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
Actually, the European store has dropped the price from 599 to 506,14 . Price drops are usually an indication that the product is not about to be updated.Yes, but the Macbook has been updated and the Mini has not
OK
Does this iMac have Montevina?
And somebody said on here somewhere that it uses desktop processors now
Does this iMac have Montevina?
And somebody said on here somewhere that it uses desktop processors now
This is why I want to see Apple release a machine with iMac specs but with no monitor. Just two DVI ports on the back.
Monitors vastly outlive computers in usefulness; I still have a flat panel from 2003 going strong. Why should the two be tied together?
I understand that a lot of people DO like this arrangement, but why can't Apple give us an option for those who don't? I can afford a Mac Pro, but most people cannot. The Mac Mini is too underpowered.
Apple? Hellooooo?
As updates go, this one wasn't so bad. They made the 1499 model a little faster (only gonna see that margin in benchmarks) gave it a bigger HD (250 is already too much for me) and more memory (which would have delayed me getting another 2GB stick to go in there and make it 3GB like with my current imac). What's with the 8800 GS? I'd have thought they'd offer something more like an 8800 GT as the top option, and another 8700M option on the imacs with a 2600 pro/xt standard.
the long wait is finally over. (and i mean long, since december! ha. dumb me) i am so excited!
it seems like everyone (for the most part) is happy with the update.
well done.
it seems like everyone (for the most part) is happy with the update.
well done.
i just want to make sure if these iMac use montevina platform
from Wikipedia.org
Montevina platform (2008)
The code-name Montevina refers to the fifth-generation Centrino platform, now formally named Centrino 2 to avoid confusion with previous Centrino platforms. It is scheduled for release at Computex Taipei 2008, taking place on June 3-7, 2008[8]. Montevina will support Penryn, Intel's 45nm die-shrink version of Core 2 processors. On the 28th of April 2008, Apple has released new iMacs with the Montevina platform. It's the first PC with this chipset, appearing before the official scheduled release by Intel.
from Wikipedia.org
Montevina platform (2008)
The code-name Montevina refers to the fifth-generation Centrino platform, now formally named Centrino 2 to avoid confusion with previous Centrino platforms. It is scheduled for release at Computex Taipei 2008, taking place on June 3-7, 2008[8]. Montevina will support Penryn, Intel's 45nm die-shrink version of Core 2 processors. On the 28th of April 2008, Apple has released new iMacs with the Montevina platform. It's the first PC with this chipset, appearing before the official scheduled release by Intel.
It's easily worth $150 if you do anything graphics intensive.
Was funny for a while, but it went on far, far too long and got pretty predictable.
get it if you need it. Wait till Dec/Jan prob. if you don't.Wonderful... Any down sides to this update or reasons not to buy?? If not, I will be buying one today.
Snap. It's practically outdated on it's release. It needed Quad core, 9-series Nvidia card (If for nothing more than looking like it's at least trying to keep up with GPU tech) and E-SATA. Oh and some way to shoe horn 8Gb of ram into them would have been nice. I would also absolutely burst if they were slamming cheapo 24" screens into them now, compared with those outstanding H-IPS models.
I really want to convert to Mac, i really do. But they're really not giving me any reason to switch from my PC (Unless i were that obsessed with how it looked). The MacPro is just such a needless leap in power and price, and isnt even any faster for the work i do. Guess i'l have to stick with the Macbook for a while.
First, the off-topic part:
This is a bit rich, as one really must put this in some perspective. Sure, we won't need to pay this back... directly. However, in order to pay for this stimulus package, the US government is borrowing money from China. So, collectively, we now owe this money. In that sense, we will have to pay this back. Okay, and what are most people going to do when they get this money? Most likely, they'll spend it. And what will they spend it on? Most likely, something that was made in China. So, we're borrowing money from China to spend on things made in China. Whose economy are we trying to stimulate?
Back on topic:
These look like some nice updates. It gives me hope for what I'm waiting for: the new MBP updates!
This is a bit rich, as one really must put this in some perspective. Sure, we won't need to pay this back... directly. However, in order to pay for this stimulus package, the US government is borrowing money from China. So, collectively, we now owe this money. In that sense, we will have to pay this back. Okay, and what are most people going to do when they get this money? Most likely, they'll spend it. And what will they spend it on? Most likely, something that was made in China. So, we're borrowing money from China to spend on things made in China. Whose economy are we trying to stimulate?
Back on topic:
These look like some nice updates. It gives me hope for what I'm waiting for: the new MBP updates!
Glad to see they lowered the price on RAM upgrades. Kinda wish they did that on ALL their computers. Upgrading a Mac Pro to 32 GB is more than $8000 from the baseline, while I can just get 6 4GB sticks from dealram.com for $1800.
Thank you, made me laugh a lot over coffee...something like this just can happen with Apple products. I guess Nokia would die for that madness surounding their products.
Makes me sad to see all the empty phone shops in the malls while Apple is packed with "ohh-ahh-ohh" people. I have seen bitchy wifes melt in the sight of an iPhone, reasonable dads carrying away that iMac as if they just hunted down a Mamut and that kid dictating its mother what Macbook there should be to buy, while she can't get away from the touch screen scrolling
Ok, I am not an employee, but always like to look into Apple retail stores now and then, you see very good example how they bewitch us all.
There is something about that boy, ahm company.
The switch to Intel
It is a myth that Apple switched to Intel because of performance. On some benchmarks, the G5 still kicks the pants of the latest Intel specs...and the G5 is an awfully OLD chip by now. Apple's reality distortion field really went overtime making some of you believe this was because of performance per se, or because IBM "didn't hit 3Ghz as promised". Supremely entertaining but silly stuff.
There is no doubt the G5 would have evolved into a really kick ass chip based on the latest POWER line. But the chip ran HOT and even the iMac wasn't a suitable enough form factor for such hot chips, much less Apple's very profitable Laptop sales. IBM had no interest in making high performance laptop chips; they were more than ok with giving Apple the fastest Workstations on the planet, where cooling was not a significant factor. All based on the IBM server technology.
Intel has been courting Apple for years before the switch. The AIM alliance happened pre-NeXT, post Jobs I, and that alone made it ripe for destruction by Jobs. Not invented by Jobs. And Jobs had a good relationship with Intel while running NeXT...though they'd run on many different x86 boxes. But it taught Jobs that using commodity chips in boutique, closed computers may equal cash in the bank. In other words, take the NeXT x86 OpenStep model and apply it to a closed platform like the Mac. It has worked out great for Apple.
The Core Duo line is a great laptop chip family. Intel's Israeli design teams really did a fantastic job in getting the most power for the watts. So, this was a great move for Apple's laptops in terms of power...and gave Apple permission to build ever more elegant desktop computers based on laptop parts like the iMac. The iMac G5 was a failure in that form factor.
Apple's customers on the high end did lose out. Truly. If Apple had gone with a dual processor line up, I think that would have been inspired and really thinking different. But it was more costly and an all Intel strategy was "good enough" at the high end. And it is, even if POWER continues to eat Intel's lunch strictly on a performance basis.
It is a myth that Apple switched to Intel because of performance. On some benchmarks, the G5 still kicks the pants of the latest Intel specs...and the G5 is an awfully OLD chip by now. Apple's reality distortion field really went overtime making some of you believe this was because of performance per se, or because IBM "didn't hit 3Ghz as promised". Supremely entertaining but silly stuff.
There is no doubt the G5 would have evolved into a really kick ass chip based on the latest POWER line. But the chip ran HOT and even the iMac wasn't a suitable enough form factor for such hot chips, much less Apple's very profitable Laptop sales. IBM had no interest in making high performance laptop chips; they were more than ok with giving Apple the fastest Workstations on the planet, where cooling was not a significant factor. All based on the IBM server technology.
Intel has been courting Apple for years before the switch. The AIM alliance happened pre-NeXT, post Jobs I, and that alone made it ripe for destruction by Jobs. Not invented by Jobs. And Jobs had a good relationship with Intel while running NeXT...though they'd run on many different x86 boxes. But it taught Jobs that using commodity chips in boutique, closed computers may equal cash in the bank. In other words, take the NeXT x86 OpenStep model and apply it to a closed platform like the Mac. It has worked out great for Apple.
The Core Duo line is a great laptop chip family. Intel's Israeli design teams really did a fantastic job in getting the most power for the watts. So, this was a great move for Apple's laptops in terms of power...and gave Apple permission to build ever more elegant desktop computers based on laptop parts like the iMac. The iMac G5 was a failure in that form factor.
Apple's customers on the high end did lose out. Truly. If Apple had gone with a dual processor line up, I think that would have been inspired and really thinking different. But it was more costly and an all Intel strategy was "good enough" at the high end. And it is, even if POWER continues to eat Intel's lunch strictly on a performance basis.
Are you talking about the article, or the behaviour of the Mac community that it parodies?
This is a great update, wish I had the money, hey will have to wait a little longer. Who knows what your pennies could get in a couple of months....
Why are so many people annoyed that the lower models have a slower GPU. What's the point is putting a fast GPU in a slower iMac. It's all relative Slower Machine, Slower GPU. Faster Machine Faster CPU.
And all you PC users who want 8Gb of RAM, thats what the Mac pro is for, 4Gb is plenty for most especially with the processors, and OSX is way better than windows at handling memory.
Why are so many people annoyed that the lower models have a slower GPU. What's the point is putting a fast GPU in a slower iMac. It's all relative Slower Machine, Slower GPU. Faster Machine Faster CPU.
And all you PC users who want 8Gb of RAM, thats what the Mac pro is for, 4Gb is plenty for most especially with the processors, and OSX is way better than windows at handling memory.
No one here cares!
Apple's market share has never been so high. The current product range is fine for 90% of people. If you want a cheap but powerful computer - just buy a windows machine. You won't ever see lots of games being released on OS X because Macs will never have the market share of Windows so it doesn't make sense financially.
Now go away.
economic stimulus
Yeah most people will be using their money for debt.
I'll be doing that but also picking up an iPhone, so I'll do my part to stimulate the economy. Like others, I don't think is the best solution, but I'd rather money be in my hands than the Fed's hands, so I'll take it.
How about figuring out to lower gas prices, that will stimulate the economy. Instead, people don't want to go out and spend money so they just sit home and play on their Apple products...
Yeah most people will be using their money for debt.
I'll be doing that but also picking up an iPhone, so I'll do my part to stimulate the economy. Like others, I don't think is the best solution, but I'd rather money be in my hands than the Fed's hands, so I'll take it.
How about figuring out to lower gas prices, that will stimulate the economy. Instead, people don't want to go out and spend money so they just sit home and play on their Apple products...
Pro or iMac
I guys!
Last week I bought Final Cut Studio 2 but waited to buy a new system because I knew that a new update was about to come out.
I wanted to buy a MacPro, but looking at the new iMac... man it has more HDcapacity, a better graphic card and a 24" monitor and ist still 600$ cheaper.
You got some advice?!?
I guys!
Last week I bought Final Cut Studio 2 but waited to buy a new system because I knew that a new update was about to come out.
I wanted to buy a MacPro, but looking at the new iMac... man it has more HDcapacity, a better graphic card and a 24" monitor and ist still 600$ cheaper.
You got some advice?!?
4GiB max is too small
Try running a couple of virtual machines in 4 GiB, and tell me again that it's "plenty".
Try running a couple of virtual machines in 4 GiB, and tell me again that it's "plenty".
Differing memory speed is not the bottleneck it once was. Any reduction in performance will be very very neglible and the miniscule increase in speed is not worth the higher price of faster memory chips.
Try running a couple of virtual machines in 4 GiB, and tell me again that it's "plenty".
Fair Point, But if you need multiple virtual machines at once, Mac Pro would suite you better. iMac is consumer level, and for most people would be sufficient. Virtual machines are a bummer though with lower Ram, I have run two with 3Gb and found it easier just to work in Boot Camp. At least with boot camp you get full use of the system, which in my experience is quicker than using virtual machines on the imac.
You are comparing completely different technologies, and you are arriving at completely wrong conclusions.
That SE/30 had a cathode ray tube. To set a single pixel to a certain color, three tiny dots (red, green and blue) are illuminated 60 times per second. Once illuminated, the brightness of each dot goes down quickly over time, until one 60th of a second later the dot is illuminated again. So you don't see one pixel with three components with eight bits resolution of brightness, what you actually see is a wildly varying brightness, and it seems to be one color because your eye can't follow it quickly enough and averages the actually brightness.
The six bit LCD display uses the same principle. Again, a color is split into three components (red, green, blue) with 8 bit resolution. The dots on the screen itself can only display brightness with 6 bit resolution, but they can change brightness by a tiny amount very rapidly. Since your eye is too slow to see the changes happening, it averages the color, so you actually get 253 different levels of brightness in each component. Compared to the CRT screen, the result is better, because there is only a tiny change of brightness (one 64th of the maximum brightness), instead of the much bigger change in brightness on the CRT screen.
The technique that the LCD screen uses is called "temporal dithering". The technique that the CRT screen uses could be called "involuntary temporal dithering"