Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The MBP's were scoring 12,300 so how do they compare speed wise? the pro will be quicker than the iMac?

Finally, it's a pro machine vs a consumer machine (well a extremely powerfull computer thy can do pro work) :)

----------

I missed this and posted something similar a post or two back, but you nailed it. I need Illustrator, Flash, Maya, and a few other pro apps looking like they're supposed to, I've also got an older version or two of some apps that I know won't get updated.

I'm hoping one of the review sites will get around to testing out the Adobe suite in the next few days so we can get a better idea of what everything looks like.

Auto desk have already committed to making a retina autocad, and the same with adobe!
Surely you can wait to upgrade if you need all your apps looking amazing!
 
Bringing the iMac closer to the Pro kind of messes up my upgrade path..AGAIN. After the WWDC I decided, okay I'll wait until the Pro refresh next year, this was my plan anyway as I didn't want to buy another maxed up 27" iMac.

The rumours gathering pace here, and around the interwebs point to some kind of refresh around ML now. If they do put a retina screen in the iMac, then my second-hand sale value will sink like a stone...AND I had an offer on the table for my iMac which was really good too.

I guess it's still plan A though, use what I have now, which compared to some folks who have been waiting is pretty good, and hang for the refresh on the Pro, take the hit on the secondhand value of my iMac.

BUT.....If Apple don't put Thunderbolt in the new Pro I'm back to where I started from...( I have a Pegasus R4, and probably will have another by purchase time) Instead of getting easier, it's getting worse.:mad:
 
That's what I posted yesterday. I demand ROYALTIES!!!

:mad: :mad: :mad:

:D

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15019854#post15019854


I am expecting the 2013 iMac redesign to include a high-resolution panel, the vibrating pen patent as an extra input device and the foldable iMac patent thrown together. This will be a direct attack and answer to MS's Metro interface.

http://www.cultofmac.com/169875/what...of-everything/

In 2012 I am expecting a spec bump to USB 3, Ivy Bridge and Nvidia for the iMac. It would be silly to keep the specifications different from the MBP
The 7970M has a better performance/cost ratio than the 680M and will support the 5120x2880 resolution of the next iMac whereas the 680M is limited to 4k resolutions.
 
Apple has so much cash on hand, so....

How about they lower the margins on the i-Mac for once(and actually price competitively with Win systems), and get a flood of new users hooked on OSX? At the same price point, they could make the next-gen i-mac a beast.

Then they can slowly raise their prices.

1. The reason that they have so much cash is their margins. So reducing margins isn't a good idea from that point of view.

2. It's called "iMac" not "i-Mac".

3. iMacs are priced very competitively with _comparable_ Windows systems. Take into account the actual hardware, the form factor (no ugly big mountain of plastic under the desk), design, the fact that you get a quality monitor, and the pro-version of the operating system, not a limited version.


"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson

With this disgusting signature, are you trying to make fun of Pat Robertson, whoever that is, or are you trying to insult Jews, evangelical Christians, and Germans, all in one go?
 
Last edited:
The 7970M has a better performance/cost ratio than the 680M and will support the 5120x2880 resolution of the next iMac whereas the 680M is limited to 4k resolutions.

Apple will simplify their supply chain, driver development and save money by going with Nvidia across the entire range. Whilst the performance argument is completely valid, that's not always Apple's priority.
 
Where is the article/news tidbit that said only Mac Pros in 2013 and iMacs most likely sooner?

I know that was said n the article but no link to the clams?
 
Apple will simplify their supply chain, driver development and save money by going with Nvidia across the entire range. Whilst the performance argument is completely valid, that's not always Apple's priority.
The 7970M actually offers less performance than the GTX 680M, but it's better value. They won't be going with NVidia for the high end 27 inch iMac if they intend to give it a retina 5120x2880 resolution, which I hope they will.
 
The "new Mac Pros in 2013" comes from Tim Cook in an e-mail to a user named "Franz" who wrote asking about the Mac Pro line. It's been reposted on MacRumors elsewhere
 
For those of you who are anxiously awaiting an update of the iMac, I have a different question: why? What does it do for you that a MacBook Pro and a display would do for you?

I don't see any features that the iMac has that the MacBook doesn't have. Please educate me.

I have a several year old iMac that had its hard disk fail. Repairing it was such a miserable task that I just decided to run off an external disk as my main disk. Grrr. With the MacBook Pro (not Air or Retina), maintenance is easy and I wouldn't have has a problem replacing the hard disk.

Unless there is something I am missing here, I cannot imagine buying another iMac.

I notice a lot of responses ignoring the "and display" part of your alternative setup. :rolleyes:

I had a HDD fail on my 27" i7 iMac and it was a huge pain to have it collected. If I was planning on the basis of that I would agreed the iMac is a huge PITA to bring into the shop. Or wait in all day for a courier to collect. And again all day to deliver back a week later.

However the cost of a MBP and 27" screen is way more than a 27" iMac and, althought I don't have time ATM to check the benchmarks, my expectation is the iMac is more powerful.

But you make a good point - it can be a viable alternative if not right for all.
I may rethink my iPad/MBA/iMac setup when it comes to upgrade time.
 
A retina iMac base on what some people say here would be very very very very costly way up in $4,000 to $5,000 :eek:

I'm sure apple is going to do like they did with MacBook Pro:eek: Some iMac models retina and other iMac models non retina .

It will take time for the price of the retina to come down in price just like when the Macbook air came out it was extremely costly and next cool thing and still is for college and university kids on the go .
 
For those of you who are anxiously awaiting an update of the iMac, I have a different question: why? What does it do for you that a MacBook Pro and a display would do for you?

I don't see any features that the iMac has that the MacBook doesn't have. Please educate me.

iMacs are good for people who, like me, only use their computers at home, and never, ever take them out. If you're that person, you want the biggest display (in inches, not pixels, for aging eyes) possible, and you want the freedom to use a decent mechanical keyboard (I use the Happy Hacker compact 19 mm keypitch Topre key switch keyboard). I suppose you could use an external keyboard (and display) off of a notebook, but that would feel and look stupid.

In addition, iMacs, while compact (their footprint is smaller than a notebook when your put your compact keyboard on the base since the base doesn't have to be as wide as the display in an iMac), are not so massively compact that mega-miniaturization of parts needs to happen. Stuff is more fixable and less expensive per given spec point since it's not so miniaturized and custom built.

With iPhones (and iPads), I wonder why anyone bothers with a notebook anyway. I suppose if you travel on work and have to use it while traveling, it has merits. But in that case I would have my company buy and pay for the computer, and my own computer would be an iMac.

I have a several year old iMac that had its hard disk fail. Repairing it was such a miserable task that I just decided to run off an external disk as my main disk. Grrr. With the MacBook Pro (not Air or Retina), maintenance is easy and I wouldn't have has a problem replacing the hard disk.

Apple will fix the disk for you, and they are fast and efficient, and it's free within the first 3 years with AppleCare.

But yes, of course, you should always boot off an external disk if you don't have an SSD, and you should put your data on an external disk if you do. If your Macintosh breaks and you have to send it to Apple, you don't want them to have access to the data on your disk, do you? You should order the smallest internal hard drive, wipe it blank, and never use it.

In addition, maximum available internal hard disks from Apple tend to be about half the capacity of the latest affordable third party hard disks, and the Apple disks tend to be a little small if you have music and photos and plan to use your computer for a few years.

Another reason to never use an internal hard disk is that for backup purposes you should use a problem like SuperDuper to clone your startup disk, and it's best to have a startup disk that is the same size as your clones, and as mentioned above, your external disks will be about twice the capaticity of your internal disk. You should boot from external 1, clone every night to external 2, and once a week or so clone to off-site external 3. If one of these breaks, take it apart, destroy the platters with a hammer and chisel, and buy a new one.

And booting off of externals and backing up to clones means you can work for the 2 days while your iMac is in the shop by booting a spare, old machine off one of your external disks.
 
1. The reason that they have so much cash is their margins. So reducing margins isn't a good idea from that point of view.

2. It's called "iMac" not "i-Mac".

3. iMacs are priced very competitively with _comparable_ Windows systems. Take into account the actual hardware, the form factor (no ugly big mountain of plastic under the desk), design, the fact that you get a quality monitor, and the pro-version of the operating system, not a limited version.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisdee
I'm sick of these rumors.
Then why are you reading and posting on a site called MacRUMORS.
__________________
"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." Pat Robertson


With this disgusting signature, are you trying to make fun of Pat Robertson, whoever that is, or are you trying to insult Jews, evangelical Christians, and Germans, all in one go?


Being a member of one of those groups, I do not find the signature offensive at all, assuming of course (based on the fact that most people on this forum are almost as clever as me) that it is meant to point out the idiocy of Pat Robertson who is a right wing Fundamentalist nut job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson_controversies
 
[url=http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogodarkd.png]Image[/url]


Back in mid-May, a pair of Geekbench 2 benchmarks that claimed to be from unreleased MacBook Pro and iMac models appeared, setting off speculation that updates to both lines might be imminent if the entries were indeed legitimate. But with Apple not updating the iMac earlier this week at its Worldwide Developers Conference keynote, those looking for an upgraded all-in-one desktop Mac have been left waiting.

With updated MacBook Pro models reaching the public, Primate Labs highlighted some of the benchmarks yesterday, and the details for the non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro match up nearly exactly with what appeared in the entry from last month, all but confirming that it was indeed a legitimate leak.

Now with that information in hand, it pays to revisit the iMac benchmark that appeared around the same time, and while the two benchmarks aren't necessarily linked, it could generate hope that an updated iMac may still be right around the corner. The iMac benchmark referred to an "iMac13,2" model running a 3.4 GHz Core i7-3770 quad-core processor with 4 GB of 1600 MHz RAM, and while it is possible that the information could have been faked, Primate Labs previously reported that it believes the entry to be legitimate.

Image


Further fueling speculation of a near-term iMac update is recent confusion in which it was initially reported that Apple representatives had told reporters that new iMac and Mac Pro models would likely be arriving in 2013. But following publication of those reports, Apple press relations staff specifically clarified those remarks to note that only the Mac Pro would be seeing the 2013 update. The assumption related to that clarification is of course that an iMac update is very likely to come sooner than the end of this year.

It has already been over 400 days since the iMac was last updated, and Ivy Bridge processors appropriate for the iMac have been available since late April. Consequently, it seems likely that the iMac will still be receiving an update in the relatively near future despite not making an appearance at this week's conference.

As for what improvements the next-generation iMac will see beyond Ivy Bridge, at least one mainstream news report has claimed that Apple is working on Retina displays for the iMac, although we previously analyzed how daunting of a task it would be to support four times the number of pixels found on the current models, particularly on a 27-inch display. Other sources have claimed that Apple is working on anti-reflective glass for the iMac, rumors that may have gained some support with Apple having touted this week that the Retina MacBook Pro's display produces 75% less glare than non-Retina models.

Article Link: iMac Update Might Be Coming Sooner Rather Than Later

I am also heartened by this news and just waiting to buy new imac but please explain why these benchmark tests could not have been the current 27" imac with optional i7 3.4G processor testing out ML?
 
I'd rather purchase an end of line upgraded iMac this year than wait for the supposed 'fantastic' revamp that's in the offering for next year.

That will always be the case though. There will always be something more 'fantastic' coming out the next year. Such is the nature of technology.

However, Intel is currently on the 'tick' of its tick-tock cycle, meaning its next family of processors will feature architectural changes, as opposed to Ivy Bridge's refinement of Sandy Bridge architecture. Regardless, improvements are always made whether it's Intel, or Apple revamping the iMac's internal/external features.
 
Buying an iMac which has an integrated screen vs buying a macbook + apple monitor is cheaper...plus a superdrive
 
Hey all, long time lurker new to the forums. I have a 2007 MBP that's still running well, but I'm ever so patiently waiting to upgrade to an iMac. Like many here, I am hoping for a quiet release when ML comes out.

I was considering upgrading to the retina MBP before it got officially announced, but was somewhat disappointed with it. This is not meant to trash the retina MBP, it is a very nice machine but for that price i just cannot justify what is being offered. Lack of ethernet is beyond me. I know many will say it's not needed today, but to me that's simply untrue, and a big omission. Addition of HDMI is nice as well as the usb 3. As far as the retina, maybe i'm in the minority but I just don't see the need on a 15" screen. Am i nuts here? We're all ok with 1080p TV's 40" and up, but we must have this resolution on a 15 inch screen? Yes i'd like to see a retina iMac but I won't mind if it doesn't have it. Maybe next year apple will rethink the ram, ssd and battery design, and make them replaceable. Then, we'd be talking about a killer machine.

Sorry for the rant, just had to get that out! I'm not a huge fan of rev 1 products as you can see, so a quiet update to the iMac will suit me just fine. If it gets redesigned next year so be it. I'll wait until it becomes finely tuned and the displays become more cost effective before going down that road. Here's hoping that a iMac release date is fairly imminent...
 
Horse Manure.

I'll believe it when i see it. :(

----------

AND I had an offer on the table for my iMac which was really good too

So you finally admit my offer was good :) Sorry now there are mew iMacs round the corner (apparently) I'll lower my offer to £450 cash ;)
 
I would love to know why my post on page 1 upset so many people? Genuinely curious about this. :confused:
 
Clearing Stocks

Apple had way too many current iMac's in stock...

Think of the amount of people that were waiting to buy an iMac to replace their current equipment?

I was just about to bring home a 27" yesterday, thinking "damn... no updates to the iMacs, I might as well just buy it now".

So I really think they made a killing in sales of the current iMacs, the very same day after the event and the following... :cool:

Arghh.. I hate waiting :(
 
For those of you who are anxiously awaiting an update of the iMac, I have a different question: why? What does it do for you that a MacBook Pro and a display would do for you?

I don't see any features that the iMac has that the MacBook doesn't have. Please educate me.

I have a several year old iMac that had its hard disk fail. Repairing it was such a miserable task that I just decided to run off an external disk as my main disk. Grrr. With the MacBook Pro (not Air or Retina), maintenance is easy and I wouldn't have has a problem replacing the hard disk.

Unless there is something I am missing here, I cannot imagine buying another iMac.

32 gigs of ram, user upgradable. Two terabyte internal hard drive with SSD alongside. One unit, one power lead, in front of me on the desk. I don't want a portable machine, when I'm not in the office, I'm not working. An 11 or 13 or even 15" screen is not big enough - doesn't matter how many pixels it may have. The 17" was an option, but I guess not any more.

So, why would I want a macbook powered up on my desk, alongside a 27" monitor and an additional keyboard, trackpad and my wacom tablet - it's a mess of hardware and cables and lacks in storage and easily upgradable ram.

Does that answer your question?
 
... Lack of ethernet is beyond me. I know many will say it's not needed today, but to me that's simply untrue, and a big omission...

seriously? The overwhelming majority of people who will use this machine will do so with wifi. For those who do need Ethernet, there's a very reasonably priced Thunderbolt-Ethernet adaptor. The actual Ethernet plug is thicker than the body of the MBP, so it made perfect sense to ditch it.
 
I have a serious question for iMac users (a.k.a. I'm not trying to troll). Why do you prefer an iMac (all-in-one) to something else such as a Mac Mini or Mac Pro? Do you feel the Mac Mini isn't suitable for your computing needs and a Mac Pro is too expensive?
Personally, I wouldn't want computer parts connected to such a beautiful screen because I feel like the parts would become obsolete way before the screen ever did. I'm just curious what your reasoning is

Price, I/O, easily expandable ram (up to 32 gigs - do that on a mac mini), and as and when the components become outdated, you've got a great 27" monitor for other uses. The design is compact, fits on your desk.

The mac pro is beautiful, it's also massive and way too powerful for my needs, in benchmarks this top end iMac pretty much matches the low to mid level mac pros for about half of the price...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.