I was expecting a more technical article but hopefully this will reduce the number of redundant threads on the topic.
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.
Buyers Outlook for 2008-2009. Penryn iMacs Soon, Nehalem in 2009
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I turned on my old Mac SE last January (circa 1989). Started right up in all it's OS 7.5 glory! Even the date and time was correct (except for an hour do to daylight savings time).WOW!!!a 1998 computer that is still running!!!!!!! Dude that is 10 years!!!
23" Apple Cinema Display for $899
24" HP LP2465 for $649
24" Dell 2408WFP for $599
24" BenQ G2400W for $400
I can hardly see the compelling argument for an ACD when so many other options are available.
The Dell and the BenQ use a cheaper panel as far as I know. The HP is the one that comes close, and the build quality is more than lacking, that is if you don't want a creaking wobbly monitor.
As far as I can see the few displays that are on par with the Cinema's are the ones from NEC, LaCie and the higher end monitors from Dell and HP.
p.s. The 24" Dell is actually $799.
The Buyers Guide is one of the best things on the net. Period. It has helped me out in many instances. Kudos for MacRumors for creating it and keeping it up to date.
From Wikipedia...
Nehalem
Performance and Power Improvements
It has been reported that Nehalem will have a focus on performance. Nehalem is Penryn with microarchitectural and power efficiency improvements, including lower power states and leakage reduction.
Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have:
1.1x to 1.25x the single-threaded performance or 1.2x to 2x the multithreaded performance at the same power level. 30% lower power usage for the same performance.
Compared to a 3.0 GHz Core-based "Clovertown" microprocessor, the Nehalem-EP "Gainestown" processor will have 1.6x the SPECint_rate2006 integer performance and 2.4x the SPECfp_rate_2006 floating-point performance.
Nehalem
Performance and Power Improvements
It has been reported that Nehalem will have a focus on performance. Nehalem is Penryn with microarchitectural and power efficiency improvements, including lower power states and leakage reduction.
Nehalem will, compared to Penryn, have:
1.1x to 1.25x the single-threaded performance or 1.2x to 2x the multithreaded performance at the same power level. 30% lower power usage for the same performance.
Compared to a 3.0 GHz Core-based "Clovertown" microprocessor, the Nehalem-EP "Gainestown" processor will have 1.6x the SPECint_rate2006 integer performance and 2.4x the SPECfp_rate_2006 floating-point performance.
First of all, buying Macs since 1983 is... well. Impossible.
That computer could be dwarfed by a Mac Pro, as long as you're willing to pay extra...
Are the iMac graphic cards really that bad? I feel like those things do pretty well. Do you mind me asking what you do that requires more power from them?
1. If you insist, it was an Apple //e in '83
2. A MacPro would cost waaay more...(I don't need that kind of power)
3. I want a better than average card so I can keep the computer
more than a few years and still have the kids ( and me
) play games
1. If you insist, it was an Apple //e in '83
2. A MacPro would cost waaay more...(I don't need that kind of power)
3. I want a better than average card so I can keep the computer
more than a few years and still have the kids ( and me
But with the extra investment, you can play games longer on the Mac Pro.
What I don't understand is.... how can someone say the Mac Pro is too powerful now, so I want a lesser machine. But in 3 years when the machine is actually obsolete they want to be able to upgrade it, or at least just the GFX card.
That's the best case for the Mac Pro... granted it's $2400 but it will last you 5 or more years.... like the guy with the G3 did.
The most interesting thing about LCDs is that though specs can be the same or better, the end result of what you actually see doesn't always reflect the specs. Spec wise the ACD can be inferior to a Dell or HP but when you put both side by side the ACD looks better - at least in my opinion.
Even when I connect a PC to my ACD to play a shooter, the ACD looks and performs better then the Dell.
Price wise, the ACD is more expensive. This is a fact.
In the end, this depends on the eye of the beholder and not just price and specs. If someone likes the ACD he / she should buy one - or two
Just when you move it in general... it feels cheap. The only other displays that I have handled that don't feel cheap are the 30" ones from Dell and Samsung.
That's just a side issue, the real problem is the panel that's in the monitor. Most high end monitors use a more expensive panel (the name of which escapes me) and the cheaper panels are put in the cheaper displays.
Once you find that out, and look at the prices you see that the Dell is only $100 cheaper than the Apple. Then look at what the monitor is made out of and the ports that are on the back.
Who in their right mind would by a 30" monitor and use the card reader on it over USB 2.0?
I guess that person needed the big display to see how long it would take to download a 2GB card.p.s. On a side note, I am sure Apple would have updated their monitors if there was something to update them to, other than the cheaper consumer 20" and 24" panels. Most other companies that make the pro displays use the same thing or equivalent.
Oh man
you just blew my expectations I was hoping I was going to get atleast a few good years - and the reason I am switching is for Video and graphics. I make a lot of church videos and videos for a local musician and worship pastor and pretty much got all I could out of Premier Elements, so I am moving on to Final Cut Express. Plus I wanted better hardware and a longer lasting machine. Although I think I still made a good choice.http://youtube.com/shervieux
But with the extra investment, you can play games longer on the Mac Pro.
What I don't understand is.... how can someone say the Mac Pro is too powerful now, so I want a lesser machine. But in 3 years when the machine is actually obsolete they want to be able to upgrade it, or at least just the GFX card.
That's the best case for the Mac Pro... granted it's $2400 but it will last you 5 or more years.... like the guy with the G3 did.
Have Apple make a mini tower with quad-core core 2 chips,price it at $1400 then I'll buy it and upgrade it like I did with my G4 Digital audio tower that I still have, it will still be powerfull after many years without spending $1000.00 more for it.
Hi Arn,
it shouldn't be forgotten, that you only look at the Macintosh Roadmap from a CPU technology standpoint. There are many other computer technologies that could drive a buying decision. I like to mention:
BlueRay drives/burners
LED backlights for screens
SSD harddrives
Touchscreens
Faster RAM
to name a few. For me some of those are more important then raw CPU power.
Otherwise - great Article.
Cheers
LaForge
it shouldn't be forgotten, that you only look at the Macintosh Roadmap from a CPU technology standpoint. There are many other computer technologies that could drive a buying decision. I like to mention:
BlueRay drives/burners
LED backlights for screens
SSD harddrives
Touchscreens
Faster RAM
to name a few. For me some of those are more important then raw CPU power.
Otherwise - great Article.
Cheers
LaForge
Go with a refurb iMac from apple.com. It will be cheaper, and I am pretty sure you can still get a warranty
Oh I believe you, I'd be there as well, picking one of those and a display. I remember when the pro towers started out at $1499, then moved up to $1799 then again up to $1999. Now they sit at $2299 or so and Apple has left us with the iMac and it just doesn't come close.
What i am hoping for is a choice to further cut down the MacPro to get the price down to at least $2000. I am sure that's not going to happen though, so I just sucked it up and started eyeing the MP. It offers me a longer life span than even my Dual Core G5.
p.s. For those in the monitor section of the forum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin_film_transistor_liquid_crystal_display
I think the iMac will get the Penryn/Santa Rosa combo now and move to the Montevina platform when there are quad-core Penryns available, which is why they are overdue for their update, and then jump to Nehalem/Calpella next year.
pc companies do the same. in 2005 I bought an HP desk top. it came with Windows media center 2002 with no service packs loaded. I also used to open and upgrade PC's for a medical laboratory company i worked for - funny how the brand new machine had the came internals as the year or 2 old machine we bought a couple of years prior (IBM - just now they were called ThinkCenter instead of NetVista). No company wastes money. If they have a lot of something in stock, they will continue sticking it in a machine until that part runs out. A few other off name PC's they had, were just bought a year prior and they still had ISA (the big brown) slots on the motherboard.
If you're going to go there:
USB 3.0
FireWire 3200
eSATA
10-Gig Ethernet
Whatever wireless is faster than 11n
The problem with wanting an "upgradeable" computer is that by the time you buy all these new features, you could have bought a new computer with all of them for less than it cost to upgrade.
WOW!!!
Actually you might be surprised how many old boxes are out there in daily use. I've seen lots of old POS (point of sale, not piece of __) systems running in stores on antiquated hardware like this. I've also seen my share of old apps running on ancient DOS boxes at military bases performing mission critical tasks.
There is a good chance my PC from this area would still be running as well, if I still had it. The reality is most people don't want to use any computer from this era for personal use. However there are always a few out there though that will continue to cling to their old Commodores, Apples, Atari's, or even old PCs.
Right. I was a long time tinker, always building my own machines in big towers. The sides of the machines were perpetually off. I used to really look down upon all-in-one proprietary systems.
However, now I own a 20" iMac and I've never looked back. At the time, I was trying to learn as much as I could and building my own boxes was one way to learn a lot. However I didn't end up having a hardware-centric career, and I really don't have the time or money to fool with it any more either.
If I've learned anything at all, it is that one size doesn't fit all. I actually hope that IS and CS students are continuing to build their own boxes and experiment with things like Linux. When you work in the field it is actually good to not just take it for granted that things "just work."
Refurb 24" iMac 2.8 $1899. with one year warranty.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nplm=FB322LL/A
AppleCare to make it 3 years...$169.
You know, the only computer I remember being able to pull such tricks was the Amiga. It was an amazing piece of technology and it was able to work with many instances of it's OS (Workbench). I mean, it came out with Workbench 1.3 or something and it kept going with much more advanced versions. I know that some people still use it even today! (including NASA for some tasks - or at least this was the situation about a year or two ago).
Imagine that... 1985 to 2008.... wow.
I was never a mac guy, but when Mac OS X came out in 2000, I had the same feeling as when I first saw the Amiga (I was drooling
But since I was suspicious a little, I waited a few years to see how things will develop. Panther broke me. I went and bought this PowerMac baby and it is rock solid. Today, the Mac is the Amiga.
Does anyone else feel the same about that (especially Amiga old timers)?
And who made the Amiga - oh that's right.. APPLE with a joint venture with Commodore, 80% Apple's innovative just a Commodore logo on it....
Of course I remember the same whining over computer technology back then...
Well for one, most serious investors require company roadmaps to determine whether or not it's a good investment. One of the reasons AAPL is so volitile is because there are no facts to base investment on. Sure there is sales history and adoption and things like that, but that says nothing about where the stock will be next week. For all we know, Apple could have stopped all computer R&D and instead started concentrating on revolutionizing Fast Food. Meanwhile, for months and months, investors are blindly investing in the next fast food chain and wouldn't find out about it until Steve Jobs unveils "iEat." Meanwhile, the clueless analysts had continued to lead them on saying that Apple would be releasing new MacBooks.
Face it. We know nothing about what's going on inside Apple. As an investor myself and a long-time Apple user, I wouldn't touch AAPL with a 39 & 1/2-foot pole. The fact that so many people just TRUST Apple to be doing "the right thing" baffles me. Wall Street is not based on trust.
And sure it's easy to look at the company and call me a fool for doubting their success. I'm not doubting their success, I'm looking at the bigger picture. Apple's success is only very recent and - I believe - based on the lucky break that was the iPod. Apple was making amazing products before the iPod but still only had 2% marketshare (explain that one for me). I also remember an episode Steve Jobs had with Pancreatic Cancer... a disease which is almost always terminal. The loss of Steve would have (will someday) completely alter the landscape of Apple. His replacement could destroy the empire Steve built, or perhaps could be an even greater leader than Steve, we just don't know. Either way, we're looking at a very small snapshot in the entire history of Apple. Their current success doesn't imply anything about their future, be it next week, next month or next year. The only guarantee we have about Apple is that... oh wait, we have none.
So investors are one BIIIIIIG area where a roadmap is *usually* an necessity. All you who've expereienced the 800% returns on AAPL recently, congratulations on your investment, but you're no less foolish in my mind. Sorry.
Aside from being an inconvenience to investors, it's just either really arrogant or really paranoid. I tend to lean towards the "arrogant" side of things. What trade secrets about the upcoming Nano update to 16GB could Apple really be hiding from the industry? And if Apple says they're afraid to show too many details about OS X for fear that Redmond will "start their photocopiers," I don't buy it. MS is so knee-deep in s**t (i.e. fixing Vista) they don't have the ability to copy Leopard (not to mention the OS X experience). Apple knows that.
Anyway, Apple's secrecy is nothing but an inconvenience to those who care and it's of no benefit to those who don't.
-Clive