Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Releases New iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Has anyone ever tried these for their 20 or 24-inch iMacs? http://www.photodon.com/lcdprotect-sheet.htm#applied
Seems like a solution.
Seems like a solution.
I was at IDF, and also heard the comment about the possibility of socket 775 Nehalems - that's the important "sound bite" from the Wikipedia link.
Bingo!
Which is why I question the people who adamantly insist that we won't see any Nehalem architecture CPUs on Montevina and other "FSB" chipsets. Where are their sources?
If AMD scores a hit with a new laptop chip, you can be assured that Intel will pop up with something that's not on the "roadmap".
I'm not saying that we will see a Montevina-compatible Nehalem - the tea leaves aren't that clear. I just don't think that it's reasonable that Intel will wait six months after Nehalem ships to make a mobile version of the CPU. Mobile system sales are growing fastest, you don't ignore them.
The "hard part" of the new micro-architecture is the ISA processing engine. Its main memory interface is L1 cache - Intel could use a different memory architecture to fill L1 cache without requiring big changes in the main processing core(s).
You'll be waiting a long time. Especially considering that some Macs still only come with CD burners... ;-)
Well, I bought the 8800GT, but I haven't installed it yet because I'm still running Tiger. When I get some extra time I will probably buy Leo and migrate so I can put the card in.
Agreed. The Mac Pros will more than likely get Blu Ray burners before any other Mac. Then it will slowly trickle down into MBPs and iMacs.
If you went to IDF then you should know how the industry works. Roadmaps are there for a reason, to give that companies customers an ability to see whats coming out when, what to support, when to support it etc. etc. There aren't too many surprises when it comes to designing and fabbing chips. Hell, Intel's solid roadmap is what made Apple jump over in the first place. AMD isn't going to whip something out of its butt into thin air and suddenly be competitive next quarter against Centrino 2 (which has been and planned for 24 months) So unless AMD has a secret roadmap, then dont bet on this.
Its IS reasonable for Intel to wait 6 months, they've done it once and they will do it again. Weren't you just around for the Penryn launch? Penryn was officially launched in oct/november in Xeon and Extreme desktop parts. When did the first mobile Penryns finally start to be available to the channel? 4 -5 months later in q1/q2 08'. Montevina aka Centrino 2 will probably be out in full force July/August after a June rollout. Nehalem desktop parts, which I've said before, aren't even scheduled until a late fall release. Intel has never launched a new MicroArch with mobile chips first. Based on that alone its easy to deduce a logical release of Mobile Nehalem in early 09. Probably again, only 3-4 months after the desktop parts, which is NORMAL based on Intel's past. Monte will still only be 5-6 months NEW, not old. Not to mention all the mobile penryns that still have yet to be released in quad and higherclocked dualcore parts. Merom lasted forever and Penryn-M will almost as long. And especially since AMD has NOTHING competitive out, especially in the mobile sector (they're still recovering from the Barcelona flop). I dont even think they've talked about a mobile barcelona at all yet? Why on earth would intel be sweating this right now?
Which iMac for Logic Pro8?
Guys, some advice here please.
I am running Logic Pro8 on a G4, and it is wheezing badly!
What would you suggest for an Imac configuration to best run this app?
It is a given that I get the 24" screen version BTW
Your thoughts (especially on GPU card) appreciated
Guys, some advice here please.
I am running Logic Pro8 on a G4, and it is wheezing badly!
What would you suggest for an Imac configuration to best run this app?
It is a given that I get the 24" screen version BTW
Your thoughts (especially on GPU card) appreciated
Pentium M? Yonah?
True, but Penryn is a "tock", not a "tick". It's a shrink of Core 2, not a new micro-architecture.
Intel's been surprised by AMD before - they won't be caught sleeping again.
Announcement 11 November 2007 for Xeon, 7 January 2008 for mobile. There was a similar ramp up for both products - the channel wasn't full on announcement day, it was a month or two before product was readily available in both cases.
Two months, not "4 -5 months".
Yonah is a variant of Pentium M which in it self is a heavily modified P3. But yeah, they have lead with mobile microarch before (Core)
you are wrong, takes a minister to not get games. honestly YOU ARE NOT THE TARGET DEMO.
apple would be nicely served by offering better graphics cards for not only gaming performance, but also pro graphic application performance.
there are alot of reasons why better components are good. also, even more reasons for having a nice system to advocate games.
I hardly play games on my mac, but... many people who play games are the next generation of mac users. they do grow up! that and statistics show that gamers average age is 33. many of them are professionals who want to play WOW and much much more.
AND THEY AINT THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE TETRIS AND MONOPOLY ON A MAC.
that crap is boring, but hey maybe your soccer moms at church like them.
have you heard of apple tv? mac mini?
both are very nice devices, but hardly have a huge buying base.
a mid-sized tower would definitely service more sales and volume than those 2 combined.
Glossy is better..if you are Apple
The main impetus for going glossy is cost---it is cheaper to manufacture glossy than matte. A couple of years ago computer companies like Apple found a way to spin this cost savings (for them, not you) into pure marketing.
After all, glossy appears to be a little richer in color, a fact that the marketing droids seized upon, ignoring the fact that lack of reflection was the ideal that drove sales of premium, high quality displays for a couple of decades. How quickly we forget...and how happy that makes the marketing droids!
With CRTs, "flatter was better", one of the reasons why tubes based on Sony's Trinitrons were sold at a premium: completely flat along one axis (though not the other
Sony rotated the tube to achieve that degree of flatness, and the reward was much less glare and reflection overall because there was one less axis annoying the user. Cheapo tubes looked like fish bowls by comparison, reflecting back along both axes...almost like big spherical mirrors...
Now non-CRT "flat panels" are the norm and they want us to believe that reintroducing reflections BACK is ok so that they can save a few bucks and eliminate the matte finish?
Sony, oddly, is charging significantly more $ for its XBR series of LCD flat panels because of the enhanced aesthetics of having a TV that you can model your clothes in front of. Like the iMac, the LCDs aren't just glossy but they stuck a big sheet of glass over the front to actually accentuate the reflections. Having had a fish bowl CRT TV for years, I was thrilled to discover I could buy the same LCD panel from Sony with a matte finish for $500 less, and finally eliminate the horrid reflections I have had ever since we bought our home with big windows back in 2000. I am so grateful to Sony they made the less usable product the premium variation, saving me a lot of money, as I tend to always gravitate towards better ease of use first, and aesthetics second.
It is a bizarre marketing trend that is picking up speed but will ultimately be self-policing as consumers begin to realize that displays that double as mirrors are a stupid idea. Til then, I am content to let consumers and computer company and TV makers play this silly dance of dressing up a cheaper technology (glossy) as a boutique feature, and the even more puzzling trend of spending more money (adding glass over glossy) to turn $1500 TVs and computers into $200 mirrors.
I'll hook up my hockey puck mouse to my glass front iMac, and turn up the music volume on my retro-rotary dial Quicktime control, while I puzzle out how to launch an app with my virgin 10.5.0 Leopard "stacks" enabled Dock containing 300 faceless items, and create some (oops!) extra browser windows while my 20+ year muscle memory insists that Command-N still means "New Folder", as I struggle to get window Zoom to work as well as it did back on SE/30... Some things indeed get better; others are aborted (or should be aborted) experiments. And while there is always a tension between aesthetics and common sense, sometimes it works out in a good balance...thank you, iPhone.
The main impetus for going glossy is cost---it is cheaper to manufacture glossy than matte. A couple of years ago computer companies like Apple found a way to spin this cost savings (for them, not you) into pure marketing.
After all, glossy appears to be a little richer in color, a fact that the marketing droids seized upon, ignoring the fact that lack of reflection was the ideal that drove sales of premium, high quality displays for a couple of decades. How quickly we forget...and how happy that makes the marketing droids!
With CRTs, "flatter was better", one of the reasons why tubes based on Sony's Trinitrons were sold at a premium: completely flat along one axis (though not the other
Sony rotated the tube to achieve that degree of flatness, and the reward was much less glare and reflection overall because there was one less axis annoying the user. Cheapo tubes looked like fish bowls by comparison, reflecting back along both axes...almost like big spherical mirrors...Now non-CRT "flat panels" are the norm and they want us to believe that reintroducing reflections BACK is ok so that they can save a few bucks and eliminate the matte finish?
Sony, oddly, is charging significantly more $ for its XBR series of LCD flat panels because of the enhanced aesthetics of having a TV that you can model your clothes in front of. Like the iMac, the LCDs aren't just glossy but they stuck a big sheet of glass over the front to actually accentuate the reflections. Having had a fish bowl CRT TV for years, I was thrilled to discover I could buy the same LCD panel from Sony with a matte finish for $500 less, and finally eliminate the horrid reflections I have had ever since we bought our home with big windows back in 2000. I am so grateful to Sony they made the less usable product the premium variation, saving me a lot of money, as I tend to always gravitate towards better ease of use first, and aesthetics second.
It is a bizarre marketing trend that is picking up speed but will ultimately be self-policing as consumers begin to realize that displays that double as mirrors are a stupid idea. Til then, I am content to let consumers and computer company and TV makers play this silly dance of dressing up a cheaper technology (glossy) as a boutique feature, and the even more puzzling trend of spending more money (adding glass over glossy) to turn $1500 TVs and computers into $200 mirrors.
I'll hook up my hockey puck mouse to my glass front iMac, and turn up the music volume on my retro-rotary dial Quicktime control, while I puzzle out how to launch an app with my virgin 10.5.0 Leopard "stacks" enabled Dock containing 300 faceless items, and create some (oops!) extra browser windows while my 20+ year muscle memory insists that Command-N still means "New Folder", as I struggle to get window Zoom to work as well as it did back on SE/30... Some things indeed get better; others are aborted (or should be aborted) experiments. And while there is always a tension between aesthetics and common sense, sometimes it works out in a good balance...thank you, iPhone.
This post is yet more proof that PC gamers think waaayy too highly of themselves.
who says i need more power for games? i have a canon 5d, great lens kit, nice camcorder also. so i'd like to do hd home movies and burn to blu-ray disc.
without having to do a custom mac pro rig.
so... this aint gaming related. though i wouldn't mind that once in a while.
don't be so quick to judge.
No doubt, but most likely by cannibalizing their other desktops.
Apple has three distinct lines of desktops. They don't overlap. A mid tower would blur the distinctions and steal sales from all three.
I want a mid tower, too, but I understand why Apple has chosen not to provide them. Their market research has told them what to expect, and it wouldn't be a shock to learn that it shows them the net gain is not worth their while, no matter how well it might suit some of us.
If we're to believe the head honcho himself, Apple in fact does "no market research" whatsoever
:Steve Jobs speaks out
A mid-range tower's saleability is NOT in question (see PC desktop sales figures) & such Macs sold well enough previously. In the 90s, Mac market-share hit some 10%-to-12%. The problem was that most of these sales went to cheaper Mac clones, not Apple Macs. Hence Jobs shut down the Mac-clone industry & gave us the Cube.
Sadly, as nice as it was, the Cube was still too pricey for average consumers compared to most PC desktops. So the Cube also bombed. Because any such computer from Apple in future would inevitably be more expensive than many PC desktops, Jobs will never give us an upgradeable Mac desktop again. IMO, that's a banker! It just wouldn't be a good business decision (unless people want Apple to start making cheap crap - which I think most don't).
As I'm not going to get the upgradeable Mac I'd want (& Mac Pros remain too expensive for most), I'd like to see Apple give us better BTO options on the Mini. Keep low-end Mini with integrated graphics for undemanding switchers, but offer a decent BTO option for the higher-end Mini. I think a decent 8600 video card would probably pacify most of those expressing dissatisfaction with the current iMacs (for eg. glossy screens), me included.
If we're to believe the head honcho himself, Apple in fact does "no market research" whatsoever
Steve Jobs speaks out
A mid-range tower's saleability is NOT in question (see PC desktop sales figures) & such Macs sold well enough previously. In the 90s, Mac market-share hit some 10%-to-12%. The problem was that most of these sales went to cheaper Mac clones, not Apple Macs. Hence Jobs shut down the Mac-clone industry & gave us the Cube.
Sadly, as nice as it was, the Cube was still too pricey for average consumers compared to most PC desktops. So the Cube also bombed. Because any such computer from Apple in future would inevitably be more expensive than many PC desktops, Jobs will never give us an upgradeable Mac desktop again. IMO, that's a banker! It just wouldn't be a good business decision (unless people want Apple to start making cheap crap - which I think most don't).
First, the clones were kicking Apple's butt because Apple was using an outdated fixed configuration model. The Clones used the direct sales BTO model. Consumer like options. They usually aren't very pleased when you try to ram something down their throat.
Second, the Cube may be the most misunderstood model by the Mac community. It didn't bomb because a desire not to buy towers or PC competition. It bombed because there really wasn't that big of a desire for a small form factor machine. The PMG4 was cheaper, faster, and more practical.
For sure, "consumers like options", hence the PC market share (despite having an inferior OS) mushroomed to the huge numbers we now have, this despite no end of permutations of available PC hardware. So much for those bizarrely claiming that most people really want quite limited choice.
The factors you mention will figure, but I think the high price-point was a major deciding factor for the failure of said 90s genre desktop Macs & the Cube.
But harking back to my general point (directed at those who continue to try to justify Apple's current, very limited range of Mac computers): Apple revolves around what Jobs wants, rather than what consumers might reasonably want. So if Jobs want a thinner, slimmer iMac with no imaginable practical usefulness or advantages whatsoever contained within those parameters - rather the opposite, in that you start to seriously limit some of the components you can use within such a design - that's what Jonathan Ive (or whoever) delivers. But there's "no market research", contrary to what's often claimed to justify the Apple way.
The Cube's biggest problem was it was simply fighting with a another Mac that was both cheaper and better met the requirements of the user. The other Achilles heel of Mac desktops at the time was the powerPC. It got to a point where the expense of developing it as a computer CPU couldn't be really justified by the mac user-base. Motorola really shifted the focus to embedded and Macs fell behind during the G4 days. The G5 was too little to late.
Sad but true.
One thing I can say when it comes to Apple research...
Either they are very stupid or they look so far ahead that none of us can see and create their business plan more on virtual predictions than current market demand.
Some good points. I also think the Cube's design was ahead of its time. Today Apple would sell an Intel-powered version at a much lower price-point &, buoyed by Apple's strong-brand reputation & growing market-share, I think it'd be reasonably, if not very, successful.