Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Vigan, I can't really speak for your situation, but I think I am going to go ahead and spring for the iMac now rather than wait. There really is no point in waiting. They are currently pretty powerful and can play most games anyway. The refresh will only be minimal changes (maybe a more powerful GPU and slightly better processor).

The benefit of now rather than later outweighs an cons of buying it now and wishing you had waited. I really think you will be satisfied either way.
 
Vigan, I can't really speak for your situation, but I think I am going to go ahead and spring for the iMac now rather than wait. There really is no point in waiting. They are currently pretty powerful and can play most games anyway. The refresh will only be minimal changes (maybe a more powerful GPU and slightly better processor).

The benefit of now rather than later outweighs an cons of buying it now and wishing you had waited. I really think you will be satisfied either way.

thanks for your advice man, im going to atleast wait till the macbooks come out and see what the imac rumor is by then.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest a new yearly release schedule for apple products:

Macbook Pro: March
iPad: April
Mac Mini: May
iPhone: June
iMac: July
iPods: September

Does that sound reasonable, logical or bone ideal and just plane stupid :eek:

Note that the things don't have to be that evenly spread out over the months. Apple will probably update the iMacs earlier than July, maybe alongside the Mac Minis. I'd actually guess BY May for all of the computers in your list. Mac Pros, of course, will have to wait till almost year end. The iPad, iPhone, and iPod date predictions are pretty safe, though the iPad might come a little bit earlier just so Apple can fight off the competition.
 
I was thinking the same when ordering mine. The fact turned out to be that the videocard isn't powerful enough to display games at native res too well. If you buy the 27 inch and pay extra for a sucky videocard, and expect it to work with the latest games, you will get disappointed. The only games I wanted to be able to play well on the iMac is SC2 and wow. The iMac didn't do well, not even in win7. I've decided to upgrade my custom windows computer and get a new MBP instead. Returned the iMac yesterday.

Bottom line: The iMac is a powerful machine that gives good bang for the buck, but not if your daily uses require a powerful GPU. Wait if that's your case, trust me.
 
Yowch! Way to cut a man down. He'll be crying for weeks...

Nah. I have explained both of the points he wanted in that big post (post #26) ;) Both are possible but I don't want to create too much hype as its better to underestimate the update than get angry messages afterwards ("I waited 6 months for this iMac and all I got was a 5% better CPU you lier!") :p

As for the Mac, everything has depended on Intel's release cycle since the switch. So whenever Intel releases new CPUs, Apple is not far behind.

Not always. Arrandale CPUs were released in January but Apple did not update MBPs until April. With Mac Pros, the wait was even longer. CPUs were out in January and Mac Pros were updated in August. Usually Apple does not adopt new CPUs right when they are released, it often takes a couple of months.
 
I was thinking the same when ordering mine. The fact turned out to be that the videocard isn't powerful enough to display games at native res too well. If you buy the 27 inch and pay extra for a sucky videocard, and expect it to work with the latest games, you will get disappointed. The only games I wanted to be able to play well on the iMac is SC2 and wow. The iMac didn't do well, not even in win7. I've decided to upgrade my custom windows computer and get a new MBP instead. Returned the iMac yesterday.

Bottom line: The iMac is a powerful machine that gives good bang for the buck, but not if your daily uses require a powerful GPU. Wait if that's your case, trust me.

Spot on with this, either wait to see what Apple do with the a refresh (if it happens at all!) or buy a top end PC and hack it!
 
So are there any decent speculations on the release month as of today, or is it really just anyone's guess? I'm going to be purchasing one, but I am just fine with my Macbook for the next couple of months. I will NEED an iMac (or equivalent) in the spring (May), however. I'm going on my honeymoon in two weeks so for the next month I wouldn't even use the iMac if I purchased today (until mid-March).

Thanks for your input!
 
Last edited:
Ugh...!

Am I the only person who thinks that touchscreen computing in the home is a big fat pile of "so what?"...?!

It's an option man .. if you're not into touching your computer screen, you can neglect it and keep using your mouse/keyboard

For myself, I wish next iMac has:

1. HDMI in/out port .. along with audio
2. Integrated bluray drive, and playback support on OS X of course (it's almost impossible Apple implement bluray soon though :rolleyes: )
3. Touch screen, yes it has to be there, whether some of us don't want it .. along with OS X Lion on the way, which use some things from iOS ... then touch screen ability is mandatory for me

Apple TouchPad today is just lame, like a broken Wacom for me

4. The ability to upgrade GPU .. yes GPU, and if necessary, Apple can make their own version of GPU card, likewise .. sold separately ... give us option to upgrade our GPU in the future, it will make iMac lifespan extended twice, just like we upgrade memory slot
 
I believe the iMac (as others) will be more focused on the OS and it's integration with the iOS.

Hardware wise, the usual faster, thinner, awesomer stuff.

Normally I'd say we can't figure Steve and company out, but I think the biggest efforts are being applied to the OS than the physical design of MACs these days. But then again, when we think we've got them figured out, they go and wow us, again.

I bought my apple stock just as the first iPod was being launched. Since then I've watched with delight as the stock doubled, then split, then.... and along with this I've watched Steve and Co. reinvent how we use technology. Not just computers, but how we can't see living without things that start with "i".

I ended up on this thread because I'm thinking of getting an iMac to replace my macbook pro. I just love the looks of the iMac and its processing prowess, but not sure I want to sacrifice the portability of the macbook pro.
 
Please expand on what you mean by having ARM as a component and how it would be used.

Oh I have no idea. Either as the only processor chip in the iMac, or in conjunction with an intel chip. Maybe as a low power mode, that could boot into intel chips for heavier work.
I was never good with small details.

I just want a light, quick iMac for my parents
 
I ended up on this thread because I'm thinking of getting an iMac to replace my macbook pro. I just love the looks of the iMac and its processing prowess, but not sure I want to sacrifice the portability of the macbook pro.

same here.
 
For myself, I wish next iMac has:

1. HDMI in/out port .. along with audio
2. Integrated bluray drive, and playback support on OS X of course (it's almost impossible Apple implement bluray soon though :rolleyes: )
3. Touch screen, yes it has to be there, whether some of us don't want it .. along with OS X Lion on the way, which use some things from iOS ... then touch screen ability is mandatory for me

Apple TouchPad today is just lame, like a broken Wacom for me

4. The ability to upgrade GPU .. yes GPU, and if necessary, Apple can make their own version of GPU card, likewise .. sold separately ... give us option to upgrade our GPU in the future, it will make iMac lifespan extended twice, just like we upgrade memory slot

5. 3D ready without glasses.
 
Processor, memory, or GPU no doubt will be increased a bit
But if I were Steve Jobs, the most important thing i will add this year is Bluray support

What kind of PC today, which cost > $1000 and has OS that UNABLE to handle Bluray?

With today's Mac lineup, I could end up buying external bluray drive (another money) .. yet OSX not support bluray movie playback, so we had to use BootCamp, boot to ****** windows just to play bluray

Come on Steve, make Bluray your standard .. i'm sure you don't watch movies from iTunes when you're home, right? Movie? .. it's Bluray .. or not at all

Nope. Blu-ray is a sinking ship. It's not going to have anywhere near the popularity of DVD, ever. Streaming is the future. Sorry you're upset about your investment, but that's the way it is. Discs are slow, expensive, difficult to share, and a waste of physical space. Not to mention environmentally stupid.


I would like Blu ray in the next iMac. But, unfortunately, I can't see it happening - SJ wants the best profit; think about it:

No flash on iOS - so people have to buy games from the app store.
- so people can't watch free movies online, but have to buy from the iTunes store.

The lack of flash isn't about the money. Flash has been on Macs for years and years. Lack of flash is about Flash harming the end-user experience. It's a huge, unnecessary suck on resources. Have you ever tried comparing the processing resources watching the same video on YouTube (in h.264, no less) in HTML versus in Flash? It's ridiculous. How about the resources a Flash-based ad uses versus a non-Flash based ad? Or webpage?

iOS devices are industry leaders in battery life, which is a HUGE part of the user experience, and Flash utterly wrecks battery life. And if you really, really want Flash, you can use Skyfire, or jailbreak your phone.

Not to mention, you can play HTML-based games on the web anyway, or a host of free game apps that Apple makes nothing on. Your blindly cynical interpretation makes no sense.

No Blu ray - so people have to buy off iTunes for "HD" content (720p in 2011, on full HD or 2560x1440 displays, really?)

This is plainly ridiculous. You can get HD content on your Mac zillions of ways that Apple makes $0 on. Ever heard of Netflix? YouTube? Amazon? Vimeo? HD cameras? ABC, CBS, Hulu? Heck, Apple doesn't even do anything to prevent you from using torrents to download HD video illegally.

Also, re: your complaint about 720p in the iTunes Store: do you have any understanding of bandwidth at all?

No HDMI - so people can't connect a blu ray player; or a PS3, which can play blu ray movies.

The iMac CAN output HDMI. Just get the adapter. It's just not an HDMI INPUT device, because it's a computer, not a television.

I'm sorry for whatever caused your ridiculously cynical view of the world, but computers are not normally input devices. Just because Apple introduced a feature to allow its laptop owners to better connect to their premium consumer desktop doesn't mean they did it to screw you. Why is it every single time Apple introduces a feature, there's prosumers complaining that they didn't introduce three others along with it?

However, there are alternatives: link. It's cheap; but, only 720p. However, it's a compromise, you can plug in an external blu ray player, or a PS3, which can play blu ray disks.

Or, you can purchase this: link, which scales the 1080p input from the PS3 or blu ray player, to 2560x1440 (better quality); but, it's more expensive. A game with med textures, running a 720p, on a full HD monitor, looks worse than a game with low textures, running at 1080p - on a 1080p monitor[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Because they won't sell them for less than the retail price. How come building a PC is cheaper than buying an OEM PC with the same specs? With your logic, OEMs pay so little for the parts so they should be able to to sell them for much cheaper. In reality, they don't.

OEMs need to make profit and that can only be achieved by selling the parts for higher price than you bought them for. No matter how much Apple likes SSD, they won't opt for them if it means a big loss in profit. The only thing they care about is profit. Currently, SSDs are expensive which means Apple would have to cut down their profits in order to provide decent capacities. That's not gonna happen.



You have talked crap in the past, so why should I believe you? This isn't the first time I hear someone saying he works in this field so he can win the argument. If you really knew about the future pricing of SSDs, you wouldn't come here and tell it because that is information you are not allowed to share. Besides, nobody knows how much an SSD will cost next year. You are just guessing, nothing else.

Furthermore, I know some people here in MR who really work or have worked for companies such as Intel. Their posts actually make sense. They don't justify their points by saying "I work in this field so I am always right". They can provide good, technical reasons why or why not something will happen. If you really work in this field, then I guess you can provide a detailed technical answer why you think 1TB SSD will be 600$ in 2012 and why Apple will use only flash memory, and not just "because Apple loves NAND" answer.

OEMs need to make profit and that can only be achieved by selling the parts for higher price than you bought them for.



If you really knew about the future pricing of SSDs, you wouldn't come here and tell it because that is information you are not allowed to share. Besides, nobody knows how much an SSD will cost next year. You are just guessing, nothing else.

I have talked crap in the past? Looks who's talking.:eek:

No one can know the future, we can only use projected prices based on current market conditions, such as vendor shipments, supplier sales and output, raw materials being sold etc. I have explained this to you on why nand flash prices would fall. Just guessing right. :rolleyes:

Stating your opinion as fact again. Really. Most OEMs don't make much on their hardware at all. Yes they make a profit, not a huge profit. They make their profits on products and services that they provide and sell in volume to make a profit. Not a huge profit on each product.

Here build this PC with windows installed and all with comparable software and a two year warranty to go with it. And do it with a large profit margin.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/product/rts_desktop/rts_desktop/1/storefronts/BM429AA%23ABA

I guess you can provide a detailed technical answer why you think 1TB SSD will be 600$ in 2012 and why Apple will use only flash memory, and not just "because Apple loves NAND" answer.[/QUOTE]


I did in my last post in detail.Of why the nand flash market was static over the last two years, and why the current and future markets will be better price wise on nand flash.

I justified all my points in detail in my last post(139) on why nand flash prices would fall, why they did not over the last two years. You just chose not to read them.

I am talking parts. OEM vendors can pay more for one part and save on others. The manufacturing process can be streamlined, product design can be budgeted, they can save on materials, buy more volume to save capital as Apple just did buying LCD's. 3.4Billion worth. There are many ways to save money. If you can understand this I can't help you. I explained this 'again' in my last post. Nor did I say Apple will invest in 'SSD's purely. But in nand flash.

I said they will likely go with a hybrid approach with nand flash. Most likely on the Mobo ala Mac Book Air in the near term. And sooner than most think. And all nand flash in the longer term. No later than 2012.

And no they do not have to sell them for more and they can pay more for one part and sell the product for the same price if they save on the above mentioned. I explained this to you already. Twice.



Never did I say I "work in this field and I am always right".

I don't care if you believe me or not. And no I have no interest in arguing with you at all nor do I care to.

You have no idea who I am or what I know or do not know. My firm deals mostly in the mobile arena such as smartphones, tablets, networking, etc. Not in laptops or PC's or even iMacs for that matter. I don't know about the imacs any more than you or anyone else. But I do know the nand flash market quite well. And some of the parts Apple uses such as nand flash.And how companies make a profit and get their margins.
 
Last edited:
My current iMac is the 24" 2008 version. *It's coming up to 3 years of age and I really do need to update now. *I run my iMac on simutaniously on my Plasma TV for Home Threatre purposes, and it's starting to struggle especially when displaying HD content on the 2nd display.

I would like to get the i7 version, but currently it seems just a little too expensive.
Hopefully when it gets refreshed the price should come down, or at least we should get better value for money. *
For e.g - i would expect 8GB ram as standard, for the amount im paying.
It would also not make sense for the macbook airs to be able to boot faster than the new iMacs. *
A small SSD for boot purposes would be amazing. *Basically the less beach balls the better!
I would also like the video input issues to be sorted.

Im hopeful of a March release date, but the distinct lack of evidence says differently. *The longest I could hold out for would be until May.
It just feels like the iMac's are now at the back of the queue in apple's priorities. *Its all mobile focused now which is maybe why we'll have to wait a little longer for the refresh.

Im not sure if it's just because it was the 1st Mac i bought, but it will be a sad day when I finally retire my current iMac :(
 
Nope. Blu-ray is a sinking ship. It's not going to have anywhere near the popularity of DVD, ever. Streaming is the future. Sorry you're upset about your investment, but that's the way it is. Discs are slow, expensive, difficult to share, and a waste of physical space. Not to mention environmentally stupid. The difference between a 720p and 1080p video on a large TV, is obvious.

Can you fit a 720p movie on a DVD? No
Can you fit a 1080p movie on a blu ray disk? Yes

To tell you the truth, I don't care if you cannot see the difference between a standard DVD, and 1080p; and even the "amazing" 720p available on netflix. Lets say you bought a subscription for netfix, and you go to your friends house, to watch it. What happens if they have a slow internet connection? Or, no internet connection? (If your TV's downstairs and router upstairs). Or, a TV with no wi-fi on it?

Until I can stream 1080p video, and every TV has wifi; I won't start streaming. Put it this way, I can go to pretty much anyone's house and watch a movie with them, using a DVD. Only the small majority have a wifi enabled TV.

What do you do when you want to listen to music in the car? DO you stream it (joke)? No. You put it on a CD.


The lack of flash isn't about the money. Flash has been on Macs for years and years. That's because it's not Apple's choice, until the only place you can download content from is the app store Lack of flash is about Flash harming the end-user experience. ... AND (not instead) so Apple doesn't lose sales. It's a huge, unnecessary suck on resources. Flash is getting better Have you ever tried comparing the processing resources watching the same video on YouTube (in h.264, no less) in HTML versus in Flash? I sometimes see videos that I want to see; I don't want to boot up my computer, just to see that video. It's ridiculous. How about the resources a Flash-based ad uses versus a non-Flash based ad? Or webpage?

iOS devices are industry leaders in battery life, which is a HUGE part of the user experience, and Flash utterly wrecks battery life. Give the user a choice, and then the user can make up *their* mind, if they want to view that 10 minute video on the internet. And if you really, really want Flash, you can use Skyfire, It works, on some sites - but barely or jailbreak your phone. Frash doesn't work on videos.

Not to mention, you can play HTML-based games on the web anyway, or a host of free game apps that Apple makes nothing on. Your blindly cynical interpretation makes no sense. Why does my interpretation make no sense? Would you work for no money? No. Unless you're a 11 year old, who is highly stuck. Steve Jobs wants money, and if you can't see that, then you're effectively controlled by him. He introduced the Mac App Store, so that people can buy apps of their, not from other sources.


This is plainly ridiculous. You can get HD content on your Mac zillions of ways that Apple makes $0 on. Ever heard of Netflix? YouTube? Amazon? Vimeo? HD cameras? ABC, CBS, Hulu? Who do you trust, if you were new to computers: Apple or a random company on the internet?

Heck, Apple doesn't even do anything to prevent you from using torrents to download HD video illegally. Only a matter of time - you can't get uTorrent from the Mac App Store.

Also, re: your complaint about 720p in the iTunes Store: do you have any understanding of bandwidth at all? Yes, I do.That's the point! I can't get full HD from iTunes, because of bandwidth issue. However, I can get full HD, with great sound, from blockbusters.


The iMac CAN output HDMI. Just get the adapter. It's just not an HDMI INPUT device, because it's a computer, not a television. More money for Apple.

I'm sorry for whatever caused your ridiculously cynical view of the world, but computers are not normally input devices. Just because Apple introduced a feature to allow its laptop owners to better connect to their premium consumer desktop doesn't mean they did it to screw you. Why is it every single time Apple introduces a feature, there's prosumers complaining that they didn't introduce three others along with it? You don't see the negative points, and I'm showing them to you. Streaming may be the future, but it certainly isn't the present. You, obviously, have no interest in the difference in sound quality and picture quality, when it comes to iTunes 720p and full HD, on blu ray disks. You're so trapped in a congested environment, that the logical differences between streaming and BD; that you don't see the negatives. (I see the positives to streaming, but I like quality and I, also, see that Apple wants money, not the best for the customers [flash]).
.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.