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
Excuse my European ignorance, but what is everyone talking about with "stimulus money", is the US government handing out cash to everyone?
And you right away spend it on gadgets, not saving it for bad times? Ohoho...
Ok, here speaks the owner of 2 windows laptop, a Macbook Pro, a desktop PC and iPhone
Would like to have my government stimulate me...
Don't beat us up too hard.
The whole point of the "stimulus package" is so that people will buy stuff injecting money back into the economy thus pushing off the "recession".
There's 100 better ways to do this, but no one's gonna complain about free money in the mail...
To keep it on topic though, I am most interested in new Displays...all of these refreshes to the computer lines and they haven't refreshed displays in years.
no X.5.3?
It does look that way, doesn't it. It shouldn't take too long before this can be confirmed or denied.
I'm kind of surprised not to hear that they are shipping with X.5.3. Perhaps that X.5.3 happens tomorrow?? That could explain the unusual Monday release, but not really. (A Montevina MacBook Pro tomorrow would also explain it, but there have been no signs of that.)
It's too bad that the Mini didn't get updated also, but not a surprise because all the release hints pointed to iMacs only. Perhaps soon...
OMG!!! Apple got Montevina before everyone else!!!!!
It does look that way, doesn't it. It shouldn't take too long before this can be confirmed or denied.
I'm kind of surprised not to hear that they are shipping with X.5.3. Perhaps that X.5.3 happens tomorrow?? That could explain the unusual Monday release, but not really. (A Montevina MacBook Pro tomorrow would also explain it, but there have been no signs of that.)
It's too bad that the Mini didn't get updated also, but not a surprise because all the release hints pointed to iMacs only. Perhaps soon...
Well, not really. That's just what the economists like to say, hoping people will actually do it. It's really just an advance on a new tax credit that hasn't started yet, but will next year.
RAM question
This wouldn't apply to the new iMacs, I presume? All signs point to this being an early Montevina release, which I would take to mean the FSB is not hardwired to be 667 like on the Santa Rosa platform?
If you were to order RAM from a third party, would you just get DDR2 PC6400 RAM Dual Channel?
Sorry for the n00bish questions.
This wouldn't apply to the new iMacs, I presume? All signs point to this being an early Montevina release, which I would take to mean the FSB is not hardwired to be 667 like on the Santa Rosa platform?
If you were to order RAM from a third party, would you just get DDR2 PC6400 RAM Dual Channel?
Sorry for the n00bish questions.
I love the photo comparisson between a Dell and the new iMac with all the cords coming out of the Dell in the back.
Looks cool and fast. What's up with the thick bezel tho?
Looks cool and fast. What's up with the thick bezel tho?
Nice update for the iMac, but without a top-grade screen I'm still waiting for an updated Mini to use with an ACD.
Not much to ask - if the on-board graphics were even slightly better (and more current) on the Mini it would eliminate its biggest Achilles heel.
Not much to ask - if the on-board graphics were even slightly better (and more current) on the Mini it would eliminate its biggest Achilles heel.
Read the IRS FAQs (Off topic warning!)
According to the IRS's own FAQs, you are not correct. While there is definitely no such thing as "free money", this stimulus package is not a prepayment on next year's refund like the $300 stimulus we received back in 2002. It is based on 2007 tax returns, and like the war in Iraq, will just be into the national debt, which a full stimulated economy would refill just like that through increased tax revenues...riiighhht.
If you didn't file in time, you'll get it next year in a one-time credit. Those who received it in 2008 won't receive the credit...it is a prepayment on a credit, on not next year's taxes.
You don't have to believe me...read it at the IRS web site. You know to Google, I trust.
Other off-topic facts:
$600 of single with an AGI of less $75K
$1200 to those with AGIs of under $150K
$300 extra per child (must be claimed on 2007 taxes)...no limit
<http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/28/news/economy/rebate_update_monday/index.htm?postversion=2008042810>
From the above article:
Will I have to pay it back?
No. And here's why.
Your stimulus payment is a one-time tax cut - an advance on a credit you'll receive on your 2008 return. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 tax return, and it will not increase the amount you owe or reduce your 2008 refund.
The stimulus payment is based on your 2007 income initially. If it turns out that your 2008 income and number of children would have qualified you for a larger rebate than the one you received, you'll be sent the difference. If it turns out your 2008 income was lower than in 2007 and you should have gotten a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference.
According to the IRS's own FAQs, you are not correct. While there is definitely no such thing as "free money", this stimulus package is not a prepayment on next year's refund like the $300 stimulus we received back in 2002. It is based on 2007 tax returns, and like the war in Iraq, will just be into the national debt, which a full stimulated economy would refill just like that through increased tax revenues...riiighhht.
If you didn't file in time, you'll get it next year in a one-time credit. Those who received it in 2008 won't receive the credit...it is a prepayment on a credit, on not next year's taxes.
You don't have to believe me...read it at the IRS web site. You know to Google, I trust.
Other off-topic facts:
$600 of single with an AGI of less $75K
$1200 to those with AGIs of under $150K
$300 extra per child (must be claimed on 2007 taxes)...no limit
<http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/28/news/economy/rebate_update_monday/index.htm?postversion=2008042810>
From the above article:
Will I have to pay it back?
No. And here's why.
Your stimulus payment is a one-time tax cut - an advance on a credit you'll receive on your 2008 return. You will not owe tax on your payment when you file your 2008 tax return, and it will not increase the amount you owe or reduce your 2008 refund.
The stimulus payment is based on your 2007 income initially. If it turns out that your 2008 income and number of children would have qualified you for a larger rebate than the one you received, you'll be sent the difference. If it turns out your 2008 income was lower than in 2007 and you should have gotten a lower rebate, you get to keep the difference.
Much better than how it used to be
I remember, back in the old days... (eh, where's my cane?) ...it would be months, seemed like yeeeeeeears between Mac updates... golly, I remember when the Mac Two-see-eye came out, and by golly, it was just the greatest thing they'd done since the release of the two-ex! But then they topped it with the two-see-ex, but by golly, that one was almost affordable, just a few thousand dollars instead of the five thousand they wanted for the two-see-eye... although that had integrated video, which was a pretty durn good move if ya ask me, ya know, not havin' ta get no video card or nothing. hah, and back then, you had to pay TWO THOUUUUSAND DOLLARS if you wanted any more than two hundered and fifty-six colors on your screen at once! oh, those were the days...
now, where'd my copy of Crystal Quest go... oh, by golly.....
I remember, back in the old days... (eh, where's my cane?) ...it would be months, seemed like yeeeeeeears between Mac updates... golly, I remember when the Mac Two-see-eye came out, and by golly, it was just the greatest thing they'd done since the release of the two-ex! But then they topped it with the two-see-ex, but by golly, that one was almost affordable, just a few thousand dollars instead of the five thousand they wanted for the two-see-eye... although that had integrated video, which was a pretty durn good move if ya ask me, ya know, not havin' ta get no video card or nothing. hah, and back then, you had to pay TWO THOUUUUSAND DOLLARS if you wanted any more than two hundered and fifty-six colors on your screen at once! oh, those were the days...
now, where'd my copy of Crystal Quest go... oh, by golly.....
The DDR2-667 downclock only applies to Santa Rosa based Macs. It should technically work but the timings to clock down to 667 from 800 MHz aren't compatible.
This is not a problem on today's new iMacs. They use DDR2-800 RAM.
Okay I stand corrected. I thought this one was similar to the 2002 stimulus...
I wonder if I can stimulate my wife into agreeing to iPhone v2...
ITIDS---It's the iMac Display, Stupid
Big question is whether the 20" iMac has the cheapo 6-bit display or whether Apple's wonderful earnings have reinforced the message that consumers don't notice or care when cheap components are swapped out for better ones to increase their profit margin.
It'd be rad to buy an affordable iMac (24" is more than most people need) that bested the color range of my SE/30 with 24-bit color card & trinitron display, back in 1990. To do that, I'd have to buy a old all white 20" iMac model---used. Gee, I even color coordinated my office for the all aluminum look...
I'd love to find out whether the cheapo displays have crept up to the iMac 24" line. Past performance influences future business decisions, so this may yet come to pass...may have already come to pass. Let's see those specs!
Big question is whether the 20" iMac has the cheapo 6-bit display or whether Apple's wonderful earnings have reinforced the message that consumers don't notice or care when cheap components are swapped out for better ones to increase their profit margin.
It'd be rad to buy an affordable iMac (24" is more than most people need) that bested the color range of my SE/30 with 24-bit color card & trinitron display, back in 1990. To do that, I'd have to buy a old all white 20" iMac model---used. Gee, I even color coordinated my office for the all aluminum look...
I'd love to find out whether the cheapo displays have crept up to the iMac 24" line. Past performance influences future business decisions, so this may yet come to pass...may have already come to pass. Let's see those specs!
No beating at all
No, that was just sarcasm (hard to spot, its German one, I know...), no beating at all.
Will keep on imaging a cheque in my letterbox...although we don't use cheques anymore...thats banking stone age
No, that was just sarcasm (hard to spot, its German one, I know...
), no beating at all. Will keep on imaging a cheque in my letterbox...although we don't use cheques anymore...thats banking stone age
Now that these updated machines have come out you should all read this:
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
http://www.misterbg.org/AppleProductCycle/
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
Sweet, a Monday release! Too bad it's a day after the tax holiday here. Nice specs at any rate.
Sweet, a Monday release! Too bad it's a day after the tax holiday here. Nice specs at any rate.
Blah blah blah, what an underwhelming update. Once again, you can only get a machine with a 512mb card for over $2000. That's insane. I'm sorry but this is just another example of Apple bumping the specs and we're all supposed to drool and fawn over it. How about a reasonable priced machine that has decent graphics? No, that would actually take listening to your customers. I really could care less what chip set it is, or what new fab memory it comes with. This is still a throw away machine. When people complain that there's no good games for the Mac, or that you can't play any decent games on it, well Apple is continuing to play into that. Good job guys.
Oh well, it looks like I'll be taking the $700-800 hackintosh route since Apple doesn't seem to care to give an option that makes sense. It's such a shame that I will be buying my first non-Apple computer in 20 years because they just can't produce a decent box with a decent price tag.
Oh well, it looks like I'll be taking the $700-800 hackintosh route since Apple doesn't seem to care to give an option that makes sense. It's such a shame that I will be buying my first non-Apple computer in 20 years because they just can't produce a decent box with a decent price tag.
IBM is shipping POWER6 servers with quad-core processors topping out at 5.0 GHz now. Their System z10 EC mainframe is also quad-core running at 4.4 GHz. IBM passed 3.0 GHz a long time ago. In the clock speed race, IBM is king.
These are not notebook-class parts, though, which is what Apple wanted (and what Apple just bought with P.A. Semi, oddly enough). Even so, Apple could probably put these faster IBM parts (or something very much like them) in Xserves and perhaps Mac Pros where they'd be most appropriate. But IBM doesn't just give away these chips. Would Apple want to pay for the fastest parts?
One more question and I think I'll be done (thanks again, guys). If the memory is clocked at 800Mhz but is used in a dual channel fashion, that would conceivably create the effect of running the memory at 1600 MHz. Unfortunately, only 1066 MHz of that will be used - so would it be a wrong understanding of the situation to buy 533 MHz RAM from a third party and slap it in here so that the effective speed is 1066 MHZ - that way there's no bottleneck and you're not paying for performance you'll never use? Or would I run into timing issues if I did that?
I'm just trying to get the most bang for the buck here while still maximizing my performance.
nice update.. but today isn't a tuesday
I never really notice, but the imacs are relatively cheep for the computer your getting
I never really notice, but the imacs are relatively cheep for the computer your getting
Awesome...
...let me know when I can use it as a monitor. Is that too much to ask?
Oh, but then I wouldn't be able to pay $899 for a 23" Apple Cinema display.
This world is full of people that just accept this. They'll buy an iMac for home, and a macbook for on the go....but then they'll go ahead and buy that 23" display for their macbook too.
This is a prime example of why I own Apple stock but don't buy Apple products.
...let me know when I can use it as a monitor. Is that too much to ask?
Oh, but then I wouldn't be able to pay $899 for a 23" Apple Cinema display.
This world is full of people that just accept this. They'll buy an iMac for home, and a macbook for on the go....but then they'll go ahead and buy that 23" display for their macbook too.
This is a prime example of why I own Apple stock but don't buy Apple products.
Awesome!
Wonderful... Any down sides to this update or reasons not to buy?? If not, I will be buying one today. Finally!
Wonderful... Any down sides to this update or reasons not to buy?? If not, I will be buying one today.
Finally!