23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[Manic Mouse]

Gald to see I'm not the only one touting Conroe as the only SANE choice for the new iMacs.

I don't understand why some of you are saying "I want Merom and a crappy GPU". Do you like being ripped off or something? Do you like paying lots of hard earned cash for a "desktop" that is so utterly pathetic compared to what every other PC manufaturer will be offering?

 

[sigamy]

To all of you complaining that the iMac is too little and the Mac Pro is too much:

How many of you purchased the single proc 1.6Ghz Power Mac G5 when it was available? That's what I though. I'm sure the list of excuses is coming...

Apple will probably introduce a single proc Mac Pro in 6 months. Please, for the love of god, buy that machine. Tell all these millions of gamers to buy that machine. Then we can see Apple's market share can double like you've all been claiming it will.

 

[50548]

Sooo... Speculating that Apple does really go with Merom:

- They are plain stupid
- They want to be differant
- Unlike most of us they have actually tested a Conroe inside an iMac and found that it generates too much heat to make silent enough

Which one would you guess?



I don't find an x1900 to be an "all around" videocard, and would definatly not want anything that hot inside my imac. Remember how thin this machine is, and it's clear there would be no way on earth to silently cool down a Conroe AND an x1900 in it, especially when it seems they are not even managing to cool the Conroe sufficiently enough to use it.

Thanks for the heads up...but unfortunately some of the participants in this forum still prefer big beige boxes...so they don't really care about design, footprint or bulkiness. They see a new GPU out there and presume: "oh, now THIS is the best card, we need it"...without having any idea about the real gaming/usage needs of 99% of the market.

They just follow the crazy path of ATi/nVidia with a thousand different numbers...who knows the difference between a blablabla X1900XTX and blablabla X1900GT? Go figure, people.

 

[vendettabass]

white & matte black imacs please!! (& ipods ;-)) keep the aluminium finish for the pro's & ACD's.

:-D bring on the 12th

 

[50548]

I am saddened after reading your post.

I have NEVER owned a Windows computer. Neither have my parents. My family has owned an old Apple IIe, and an LC. I have had an LC2, and of course my Cube. My parents have a black G3 Powerbook each, and my dad presently uses a 17" G4 Powerbook bought by the school he works at.

Look, Erasmus...an iMac is an AIO COMPUTER..! It's NOT designed for upgrading of chips...get over it.

99% of the world doesn't care about that, and even my iMac G5 is MORE than enough for most games. Apple must care about 99% of the world, not a few gaming geeks coming from the Winblows world with the Frankenstein machines...sorry, but this is the sole truth...if you want more "expansion" (which is MORE than possible in iMacs already), go and buy a MacPro low-end version...I am sure you will be able to use your keyboard, mouse and monitor...it's not gonna be expensive.

Oh yeah...and out of your list above, how many were really upgradeable? Cube? Apple IIe? Thanks a lot.

 

[quadgirl]

The iMac is essentially a laptop on a stand, the form factor can't tolerate a CPU that generates a lot of heat. That's why Apple will also introduce a Conroe-based minitower on the 12th, with room for one HD, one optical drive, possibly one spare drive bay, and one double-wide express slot for graphics.

No, the iMac isn't a laptop on a stand - you can't carry it around. It is supposed to be Apple's desktop solution. They won't (although I still think they should for many reasons) release a minitower. A 23" iMac will have far more space inside any laptop. The Conroe being a cool 65nm desktop chip should easily work.

With regards to GPU, a 23" screen will have a native resolution of 1920x1200. To be able to to play the latest games at that size, a decent card will be needed. The x1800s are hot so perhaps Nvidia is the better solution. They are currently leading the mid range battle with the 7600GT which should be a nice compromise between heat/noise/performance/price

 

[baxterbrittle]

I am saddened after reading your post.

I have NEVER owned a Windows computer. Neither have my parents. My family has owned an old Apple IIe, and an LC. I have had an LC2, and of course my Cube. My parents have a black G3 Powerbook each, and my dad presently uses a 17" G4 Powerbook bought by the school he works at.

I have always hated Windows, and would never consider buying anything other than a Mac. I realise my fanaticism probably borders on insanity, but I really don't care. I have spent half my life defending the Mac OS and their hardware in debates with friends. I am not about to change.

I must be a Windows switcher just because I want an iMac that can be EASILY (note that CPUs, hard drives, and although I don't know for sure, to some extent RAM, are very difficult to upgrade) upgraded in the future? Just because I don't like the idea of a soldered on PATHETIC GPU that cannot be upgraded makes me a "friggin Winblows switcher"? I don't want to blow six grand (I've posted visual proof) on a Mac Pro. I want a decent, upgradeable iMac.

I find your comments insulting.

If you can't see that the iMac can go a lot further than it does at the moment in upgradeability, then you are deluded. I realise that what I want will probably not happen, but it is what I want, and that at least should be respected.

Well I'm sorry you feel that way. Having said that you have a Cuber in your post and I think we should discuss that. Firstly the Cube was the great upgradable iMac - the Headless iMac whatever (I know at the time it was more expensive etc...) Now on your particular machine you have upgraded the RAM to 512MB and the HDD to 250GB but your still using the Rage 128 the machine came with - and that was a pathetic card at trhe time too. Why have you never upgraded the GPU in your Cube? Did you convince yourself you needed a Cube when they came out because you could upgrade the GPU and such?

And I don't think I explained myserlf too clearly before. I do care if the iMac came with a better GPU than it has now, I'd be stoked in fact, but even if it still had the x1600 in it I would think that it was a pretty good card for the machines intended purpose. I have sold a lot of iMacs to many different people and not one ever has asked what type of graphics card it has in it. Never. Think about that. These are the people buying the machines. Apple are not making them for you, they are making them for those people. Shout at the Moon all you want but mayber you should upgrade the graphics in your cube first as you paid more money when you bought it to be able to do that.

 

[Manic Mouse]

iMac G5 is MORE than enough for most games.

Firstly, your G5 can't run 99% of games because it's PPC. Secondly, even if it could run all games you would find that trying to run Oblivion, Quake 4 or FEAR on it at max settings would be an exercise in futility. By the way, those are all games that a $300 console (the Xbox 360) can run better than a $1,700 iMac.

Apple must care about 99% of the world, not a few gaming geeks coming from the Winblows world with the Frankenstein machines

What planet do you live on, buddy, MacWorld? 99% of ALL PEOPLE come from "Winblows" and "Frankenstien machines".

go and buy a MacPro low-end version...I am sure you will be able to use your keyboard, mouse and monitor...it's not gonna be expensive.

The low end MacPro is a waste of money for those who want a decent all-round desktop machine. It's a friggin' workstation, and most of your money is going into quad processors, something I don't want or need.

I have sold a lot of iMacs to many different people and not one ever has asked what type of graphics card it has in it. Never. Think about that.

Most people don't know squat about specs. They simply think that more money = better. I'm sure many of them would be disappointed if they went home with a $1,700 machine and their kids told them that it doesn't run their year-old games very well (let alone new ones).

An X1600 in a PREMIUM computer at the end of 2006 is an utter joke. They're bargain basement cards. You could walk into a shop and buy an X1650 for $99, which is better than the card in your $1,700 iMac.

 

[quadgirl]

What planet do you live on, buddy, MacWorld? 99% of ALL PEOPLE come from "Winblows" and "Frankenstien machines".

Yep. Not sure about 99%, but I agree that a very large percentage of Mac users come from "Winblows" and would naturally want to swith to OS X by purchashing a tower that they can upgrade easily - this is what PC people like to do.

The low end MacPro is a waste of money for those who want a decent all-round desktop machine. It's a friggin' workstation, and most of your money is going into quad processors, something I don't want or need.

Spot on. The Mac Pro is sold and labelled as a 'Workstation" not a desktop. So where is Apple's Desktop tower that PC switchers can afford? There isn't one. If Apple are serious about getting PC people over to the mac, a desktop solution (without screen as they already have one) is required.

 

[aswitcher]

Yep. Not sure about 99%, but I agree that a very large percentage of Mac users come from "Winblows" and would naturally want to swith to OS X by purchashing a tower that they can upgrade easily - this is what PC people like to do.

Spot on. The Mac Pro is sold and labelled as a 'Workstation" not a desktop. So where is Apple's Desktop tower that PC switchers can afford? There isn't one. If Apple are serious about getting PC people over to the mac, a desktop solution (without screen as they already have one) is required.

And since rumours say its the laptop chipset for the next gen iMacs and the Mac Pros have the workstation chipset, I suspect Apple can drop the higher end C2D into a half sized Mac Pro to catch this market - as well as the growing home theatre crowd who need more storage and grunt than the Mac Mini can do.

 

[Manic Mouse]

Yep. Not sure about 99%, but I agree that a very large percentage of Mac users come from "Winblows" and would naturally want to swith to OS X by purchashing a tower that they can upgrade easily - this is what PC people like to do.



Spot on. The Mac Pro is sold and labelled as a 'Workstation" not a desktop. So where is Apple's Desktop tower that PC switchers can afford? There isn't one. If Apple are serious about getting PC people over to the mac, a desktop solution (without screen as they already have one) is required.

And by using laptop components in the iMac Apple aren't going to win over many switchers. Switchers would be paying more and getting less, which simply doesn't make sense no matter how nicely packaged the "less" is.

Apple can either lower the price of the iMac and release a decent headless desktop Mac, or they can give the iMac a decent processor and GPU. If they do neither then they're stuck with an over-priced, under-performing desktop solution that you would have to be mad to buy.

Apple are trying to "bust the myth that Macs are more expensive". That means Conroe iMac and a better video card.

 

[50548]

Firstly, your G5 can't run 99% of games because it's PPC. Secondly, even if it could run all games you would find that trying to run Oblivion, Quake 4 or FEAR on it at max settings would be an exercise in futility. By the way, those are all games that a $300 console (the Xbox 360) can run better than a $1,700 iMac.

First, I have a Mac, not a Winblows PC. So I am talking about the games that Macs have, in the Mac-ported market. And no, I don't care about running Winblows on my Mac. And your lame comparison with consoles is simply irrelevant...they are MADE for games, and have customized chips for that...your $300 XBox runs games much better than any $3000 PC as well.

What planet do you live on, buddy, MacWorld? 99% of ALL PEOPLE come from "Winblows" and "Frankenstien machines".

If you really can't see the logic of my argument, I am sorry...I am talking about 99% of the market Apple sells to...and Frankenstein users are not among Mac users...at least not until they switch to a better world.

The low end MacPro is a waste of money for those who want a decent all-round desktop machine. It's a friggin' workstation, and most of your money is going into quad processors, something I don't want or need.

Any current iMac is miles better than any crappy PC out there, and even my iMac G5 spanks the hell out of most Winblows machines installed in households...and as you said, you want a "decent all-round desktop" machine...show me ONE offer in the PC world which is better than the iMac...no, you won't find it.

Most people don't know squat about specs. They simply think that more money = better. I'm sure many of them would be disappointed if they went home with a $1,700 machine and their kids told them that it doesn't run their year-old games very well (let alone new ones).

Sorry, they DO run well most games, so please don't draw comparisons out of nowhere. The X1600 was not long ago praised as a good GPU and it still IS a good GPU. For the future I am sure Apple will use something better, be it the blabla X1975GTX or the blabla X1803XT...it's amazing how ATi and nVidia can confuse the videocard world...

An X1600 in a PREMIUM computer at the end of 2006 is an utter joke. They're bargain basement cards. You could walk into a shop and buy an X1650 for $99, which is better than the card in your $1,700 iMac.

You said that just because a fellow "gamer" told ya there is something better out there...I am talking about REAL usage, and the X1600 can play most games pretty well...just a few days ago I saw a review on PC games running on Macs (Boot camp or whatever)...and iMacs could pretty much run everything that the crappy PC industry offers now...so please, show me facts, not bragging GPU numbers. And no, the iMac is NOT a premium machine...it's price is reasonable for what it offers, yet much less expensive than the dead bricks called Alienware and Dell.

 

[Manic Mouse]

First, I have a Mac, not a Winblows PC. So I am talking about the games that Macs have, in the Mac-ported market. And no, I don't care about running Winblows on my Mac

So your arguement is based on illogical OS snobbery? Doesn't really need a refutation then, does it?

And your lame comparison with consoles is simply irrelevant...they are MADE for games, and have customized chips for that...your $300 XBox runs games much better than any $3000 PC as well.

Actually no, any PC over $1,000 these days can keep up with a 360. But that's because PC manufacturers generally put decent desktop GPU's in their desktops.

If you really can't see the logic of my argument, I am sorry...I am talking about 99% of the market Apple sells to...and Frankenstein users are not among Mac users...at least not until they switch to a better world.

They aren't going to switch if Apple offer paltry specs at high prices. Apple said many times at WWDC that they want to "bust the myth that Macs are more expensive". That means competitive specs at comparable prices.

show me ONE offer in the PC world which is better than the iMac...no, you won't find it

I just configured a DELL with a 1.8Ghz C2D, 1Gb RAM, GeForce 7900 256Mb, 250Gb HDD and 19" monitor for £870. The 17" iMac costs £879. Heck, that config beats the 20" iMac which costs £1,300.

The X1600 was not long ago praised as a good GPU and it still IS a good GPU.

Rubbish. Not so long ago it was the mid-range ATI offering. Now it's bargain basement territory.

You said that just because a fellow "gamer" told ya there is something better out there...I am talking about REAL usage, and the X1600 can play most games pretty well...just a few days ago I saw a review on PC games running on Macs (Boot camp or whatever)...and iMacs could pretty much run everything that the crappy PC industry offers now...so please, show me facts, not bragging GPU numbers.

Like I said, try running Oblivion at max settings on an underclocked X1600 with 128Mb RAM.

I would expect the new iMac to get an X1800. And Conroe.

By the way, what age are you? If it's anything over 15 could you please stop with all the immaturity, it grates after a while. We get that you hate "winblows" and "crappy PEECEEs". You're making yourself sound like a fanatic.

Anyway, I think Apple may drop the 17" iMac and go with a 20" and 23" product line. They should also make the power supply external. The extra space would allow Conroe and standard RAM. Possibly even the use of standard PCIe GFX cards which could be user upgradable along with the HDD and RAM.

 

[Squire]

Engadget's mockup:

Aspect ratio is wrong. 23" is much wider than this picture illustrates.

What makes you say that? I'm sure Engadget just used a pic of a 23" screen. Get out a ruler and compare. My zoom job is pretty crude but they look close enough.

-Squire

 

[baxterbrittle]

First, I have a Mac, not a Winblows PC. So I am talking about the games that Macs have, in the Mac-ported market. And no, I don't care about running Winblows on my Mac. And your lame comparison with consoles is simply irrelevant...they are MADE for games, and have customized chips for that...your $300 XBox runs games much better than any $3000 PC as well.



If you really can't see the logic of my argument, I am sorry...I am talking about 99% of the market Apple sells to...and Frankenstein users are not among Mac users...at least not until they switch to a better world.



Any current iMac is miles better than any crappy PC out there, and even my iMac G5 spanks the hell out of most Winblows machines installed in households...and as you said, you want a "decent all-round desktop" machine...show me ONE offer in the PC world which is better than the iMac...no, you won't find it.



Sorry, they DO run well most games, so please don't draw comparisons out of nowhere. The X1600 was not long ago praised as a good GPU and it still IS a good GPU. For the future I am sure Apple will use something better, be it the blabla X1975GTX or the blabla X1803XT...it's amazing how ATi and nVidia can confuse the videocard world...



You said that just because a fellow "gamer" told ya there is something better out there...I am talking about REAL usage, and the X1600 can play most games pretty well...just a few days ago I saw a review on PC games running on Macs (Boot camp or whatever)...and iMacs could pretty much run everything that the crappy PC industry offers now...so please, show me facts, not bragging GPU numbers. And no, the iMac is NOT a premium machine...it's price is reasonable for what it offers, yet much less expensive than the dead bricks called Alienware and Dell.

Couldn't have said it better. The iMac is not and never will be a gaming machine. Yes maybe if Apple bring out a mid level tower that would make a good gaming machine. But that is not the iMac. Period. 95% of all computers sold whether PC or Mac will never have the graphics card upgraded. If the iMac doesn't do what you want - Don't buy one. But there is no point complaining about it because they make them for the majority not the very small minority of potential purchasers.

How many people with Mac Pros do you think will upgrade the graphics card after purchase? Some, but not many and the Mac Pro is designed for that sort of thing. Once again the current iMac is the most upgradable iMac ever.

Put it this way, if they made all they're machines fully upgradable then people will start complaining that standard PC video cards don't work. What everyone is shouting for is a PC that runs OS X. Which would totally defeat the whole purpose of the integrated design of OS and machine. I want Apple to remain Apple, not become another PC maker that ship a different OS.

Ever since the switch to intel I'm becoming more and more annoyed with the comparisons between Mac and PC. Macs are not PCs, why try to make them like one, if you think the PC's are soooo good then go get one and be happy with it.

I think i'll start moaning that Macs don't have neon blinking lights and start demanding that Steve should do something about that and I demand to be heard.

 

[Squire]

To all of you complaining that the iMac is too little and the Mac Pro is too much:

How many of you purchased the single proc 1.6Ghz Power Mac G5 when it was available? That's what I thought. I'm sure the list of excuses is coming...

Voice of reason. I'm sure others have pointed out what you just said but yours is the first post I've read. The only problem with the single G5 was that it was more than a processor downgrade (wasn't it?).

But I have a better idea...dumb down the Mac Pro...BOOM! $2124 with 2 x dual core 2 GHz Woodcrest chips and a 160 gig hard drive. The educational model is probably a smidgeon under 2 grand. That, I believe, has whetted my appetite for the elusive, mid-range headless Mac.

-Squire

 

[Squire]

Once again the current iMac is the most upgradable iMac ever.

I hate to sound like a broken record-- this is the 2nd time in 3 posts I've used this phrase-- but what makes you say that? I was under the impression that the current iMac was, well, kind of a bitch to upgrade.

-Squire

 

[Spagolli94]

I want Apple to remain Apple, not become another PC maker that ship a different OS.

Ever since the switch to intel I'm becoming more and more annoyed with the comparisons between Mac and PC. Macs are not PCs, why try to make them like one, if you think the PC's are soooo good then go get one and be happy with it.

Don't worry... As previously mentioned, the overall percentage that's into hardcore gaming and/or upgrades is an extrememly small portion of the Mac's target market. They represent a much larger demographic on this board than they do in the overall market.

Apple has always been about "how can we make things less complicated. How can we do it with fewer buttons? How can we make things smaller or more integrated?" Remember the "how many steps to set up an iMac ad?" The whole thing was "there is no step 3." This is the core of Apple's brand strategy.

If you don't like it, there are PLENTY of PC alternatives. Many are cheaper, too!! Upgrading a graphics card and swapping a processor??? That would be waaaaay past step 3. More like step #125.

 

[Chundles]

Voice of reason. I'm sure others have pointed out what you just said but yours is the first post I've read. The only problem with the single G5 was that it was more than a processor downgrade (wasn't it?).

But I have a better idea...dumb down the Mac Pro...BOOM! $2124 with 2 x dual core 2 GHz Woodcrest chips and a 160 gig hard drive. The educational model is probably a smidgeon under 2 grand. That, I believe, has whetted my appetite for the elusive, mid-range headless Mac.

-Squire

The Single-Processor PowerMac offered a 4GB RAM limit and had a lower FSB speed. I think it had slower PCI-X slots as well. Wasn't too bad though, had some hardware problems.

Sounds like what everyone wants but nobody bought it, was a bit too pricey if I recall.

 

[Macmadant]

I don't see this happening, Remember when apple introduced a 20" imac G4, people were saying it was joke, it was to big, ect

 

[50548]

Couldn't have said it better. The iMac is not and never will be a gaming machine. Yes maybe if Apple bring out a mid level tower that would make a good gaming machine. But that is not the iMac. Period. 95% of all computers sold whether PC or Mac will never have the graphics card upgraded. If the iMac doesn't do what you want - Don't buy one. But there is no point complaining about it because they make them for the majority not the very small minority of potential purchasers.

How many people with Mac Pros do you think will upgrade the graphics card after purchase? Some, but not many and the Mac Pro is designed for that sort of thing. Once again the current iMac is the most upgradable iMac ever.

Put it this way, if they made all they're machines fully upgradable then people will start complaining that standard PC video cards don't work. What everyone is shouting for is a PC that runs OS X. Which would totally defeat the whole purpose of the integrated design of OS and machine. I want Apple to remain Apple, not become another PC maker that ship a different OS.

Ever since the switch to intel I'm becoming more and more annoyed with the comparisons between Mac and PC. Macs are not PCs, why try to make them like one, if you think the PC's are soooo good then go get one and be happy with it.

I think i'll start moaning that Macs don't have neon blinking lights and start demanding that Steve should do something about that and I demand to be heard.

Exactly...the funniest part is seeing the dude up there asking about my age...no, I am not 15, but I love Macs and the way they are made...no PC comes close, and never will while they don't have the closed OS/hardware architecture like Apple does.

And if you wanna run "Oblivion" (which I have no idea about), just buy a PC with neon lights...period.

 

[TheCubedXbox]

I don't see this happening, Remember when apple introduced a 20" imac G4, people were saying it was joke, it was to big, ect

ah but people ended up buying it, and now people are buying up the newer 20" and still wanting more.

If this happens all bets are off on me getting a MBP, i'll be getting one of these and a low end macbook for school

 

[baxterbrittle]

I hate to sound like a broken record-- this is the 2nd time in 3 posts I've used this phrase-- but what makes you say that? I was under the impression that the current iMac was, well, kind of a bitch to upgrade.

-Squire

Yes maybe more difficult to upgrade than your beige box PC's, but it's easier than any previous iMac. Which makes it the most upgradable iMac ever. Try upgrading the processor on a G4 or G5 iMac. The current iMac is more easy to upgrade the processor than a G5 powermac. Yeah you've gotta pull the case apart but you can pay a professional to do it for you I guess. But sooner or later there will be companies like sonnet offering upgrades for them with complete guides etc...

 

[Squire]

The Single-Processor PowerMac offered a 4GB RAM limit and had a lower FSB speed. I think it had slower PCI-X slots as well. Wasn't too bad though, had some hardware problems.

Sounds like what everyone wants but nobody bought it, was a bit too pricey if I recall.

Thanks. Yeah, I seem to recall that, too. Unfortunately, I wasn't really in the market for a machine at the time.

I don't see this happening, Remember when apple introduced a 20" imac G4, people were saying it was joke, it was too big, ect

Not the best argument there. You're claiming it won't happen yet citing a similar example where it did happen. LOL. Sorry, just joking. I guess you're referring to the aftermath (i.e. customer response) of the release. I think this is different, though. Essentially, it wouldn't be any more awkward than the 23" display.

-Squire

 

[Squire]

Yes maybe more difficult to upgrade than your beige box PC's, but it's easier than any previous iMac. Which makes it the most upgradable iMac ever. Try upgrading the processor on a G4 or G5 iMac. The current iMac is more easy to upgrade the processor than a G5 powermac. Yeah you've gotta pull the case apart but you can pay a professional to do it for you I guess. But sooner or later there will be companies like sonnet offering upgrades for them with complete guides etc...

Processor...yes. How about the rest of it? (I'm not being sarcastic as I truly don't know.) I successfully upgraded both the optical drive and the hard drive in my iMac G4. Ironically, I've never done that to a PC.

-Squire