The reports I have seen would indicate that the laptop hardware inside the iMac does not affect speed that much, but was chosen for size and heat.
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 Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Compared to the low to medium end best buy stuff with similar specs. However with quad cores getting cheaper, things are starting to change. Its a very good family system. For user who usually buys a higher end MATX system or a full ATX system, the iMac can't compete. Its an excellent system, its just fit into a flawed one size fits all system that assumes your either just reading emails or making a feature film.
So, in other words since you have your needs filed by open source software, everything is fine for everybody else?
You are calling an iMac a laptop on a stick? Save us from impending doom and send your design idea's to sjobs@apple.com STAT
Considering the only desktop parts are the hard drive and the screen, it is a laptop on a stick.
Get back to me when you manage to fit a quad core in an iMac almost two years ago.
I said most of the best apps I use are open source. When I need something that is only available in Windows versions, I run it under Fusion. So ya I think there are plenty of apps of all kinds available for the Mac.
Looks to me like the only software not in abundance for the OS X platform are games. In that case, since Apple does not build gaming machines look toward the cheaper WinPC market for that type of use.
I thought it was a cute observation and the individual that posted it should surely get a job at Apple in the design department, since they are in dire need of some help judging by this thread.
I wasn't aware things like affordable video software with blu-ray support was a game. Right now you can get for $99 from Adobe on the PC what Final Cut Pro doesn't have. Its only money and lost customers right? Who needs them. Who needs affordable tools to build a website when you can build a website show everybody your vacation photos in iWeb. And oh yeah, I need to actually do something when I get home and have some down time. Maybe I should ask Steve what I'm allowed to do since gaming is not acceptable to the almighty. During the days of real Macs, this was a full platform. Now you will work and play as Jobs wants you to.
This year, but you have to pay a grand for a 2.5ghz CPU. Same clock speed is $270 on the desktop side.
So, you're complaining that Apple doesn't make a pro web design app, and Dreamweaver is too much ... iWeb does exactly what it is supposed to, and so does Dreamweaver, remember, you get what you pay for ...
As for the blu-ray support, there must be something just not right yet ... i.e. the drives use too much power, aren't small enough, software not yet perfect, etc ...
Sorry, but OS X does not yet support blu-ray. When it does I am sure you will be able to get an app that does it.
I use Sandvox for my web site. iWeb makes for some mighty slow web pages, but it is very easy to use. There are a number of others available if you would like to use them.
Since the Mac and Apple's OS X does not fit your needs, then why not move to a platform that does? Apple is a company that makes the products they want to make. Nobody is forcing you to use an Apple product.
Right, the old follow blindly or leave angle. I miss the days when the Mac was a computer instead of a religion. Heaven forbid anyone actually want this platform to achieve its potential.
'98 to '05. Back when innovation actually meant new practical features, not just packing components into smaller and smaller and increasingly more expensive packages at the expense of features. These days innovation means putting a laptop behind a cheap screen and calling it a desktop.
I'm not sure what features you are referring to that Apple no longer promotes. Software-wise, isn't Leopard more feature-rich than any previous Mac OS? And hardware-wise, the systems are hardly "increasingly more expensive."
I would agree that the iMac is a system that I'm not particularly interested in buying. But let's compare apples to apples. The iMac came out in '98, and I think that anyone would favorably compare today's base model 20-inch screen / 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo / 1066MHz FSB / 250GB hard drive / 1GB RAM for $1199 with '98's base model 15-inch screen / 233MHz G3 / 66MHz bus / 4GB hard drive / 32MB RAM for $1299.
The top-of-the-line Mac in '98 was probably the beige Power Mac G3 at $2400, and I'm sure a spec comparison with the Mac Pro would reveal a similar leap in capabilities. By the same measure, Apple is now providing the latest IO technologies like FW 800, USB 2.0, 802.11g/n wifi, gigabit ethernet, etc. So I don't see where Apple is failing to deliver highly enhanced performance at nearly the same price points.
I, like many people, would like to see Apple offer a lower-cost desktop in addition to the Mac Pro, but unfortunately Apple's marketing plan doesn't include that. In the mid-'90s Apple produced a dizzying array of different models and product names, to the point where even Apple fans couldn't keep them all straight. Jobs' strategy has always been to offer fewer products that were clearly differentiated, and overall that strategy has worked better for Apple.
Wrong, it's more like the old "choose the right tool for the job" angle.
Don't know what country you have been living in, but the Mac and Apple have always had a religious following.
I'm not quite sure what BenRoethig means by "innovation," but he specifically said he doesn't mean putting more components into smaller packages. I think he means coming out with entirely new technologies. If so, then I think Apple's still doing a fine job as far as that goes. They have multitouch, they're coming out with FW3200, they integrated iSight cameras into their "laptops behind cheap screens"... how much more can you ask from one company? Eventually, their innovations will be limited by current technologies available. Then new technologies will come along, and that will start the innovation process back up. It works in cycles like that. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how Apple is no longer innovating.
Erm... wasn't putting together a cheap screen and a laptop and calling it a desktop effectively what the iMac G3, G4, and G5 were? And... weren't those all created during '98 to '05? What innovations are you talking about, exactly?
And believe it or not there were also other options. As for innovations try the PowerMac G3/4 and cube. The El-Captain case with its latch made it easy to access to the internal components and drives. Take the Cube. Ultra small, but still relatively full featured and easily upgradable. How about the Wallstreet PBG3 with its swapable 5.25" bay?
As for the iMac, eMac line, for most of its life Apple understood it was purely a lower to middle end consumer product. With the G5s, functionality began to take a backseat to aesthetics. The G5 case was larger and far less functional than its predecessor, but the design looked better. In fact, the case never met its full potential until the Mac Pro. The G5 (the G5 used desktop hardware from the low end PMG5 BTW) iMac used to offer easy access to its hard drive and memory plus the ability to use different stands and mounts using industry standard 100mm VESA equipment. Those were taken away in the intel models to make them progressively thinner.
Nothing like the blind fanaticism we have now. We could also back up our beliefs that our computers were better. Besides finding out that we were flat out deceived by Apple about the competitiveness of the G4 and G5 puts things in perspective.
Real-time HD video editing on my inferior "laptop" component iMac seems to be somewhere in between email and a feature film.
When I heard of the Psystar computers I was wondering how long it'd be until the first news of Apple suing them surfaced.
Actually, neither of those statements are true. I've seen far worse "blind fanaticism" during the G3 and earlier days, and I think it's lessened (actually probably given way to a far worse senseless and constant complaining about everything Apple does) after the Intel transition was completed.
We also weren't deceived by Apple about the G4 and G5. They truly believed, and were correct in their belief that the PowerPC was the best processor design available. It was true most of the way through the G4 line, and the G5 line was, I believe, marketed to Apple by IBM to keep that vain hope alive. If anything, Apple was being deceived same as us by IBM trying to keep up that section of their business. I actually believe that until the Core Duo architecture that the PowerPC line was better designed, just not being manufactured at the full potential. It also was lacking in future roadmap. At the time of the switch, the Intel chips actually weren't quite as good, which is why the G5's still keep up in a lot of tasks. They just weren't going anywhere.
jW
Much of those innovations you listed are either still in use, or have no more reason to be in use. The latch in the PowerMacs that lets you pull out the side is still in use, even though it won't pull out the motherboard. I have two guesses as to why they eliminated this functionality: either people kept getting cables caught in the sides, or they found a better way to make it upgradeable, the product which is the Mac Pro, with its slide-out hard drive bays and memory riser cards. What else do you need to upgrade, really? You can't touch any of Apple's components, such as the motherboard, or any of the processors, so why make those accessible? Admittedly, it is harder to access the PCIE cards, but it makes for an overall simpler design.
As for the cube, it was a failure. That's why they switched to the Mini, because they wanted to market a cheap, small computer.
Perhaps it would be nice to see the ability to trade an optical drive for a battery in the MacBook Pro, but Apple is more focused on integrating everything cleanly, and having as few removable parts as they can now. It's form over function, which I hate, but that's the stand they've chosen to take. Plus, a 5.25" bay? What were they thinking? I'd take my slot-loading SuperDrive over that thing anytime.
Besides not having a second optical drive, how was the PMG4's case design better than the PMG5's? And you can still access the hard drive and memory easily enough, you just have to take out the back instead of a little latch. I'm still trying to figure out why the thickness of iMacs is important to Apple, considering it's a desktop and it's already thin enough. But it's not really entirely a laptop-- it uses a combination of desktop and laptop parts, to try and create a balance between size and performance. Personally, I think they're doing a good job of it, too.
My biggest problem is the whole desktop situation. Here is a comparison of single and dual socket quad core systems.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2255603,00.asp
On average adding another CPU lowers performance, because anything that needs more than two cores is generally going to be bandwidth limited and messing with the FSB like you have to with a dual socket MB lowers memory bandwidth.
So no, I don't particularly like the idea of paying $2700 for a Mac Pro when a system with some actual thought put into it could run faster for a thousand dollars less.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2255603,00.asp
On average adding another CPU lowers performance, because anything that needs more than two cores is generally going to be bandwidth limited and messing with the FSB like you have to with a dual socket MB lowers memory bandwidth.
So no, I don't particularly like the idea of paying $2700 for a Mac Pro when a system with some actual thought put into it could run faster for a thousand dollars less.