfill when the display tanks.
You're never going to get a smaller tower. Sorry, but between the iMac and Mini I'm pretty sure Apple thinks they have it nailed.

[TTTT]

I don't think it's likely either, but I think the people complaining the most about the new imacs are gamers and people who I would classify as pro-sumers, or small-medium enterprise users, who actually know the hardware in the imac they are not buying belongs in a laptop. Apple seems to have made the decision a long time ago not to give their customers that choice. I just think they are wrong, imho.

[jessica.]

I don't think it's likely either, but I think the people complaining the most about the new imacs are gamers and people who I would classify as pro-sumers, or small-medium enterprise users, who actually know the hardware in the imac they are not buying belongs in a laptop. Apple seems to have made the decision a long time ago not to give their customers that choice. I just think they are wrong, imho.

Sorry but even though I am a mac user at home I still believe a PC (aside from PS3 and Xbox) is where it is at for gaming. I know ... flame away.

[TTTT]

I agree, the PC has an edge on gaming right now. I'd have to pay the price for a workstation to get a serious gaming machine on the mac. Personally, I'm into 3D animation not gaming, but the needs are similar, we both need good graphics, and processor speed and I think a moderately priced desktop box or tower would fill a lot of needs. A lot of design companies I deal with have complained that they want more flexible machines but don't have the budget for Mac Pros