Buyers Outlook for 2008-2009. Penryn iMacs Soon, Nehalem in 2009

[motulist]

WOW!!! a 1998 computer that is still running!!!!!!! Dude that is 10 years!!! Can't say the same for the PC world. very few PC's that old are still functioning- or if they are, you just do not want to use them anymore.

I'm still very much using every Mac that I ever bought.

--> My 1995 powermac 8500 is being used in my music setup as an OS 9 machine that runs a software synth that never got ported to OS X.

--> My powermac G3 350 mhz is still very much used as one of my main machines. I use it as my main writing computer and my information-photo machine. It's awesome in this purpose because I specifically keep it not connected to the net and it's fast enough to perfectly run a word processor and photo viewer but it's too slow to run anything distracting, so it's the perfect distraction-free machine for all that boring stuff that just has to get done.

--> My G4 450 is setup as my print server, scanner station, net surfer for my kitchen, does constant downloads, runs my network drive which stores all my downloaded videos, is a video player machine with a decent sized screen attached, and acts as a fully functional backup machine if any of my other machines go down.

--> My powerbook G4 1 ghz is my main net surfing machine, my travel machine, my music production machine (simply because it's the fastest machine that I own), and my general all purpose machine.


At one point I thought the best idea was to get one machine that'll do it all. But a couple of years ago I realized that that's a much worse option than having several machines that are dedicated to specific purposes. Having lived with this setup for a couple of years I've found it to be MUCH better than trying to make one machine do it all.

 

[Sbrocket]

So you agree that paying top dollar for old technology? Hey, what ever floats your boat.

No, I buy when there's new revisions, not at the end of a cycle. Apple's release cycle is relatively predicatable, and its not all that hard to avoid "paying top dollar for old technology" if you actually research your big purchases.

Not that "paying top dollar for old technology" fits anyway. At the time it was purchased it wasn't old technology, it had just been the current revision available for a longer period of time. I said earlier that I disagreed with the frequently quoted "If it does what you need it to then stop complaining" motto, but I suppose I should qualify that. There's a difference between applying the needs vs. costs problem to your purchases (what that phrase is really meant to say when its used correctly, and the usage I agree with) when it makes sense in the scope of your other individual circumstances and applying it all the time without acception.

In the case where a person buys a computer from Apple and then the computer is shortly upstaged with a new release I would say two things: 1) that person should have researched Apple's release cycle better if they actually mind having their new purchase outdated, and 2) that person bought the computer that they paid for and at the time it was sufficient to fulfill their needs so a newer, better computer shouldn't modify what your needs are in a computer.

WOW!!! a 1998 computer that is still running!!!!!!! Dude that is 10 years!!! Can't say the same for the PC world. very few PC's that old are still functioning- or if they are, you just do not want to use them anymore.

My MacBook Pro's motherboard just died, so I want this guy's luck in the future. Good thing for AppleCare.

 

[jaminthejar]

In laymen's terms, what kinds of performance boosts can we expect from these new processors? I'm running a 2ghz CoreDuo Macbook Pro, and I wouldn't mind maybe adding an iMac to the family in about a year or so.

 

[Sbrocket]

In laymen's terms, what kinds of performance boosts can we expect from these new processors? I'm running a 2ghz CoreDuo Macbook Pro, and I wouldn't mind maybe adding an iMac to the family in about a year or so.

How much do you want it in layman's terms?

"It'll be faster."

There you go.

 

[nick9191]

so is MacRumors stating that the iMac will not see penryn updates until June? if so, why would Apple wait so long after the MacBooks to update to the same chip?

No Montevina, Apple will likely leave it another year after this update and Intel would not allow them to carry Penryn until June 2009. They will likely update the iMac, Mac Mini, Macbook, Macbook Pro all to Montevina at the same time in June 2008. And then leave it until February-June 2009. In fact I can see them redesigning the lot at WWDC this year, and rolling out Montevina.

Then in Feb they will likely update the Macbook/Pro with Nahealm and leave the imac, mini until WWDC in which they will again update the lot (inc Macbook/Pro) with whatever comes after Nahealm. And at the same time update the Mac Pro.

 

[PCNot]

No, I buy when there's new revisions, not at the end of a cycle. Apple's release cycle is relatively predicatable, and its not all that hard to avoid "paying top dollar for old technology" if you actually research your big purchases.

Not that "paying top dollar for old technology" fits anyway. At the time it was purchased it wasn't old technology, it had just been the current revision available for a longer period of time. I said earlier that I disagreed with the frequently quoted "If it does what you need it to then stop complaining" motto, but I suppose I should qualify that. There's a difference between applying the needs vs. costs problem to your purchases (what that phrase is really meant to say when its used correctly, and the usage I agree with) when it makes sense in the scope of your other individual circumstances and applying it all the time without acception.

In the case where a person buys a computer from Apple and then the computer is shortly upstaged with a new release I would say two things: 1) that person should have researched Apple's release cycle better if they actually mind having their new purchase outdated, and 2) that person bought the computer that they paid for and at the time it was sufficient to fulfill their needs so a newer, better computer shouldn't modify what your needs are in a computer.



My MacBook Pro's motherboard just died, so I want this guy's luck in the future. Good thing for AppleCare.

Shouldn't Apple at the very least adjust their prices when the device is reaching their end cycle?

 

[tmelvin]

So you agree that paying top dollar for old technology? Hey, what ever floats your boat.

What he's saying is that the model Apple is using works for them. If you'd rather buy something cheaper, then go ahead. Go to Gateway, DELL, or Wal-Mart and buy a PC there. It'll be the latest and greatest technology to be had; all for $499.99. Pick up some milk while you're at it...

 

[mmendoza27]

To anyone considering a new Mac laptop - whether you wait or don't - the White MacBook SuperDrive is the best bang-for-the-buck ratio of all the offerings, and has been since the MacBook first came out. You get the exact same processor as the $1999 MBP - the same amount of RAM, the same optical drive, only a slightly smaller hard drive, (or you can get a bigger than MBP hard drive as a $100 upgrade), for $700 less!!! And for less than $100 online, you can order 4 GB of RAM, and install it yourself. So, for less than $200 of upgrades, (and therefore still $500 *LESS THAN* the MBP) your computer can be better than the MBP, in every way but graphics and FireWire 800 ports. And, it's more portable.

Again, not wanting to diss the MBP - if you really need graphics power, or are compelled to have to have the most expensive computer on the block - by all means, get it. But if you are looking for a great laptop and money doesn't grow on trees for you, the MacBook is the best option.

This is very, very true. When people are considering picking up a Mac laptop at the Apple store, I contsantly remind them of this. I bought a Core2Duo 2.33 GHZ, Superdrive, 160 GB hard drive, 2 GB of RAM with a x1600 ATI graphics card for $2,799. The MacBook now, has all of that, with a little more here and there and no graphics card for $1,299. It's a great deal, perfect for most computer users.

 

[mikejd1]

This is very, very true. When people are considering picking up a Mac laptop at the Apple store, I contsantly remind them of this. I bought a Core2Duo 2.33 GHZ, Superdrive, 160 GB hard drive, 2 GB of RAM with a x1600 ATI graphics card for $2,799. The MacBook now, has all of that, with a little more here and there and no graphics card for $1,299. It's a great deal, perfect for most computer users.

but with a crappy ass 13" display, kills me everytime i go into the store and look at one. how can ANYONE be productive on that small of a screen?

 

[farmboy]

See ya, bye.

I said it once before, and I will say it again. APPLE does not care about it consumers. Anyone who buys a device that is 8 months old, and pays top dollar for it is a fool. And thanks to these fools, Apple will continue this practice because the bottom line is they are making money on an outdated machine.

All the loyal mac users can argue this point all they want. The facts are the facts. Apple is the only company that I know that does this. They dont even give you the option of customizing the IMAC ...

As far as I am concerned, I am done being treated like a sheep. Apple and Steve can go **** themselves.

I was going to go into detail on you, but it's a waste of electrons. Four iMacs--pick one. Get out your owner's manual for that Phillips screwdriver and change your ram and hard drive.

 

[jaminthejar]

Yeah part of that just kinda sucks because if you do want a 15" screen, you wind up paying a LOT more than you need to, at least compared to what the MB offers. They're making you pay an arm and a leg just for a bigger screen and a better graphics card, which has been kind of ridiculous since the machines were released to begin with.

 

[tmelvin]

but with a crappy ass 13" display, kills me everytime i go into the store and look at one. how can ANYONE be productive on that small of a screen?

I think it depends on needs. Most here use it with an external display. The small screen is nice for traveling. I have an iMac now, but am considering the Macbook just for that reason.

 

[mmendoza27]

but with a crappy ass 13" display, kills me everytime i go into the store and look at one. how can ANYONE be productive on that small of a screen?

I'm sorry I should have said most consumer users. Yeah, if you are going to do a lot of Photoshop, Aperture, or even video editing, then go for the Pro. That's why I had to buy the Pro, screen real estate is extremely important for me. I'd like for them to increase the resolution on the MacBook's too. That's why I got 17".... too bad they didn't have high-resolution screens back then.

But that's cool, my Nehalem will be 1920x1200.

 

[ChrisA]

I said it once before, and I will say it again. APPLE does not care about it consumers. Anyone who buys a device that is 8 months old, and pays top dollar for it is a fool.

You might also argue that people who worry about things like a 10% difference in CPU speed or buss speed are just geeks more interresting in benchmarks then actually doing stuff that matters with their computers. Funny that you always here these people talking about numbers rather then asking practical questions about how much better the new machine might perform some common task.

I'm not singling out Mac users either, I see the same thing in Photography forums. Lots more talk about numbers and specs then about how to approach some subject artistically

 

[Antares]

Ah, the merry mystery of buyer's speculation!

I guess we do have to change our mindset a bit on the timing of new computer purchases with Apple's Intel switch. I wonder if this "forced" update path is more expensive for Apple...or if quality suffers as a result. Previously, Apple would be able to mull over an update over a longer period of time...giving more time for testing and fine-tuning. Now, with all these incremental updates, it seems like they no longer have that luxury.

 

[FoxyKaye]

Nehalem vs. "Sandy Bridge"

If you look at the Intel Roadmap in Wikipedia, the successor to Nehalem is something called "Sandy Bridge" -- is this another "leap" in chip architecture, in the same way that Nehalem is a leap from Penryn, or is Sandy Bridge a later evolution of Nehalem itself?

 

[bnp]

Doesn't even have to be super new, as long as it's an NVIDIA of the same class... although I haven't read the details on ATI's and NVIDIA's latest cards yet... hmmm, well I'll get back to this later.

... but if you're the late adopter type and in the market for a new Macbook Pro, go ahead and get a Montevina Macbook Pro, all of Nehalem's advancements will still be there in a couple of years and any kinks should be worked out, but if you're using a Macbook Pro that's less than a year old (and it sounds like you are) and it's still working for you, why dump it for a new one? Wait a while, extend AppleCare and get the most out of what you have now, and whatever you do don't ever downgrade to a Macbook the next time you go computer shopping.

Sebastian

Wise advice. As someone else stated earlier, we can keep putting off and putting off as there ALWAYS will be a newer spiffy Mac just down the tunnel.
I, for one, would love to wait for Nahelem. But, with a six year old iMac(yuup, original flowerpot model going strong) I NEED to move to a new Mac now to use Leopard and take advantage of application upgrades. So, it will be Montevina for me!( I am moving to a laptop as my primary Mac)
I am sure there are others with similar stories...the news about upcoming Intel chips is always tantalizing but each of us has to think realistically about our own work needs , state of the piggy bank and realize that there ALWAYS will be a newer model waiting for us when we again seek to replace our computer.
Lastly, while Nahalem is scheduled for an "early 2009" release there is no guarantee when Macs equipped with that chip will truly be available for purchase and delivery.

 

[jeffereyj]

at this point, wouldn't it make more sense for Apple to not bother with a Penryn iMac, and just wait and do the Montevina....?

 

[Nano-tube]

I've been grateful for the MR Buyer's Guide for several years. It's what helped me strategically plan for the jump from my old 1998 Beige G3 to my new 2008 Mac Pro (8-core). I figured I was caught up in the "keep waiting" routine long enough.

I know better technology is coming out next year, but I can't keep putting off my immediate plans for something continuously down the line. Besides, I do plan on replacing my 12" Powerbook G4 in 2010, hoping the Nehalem chips will make its way into MacBook Pros by then.

As for the iMacs, if you're at consumer level then any speed gains for the next generation of chips could be negligible for what applications you plan on using. If you fall into this category, then just get the next rev of the iMac. Day 1, of course.

It always amazes me - the longevity of Macs. This guy has been using the same machine for 10 years. In computer time, 10 years is like 50 years in car time. This was really one of the reasons that I bought my PowerMac G5 and it still works great - with Leopard and all the newest software.

Kudos for Apple for producing such long living products (HW & SW).

I have a PC too that I bought around the same time as the Mac. It runs XP great but it won't be able to handle vista.

If I'll have the money I will look into the Nehalem release. From everything I read, Nehalem should be a true upgrade. Let's hope that as much developers (Apple included) take advantage of this new CPU.

 

[EagerDragon]

I've being waiting a long time for a new Mac (read Imac with better video card), almost bought a alu Imac
but kept reading that the 20inch lcd was subpar even compared to the previous version.

Don't get me wrong, I've been using and buying Macs since 1983 and I know this is heresy
but how come we see quad-core core2 processors in pc's with powerfull graphics cards (for a ridiculous price) and can't get something similar for
Macs? example:
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/pr...3&atab=&spviewed=&newlang=EN&logon=&langid=FR

I'd be willing to pay extra for such a machine just to have Mac software onboard.

The closest to that is the Mac Pro single quad with the same card. But it is a lot more expensive.
About 2899 = base system with single quad 2.8, same video card, 1 TB drive, keyboard, mouse, 2 Ether, 2 gig memory.

BTW the CPU's are not the same family, Mac Pro are different line of CPU.
You can get that.

 

[Clive At Five]

Forget the x3100. I'm hoping they pop in the x4500!

Though, I do realize, the way they shackle the mini, I may be dreaming they will allow this upgrade.

However, I'm holding out on buying a mini for a super media center, till they put in the x4500 (for HD content), and wireless n (stream HD over wifi instead of attaching a noisy external drive).

If I'm not mistaken, the x4500 is part of the Montevina chipset... something which I HIGHLY doubt the MacMini will receive any time soon.

As you noted yourself, Apple likes to shackle the Mini.

-Clive

 

[twoodcc]

yeah, i like the fact that they changed to intel, so we have a better idea of what's coming, and when. even though we never know when apple will actually update theirs.

 

[Antares]

Shouldn't Apple at the very least adjust their prices when the device is reaching their end cycle?

I don't think Apple likes up and down pricing. A product has a typical price and it stays at that price for it's lifespan. This makes perfect sense. For one, the product keeps it's value longer. And two, you avoid the delaying mindest of purchases....Unless you absolutely need a new computer now, why would you buy the computer when it's first released if you know that it's going to drop in price only a month or two later? Car companies do the same thing. A 2008 Charger will always have the same base price until the 2009 models are announced and/or ship. Why wouldn't it be the same for computers? A car would have year old technology as well.... Apple just has a shorter window between announcement and availability for purchase than car companies do. Continuing with your logic, we should also say, "F* the car companies," right?

 

[hotshotharry]

I dont understand why some people are so set against people waiting for the new revision before they buy! Its only good sense that if you can wait a month or two and get the latest model then do it!

If you were in the market for a car in december say, and the new ones came out in january, why in the heck would you buy in decemeber if you really didnt need it!!! wait a month ! Does it make sense to buy something when a new model is just around the corner!

Yes there is always something new around the corner but 1 or 2 months is a big difference to what i can maybe get next yest! be realistic!! I'm talking about short term coordination with the refresh cycle.

How about all the people in he anti waiting camp can go and buy up all the stock so we can get the new model a little quicker

If you wanna buy now then fine go ahead, but stop giving those who wish to wait a hard time! I think buying at the end of a cycle is more ridiculous than waiting!

 

[kresh]

People buy PCs all the time and this is essentially what they do. The difference is that PC makers actually tell people about upcoming products. The way Apple releases their products is one thing that really bugs me. Makes it impossible to plan for (which is pretty much required in an enterprise setting).

That's my whole point. PC manufacturer's are trapped in a high volume, low margin rat race. It's a no win situation, someone, somewhere, will always undercut you on price. it's just a fact of life.

Apple has carved out a niche where they have divorced the (sum of the parts) = (the selling price) sales model. Apple maintains fantastic margins and is not dependent on high volume.

I mean, be honest, do you think that Apple lacks the ability to aggressively go after the Enterprise market? It's not a lack of ability, but a lack of desire. There is no future in selling $300 boxes to the Enterprise market.

The "Proof of the Pudding" as they say is the fact that both Dell and HP had to buy companies that were doing something they would or could not do. Dell purchased Alienware and HP purchased VooDoo to get into a low volume High margin niche. It's where the money's at.