Intel Atom-Based Mac Mini Due in March?

[DoFoT9]

1. 2GB standard (good enough for most people)
2. no comment
3. The xMac is intended for gaming or whatever other "hobbies" people would like to explore
4. Who wouldn't buy it if it's good for it's price?

1. i think your forgetting that "most" people are general purpose users.. 95% of them just use their computers for surfing the internet, checking email, playing music, making a dvd.. 2GB of RAM is PLENTY for that. for me and you, maybe its not enough (for me its not) but i still live with it.
2. the imac is for show, putting in small spaces etcetc, clean desks.. have a cable running under the desk and put a whole bunch of HD's daisy them if you want.. seems easier to me then having a big massive HD box
3. fair enough, sounds too much like the MP. would cost just as much aswell.
4. it wouldnt be a good price, if they make it cheaper then the iMac but more powerfull..nobody will purchase it, if its more than the imac but less than the MP then people mayaswell pay an extra $~500 for the real thing.

 

[kabunaru]

1. i think your forgetting that "most" people are general purpose users.. 95% of them just use their computers for surfing the internet, checking email, playing music, making a dvd.. 2GB of RAM is PLENTY for that. for me and you, maybe its not enough (for me its not) but i still live with it.
2. the imac is for show, putting in small spaces etcetc, clean desks.. have a cable running under the desk and put a whole bunch of HD's daisy them if you want.. seems easier to me then having a big massive HD box
3. fair enough, sounds too much like the MP. would cost just as much aswell.
4. it wouldnt be a good price, if they make it cheaper then the iMac but more powerfull..nobody will purchase it, if its more than the imac but less than the MP then people mayaswell pay an extra $~500 for the real thing.

1. I am sure some of them are casual or usual gamers.
2. Fair enough
3. Mac Pro has it's intended market
4. You will never see a $500 Mac other than the Mac Mini.

 

[DoFoT9]

1. I am sure some of them are casual or usual gamers.
2. Fair enough
3. Mac Pro has it's intended market
4. You will never see a $500 Mac other than the Mac Mini.

1. yup some, and since the latest updates the MB, MBP and iMac are pretty decent gaming consoles by default.
2....
3. that it does, i dont think it leaves a lot of room for the xMac
4. no no i didnt mean it like that. ill put it in your US dollars for you

iMac = $1199 standard
MP = $2799 standard

for an xMac, say C2D 2.4GHz quad, 4GB 1333MHz RAM, 500gb/1tb HD, 9800GT (or whatever) apple is going to charge id say around $2000-$2200.. i seriously couldnt justify spending that much if i can spend another $500 to get a fully functioning MP.

my battery is about to go flat and i have no charger, aatl (argue about this later) i guess.

 

[kabunaru]

for an xMac, say C2D 2.4GHz quad, 4GB 1333MHz RAM, 500gb/1tb HD, 9800GT (or whatever) apple is going to charge id say around $2000-$2200.. i seriously couldnt justify spending that much if i can spend another $500 to get a fully functioning MP.

Fair arguement.
Though the Mac Pro does need to have a workstation graphics card as standard to justify it's price, let's say some ATI FireGL or Nvidia Quadro card.

 

[xoggyux]

No no, I get it just fine. And you're wrong. a C2D with only 1GB is not a waste.

Still you don't get me, IM SAYING THAT 1GB IS TOO LITTLE MEMORY RAM and that the 5400rpm HDD to slow and that a processor so powerful as a core 2 duo CANNOT offer good performance in a machine with so little ram/ slow hdd. ITS A WASTE OF PROCESSOR< NOT A WASTE OF RAM >

I macs have very decent (if not great) components, you have a range of: 2.4-3.06Ghz core 2 duo processors to choose from, up to 4gb of ram (most people have arrived to the conclusion that in most situations more than 4gb wont help at all since most programs cant take advantage of so much ram, thats very true for vista dont know to what extent it applies to mac os x, I do can tell I upgraded my MBP from 2gb -> and no noticeable effect for the kind of work I do.) you can choose up to 1TB of internal HHD and among 3 mid-range/good graphic cards (don't know what is the actual status of the geforce 8800 right now, but when the imac debuted that was one of the most powerful if not the most powerful graphic card.)

Now it doesnt offer you the possibility of SLI or having 2 WD raptor in raid 0 or whatever, but it doesnt matter since thats not a machine for heavy duty gamers/video editors. Keep in mind that gamers sytem (velocity micro, NW falcon, dell xps, etc) can get as high as $5000-7000 when you add the SLI quadcore, raid 0 etc. Same price you would have to pay for a PowerMac, and if you go for PowerMac you wouldnt end up with an idious design and stupid neon lights.

 

[xoggyux]

MP = $2799 standard

actually you can get it for $2299 since the standard configuration comes with two quad core intel processors, therefore you can take one out for $500 (get a non standard config) and end up paying $2299, however that would be stupid (i think) after blowing $2500 for it what does it matter another $500 for much (I assume) more performance.?

 

[AidenShaw]

actually you can get it for $2299 since the standard configuration comes with two quad core intel processors, therefore you can take one out for $500 (get a non standard config) and end up paying $2299, however that would be stupid (i think) after blowing $2500 for it what does it matter another $500 for much (I assume) more performance.?

Especially since an $899 Dell Studio XPS using desktop Core i7 quad beats the $2799 octo Mac Pro at the SPEC multi-stream benchmarks.

But then, who wouldn't want to spend more than 3 times as much for less performance?

 

[xoggyux]

Especially since an $899 Dell Studio XPS using desktop Core i7 quad beats the $2799 octo Mac Pro at the SPEC multi-stream benchmarks.

But then, who wouldn't want to spend more than 3 times as much for less performance?

I have never said that apple offers good value for money.... In the plus side Mac Pro offers more flexibility to upgrade than any other manufacturer i have seen (e.g. 32 gb ram 4x 15,000rpm HDD two quadcore intel xeon nvidia quatro 5600 1.5GB but then the price can go as high as $20,000 )

 

[DoFoT9]

Fair arguement.
Though the Mac Pro does need to have a workstation graphics card as standard to justify it's price, let's say some ATI FireGL or Nvidia Quadro card.

haha yea true, but adding a workstartion GPU could basically double the price of the standard MP

actually you can get it for $2299 since the standard configuration comes with two quad core intel processors, therefore you can take one out for $500 (get a non standard config) and end up paying $2299, however that would be stupid (i think) after blowing $2500 for it what does it matter another $500 for much (I assume) more performance.?

oh i did not know you could get it for less, yes well the xMac seems kind of pointless for me at the time being.. if apple would bring out something that sits under the iMac, but with lots of expandability + decent CPU/GPU combinations then it might be a really good idea.

Especially since an $899 Dell Studio XPS using desktop Core i7 quad beats the $2799 octo Mac Pro at the SPEC multi-stream benchmarks.

But then, who wouldn't want to spend more than 3 times as much for less performance?

clearly somebody who wants
a) a stable operating system (thats current)
b) a mac!!!!!

part B is the most important it makes you special

I have never said that apple offers good value for money.... In the plus side Mac Pro offers more flexibility to upgrade than any other manufacturer i have seen (e.g. 32 gb ram 4x 15,000rpm HDD two quadcore intel xeon nvidia quatro 5600 1.5GB but then the price can go as high as $20,000 )

thats just apple though, the prices are expensive because they know people still buy them! i know that i would buy a MP if i could afford it, i would not settle for anything less because i know the build quality and customer service is near-perfect.

 

[BenRoethig]

are you from the windoze world or something?? the imac is apples general purpose desktop machine.

Sad isn't it? I can't list the number of ways mine was a definite downgrade from my PowerMac. Its way in over its head.

so yes you are from the windoze world i take it..

I take it you're relatively new to the Mac because you're assuming all in one and small form factor machines is the way its always been with Apple. Couldn't be father from the truth. All in ones have always been in Apple's lineup, but as entry level machines. Forcing all in ones into markets once dominated by the PowerMac is an recent (and for many of us unwelcome)
devleopment.

you and i both know that there isnt one, so why even bother asking?

Like we shouldn't have asked for App development, DRM-free music, or AppleTV movie rentals? Are just supposed to blidnly take whatever comes from Apple? Making your voice heard is how the public let Apple know what

IMO apple doesnt need one, because the imac covers the basics, and the MP covers..well..everything.

So, if you do more than check email you need a $2300 dual socket xeon workstation? That's like choosing between a Fiesta and a Ferrari. Its an excellent family machine, but it doesn't take very long before its bottlenecks catch up with.

define in your words "upgradable".

No something not on a mobile platform with more than 2 DIMMs, a hard drive you don't have to tear apart the machine to get to, a graphics chip not on a laptop MXM card, and more than a measly three USB2.0 ports. Ironically, the original G5 iMac this line was based on was a pretty practical design for an all in one. Ive then worked his magic and got rid of all the useful features to make it thinner.

righto fair enough.

so like...

1. RAM

4-6 DIMM slots

2. hard drive (whats wrong with using external??)

Two of them easy access. External drives are expensive, unreliable, a cable mess, and not useable as a boot-camp drive.

3. GPU (clearly not an intended gaming machine anyways)

What exactly is it intended to do? The $1199 model is the only one configured and priced as a pure iLife machine.
4. thats about it..

seems pretty pointless to me, no offense...

Exactly why Jobs brought people like you in. People who think the party line are much easier to control and far easier to please. Traditional Mac users are much harder to please.

haha yea true, but adding a workstartion GPU could basically double the price of the standard MP

The flagship Quadro FX 5600 isn't the only card out there. The Quadro and FirePro (formerly FireGL) lines come in a variety of options from $100 to $3000

oh i did not know you could get it for less, yes well the xMac seems kind of pointless for me at the time being.

You aren't the ultimate authority on computer needs nor are Jobs and Ive. What is pointless to you is very useful to someone else.

clearly somebody who wants
a) a stable operating system (thats current)
b) a mac!!!!!

A Mac doesn't equate only to a minimalist all in one.

thats just apple though, the prices are expensive because they know people still buy them! i know that i would buy a MP if i could afford it.

The difference here is that you'd buy one to make yourself look cooler. We'd buy one because we can make use of at least 4 of the 8 cores, 4 of the 8 DIMM slots, 2 of the 4 hard drive bays, both tray loading optical drives, and the PCI-E slots.

i would not settle for anything less because i know the build quality and customer service is near-perfect.

Which is why a lot of us are still here and very vocal. After getting powerful machines with an amazing OS for many years, we do not settle for second best (like say a laptop in LCD display), nor do we take kindly to being played. Not even from Apple.

 

[iMacmatician]

haha yea true, but adding a workstartion GPU could basically double the price of the standard MP

Depends on the GPU. Entry-level Quadros aren't that expensive (although maybe more so than a midrange desktop GPU).

And I would like to see an iMac with 2 HD bays and 4 RAM slots. Oh, and a removable back or something like that, like the original iMac G5. Maybe the next iMac display size bump (28"?) will have these features.

20" iMac: Mobile dual-core, "mobile-grade" expandability
24" iMac: Desktop quad-core, "mobile-grade" expandability
28" iMac: Desktop quad-core, "desktop-grade" expandability (almost)

 

[polaris20]

Still you don't get me, IM SAYING THAT 1GB IS TOO LITTLE MEMORY RAM and that the 5400rpm HDD to slow and that a processor so powerful as a core 2 duo CANNOT offer good performance in a machine with so little ram/ slow hdd. ITS A WASTE OF PROCESSOR< NOT A WASTE OF RAM >

Sweet Jesus dude, I get you just fine, and you're still wrong. You either have little to no practical experience with computers other than your Mac, or you have a huge misunderstanding of how modern operating systems work.

It is not a waste of a processor.

Nevermind the fact that it costs all of thirty bucks and a friggin' putty knife to upgrade to 2GB anyway.

Especially since an $899 Dell Studio XPS using desktop Core i7 quad beats the $2799 octo Mac Pro at the SPEC multi-stream benchmarks.

But then, who wouldn't want to spend more than 3 times as much for less performance?

As I've said before, this is an irrelevant argument, since the $899 Dell i7 is also faster than an HP XW8600 workstation, which is as much or more than a Mac Pro, as well as whatever Dell is using for Xeon-based workstations.

It's because there is no i7-based Xeon yet. Is Apple supposed to release an i7-based MP for the short interim between the i7 release and the i7-based Xeon release?

The point is ANY Xeon-based workstation right now is overpriced compared to an i7 system. It doesn't matter who's making it.

I do think Apple should release a Mac Pro (or xMac, or whatever the hell they want to call it) based on the i7, but I don't see it happening with the way the market is going.

 

[iMacmatician]

Sweet Jesus dude, I get you just fine, and you're still wrong. You either have little to no practical experience with computers other than your Mac, or you have a huge misunderstanding of how modern operating systems work.

It is not a waste of a processor.

Nevermind the fact that it costs all of thirty bucks and a friggin' putty knife to upgrade to 2GB anyway.

Yeah, my iBook G4's CPU goes to 100% when encoding videos using iSquint. Half a dozen other apps also push the CPu to 100% at least some of the time. Clearly the G4 is well suited for my iBook.

On another note, there appears to be some situations in my MacBook Pro where the bottleneck does not seem to be the CPU, but might be something else (HD speed?). But Fractal Domains, iSquint, and Grapher use as much CPU as they can.

 

[TheDPR]

I think it is ludicrous to assume that just because someone may have $2500 for a computer that they would automagically have $3000 and be willing to spend that much.

 

[polaris20]

I think it is ludicrous to assume that just because someone may have $2500 for a computer that they would automagically have $3000 and be willing to spend that much.

Well yeah, there's no doubt that there's huge gaping holes in Apple's product line. The question is if the demand meets or exceeds the development and cost of manufacturing of the model.

If it doesn't, then of course Apple won't make it.

 

[Joe-Hamburg]

1 Macmini sales lost

I waited some 1+ years for an updated Macmini with 802.11n, X3100, etc as a driver for my video projector. I succeeded to get my iMac via 15m HDMI-DVI cord connected ($25 ebay) to the projector and an audio cord to the stereo. With the freeware "RemotePad" for iPod/iPhone I got a full functional remote control for the iMac. RemotePad transforms your iPod/iPhone to a wireless touchpad and is more convenient then a bluetooth keybord/mouse. So, thats the last time for me to post into a Macmini board.

Btw.: one portion of the savings I spent for two Bruce Springsteen & E-street band tickets (July). This rocks real!!

Anbody knows whether a 15m S/PDIF optical cord would work also?

"Hummel Hummel" - Joe-Hamburg

 

[DoFoT9]

grr had a whole reply then tried to post it and it didnt work, typing it all again!

Sad isn't it? I can't list the number of ways mine was a definite downgrade from my PowerMac. Its way in over its head.

your iMac was a downgrade from the PowerMac?? righto

I take it you're relatively new to the Mac because you're assuming all in one and small form factor machines is the way its always been with Apple. Couldn't be father from the truth. All in ones have always been in Apple's lineup, but as entry level machines. Forcing all in ones into markets once dominated by the PowerMac is an recent (and for many of us unwelcome)
devleopment.

been bought up using macs since the age of 2, im now 19. doing a bachelor of IT at university. if you call that relatively new then yes i am.

Like we shouldn't have asked for App development, DRM-free music, or AppleTV movie rentals? Are just supposed to blidnly take whatever comes from Apple? Making your voice heard is how the public let Apple know what

rest of the sentence?? do you even know apple?? yes your "pressure" to include all the things you named may have helped them decide what to do, but by no means would it have been the driving force behind the decisions.

So, if you do more than check email you need a $2300 dual socket xeon workstation? That's like choosing between a Fiesta and a Ferrari. Its an excellent family machine, but it doesn't take very long before its bottlenecks catch up with.

there is no need for stupid sarcasm. the imac is plenty powerful for some quite demanding tasks, you know that.

No something not on a mobile platform

nothing wrong with the mobile platform, its small, and quite powerful these days

with more than 2 DIMMs,

if the iMac was updated soon enough im sure 8GB would be supported by 2 DIMMs, thats a lot of RAM.

a hard drive you don't have to tear apart the machine to get to,

yes that would be nice to have, but in order to do that and keep the "thinness" (which apple would want to do) i think they would either
a) use 2.5" HD's
b) redesign

b isnt likely IMO.

a graphics chip not on a laptop MXM card,

the current graphics chips are quite powerful!

and more than a measly three USB2.0 ports.

hub hub hub hub hub. the iMac is not a laptop, is it so hard to purchase a $10 hub?

Ironically, the original G5 iMac this line was based on was a pretty practical design for an all in one. Ive then worked his magic and got rid of all the useful features to make it thinner.

yet the original iMac came with 3 USB2.0 ports, so apparently it doesnt meet your standards!

4-6 DIMM slots

while it would be nice, the chance of 8GB being supported in the next iMac is enough for the machine.

Two of them easy access. External drives are expensive, unreliable, a cable mess, and not useable as a boot-camp drive.

not if you know how to use them. they are not expensive! go buy a dual case or drobo, perfect! easy to take away as backups or give to a friend. while internals would be nice, i find externals more efficient to use.

What exactly is it intended to do? The $1199 model is the only one configured and priced as a pure iLife machine.

yes but of course that doesnt mean that its limited to doing only that.. even the base model is quite powerful and would easily beat one of your precious G5's, and thats not even the top model..

Exactly why Jobs brought people like you in. People who think the party line are much easier to control and far easier to please. Traditional Mac users are much harder to please.

ok what the hell are you on?? do you even know me, my personality, my knowledge or my lifestyle? how dare you stereotype me into some group when you have no idea about me! its not very noble of yourself to lodge yourself into a "Traditional Mac User", just because you have age on your side does not mean that you know everything nor have a higher opinion then everybody else.

The flagship Quadro FX 5600 isn't the only card out there. The Quadro and FirePro (formerly FireGL) lines come in a variety of options from $100 to $3000

im quite aware of that, i believe i said before that the higher end Quadro could easily double the price of your MP.

You aren't the ultimate authority on computer needs nor are Jobs and Ive. What is pointless to you is very useful to someone else.

uuhh i dont even remember saying that, the fact that you assume that i think i am "all powerful" is just rediculous. everybody is entitled to their opinion, i am giving mine. you are entitled to yours and i am listening and giving my points why i think its useless, you can argue however you please. offending me is as unworthy as you get.

A Mac doesn't equate only to a minimalist all in one.

quite aware of that.

The difference here is that you'd buy one to make yourself look cooler. We'd buy one because we can make use of at least 4 of the 8 cores, 4 of the 8 DIMM slots, 2 of the 4 hard drive bays, both tray loading optical drives, and the PCI-E slots.

and here we go again with the "placing yourself higher then me". if i were to buy a MP, fully loaded, every-single-piece of hardware would get used thoroughly! (except for the high end quadro maybe, i wouldnt use that much).

Which is why a lot of us are still here and very vocal. After getting powerful machines with an amazing OS for many years, we do not settle for second best (like say a laptop in LCD display), nor do we take kindly to being played. Not even from Apple.

good good be vocal, thats good. but just dont attempt to bring down other users here who want to voice their own opinion!

Depends on the GPU. Entry-level Quadros aren't that expensive (although maybe more so than a midrange desktop GPU).

And I would like to see an iMac with 2 HD bays and 4 RAM slots. Oh, and a removable back or something like that, like the original iMac G5. Maybe the next iMac display size bump (28"?) will have these features.

20" iMac: Mobile dual-core, "mobile-grade" expandability
24" iMac: Desktop quad-core, "mobile-grade" expandability
28" iMac: Desktop quad-core, "desktop-grade" expandability (almost)

hhmmm i am liking this 28" iMac very much, especially with desktop expandability. i assume that the iMac would be MUCH thicker (because of large HD's, bigger RAM, GPU etc)??

 

[BenRoethig]

grr had a whole reply then tried to post it and it didnt work, typing it all again!



your iMac was a downgrade from the PowerMac?? righto

Comparatively, yes. With modern software, it is often quite sluggish, the video card I find subpar, and I'm halfway to maxed out on ram.

rest of the sentence?? do you even know apple?? yes your "pressure" to include all the things you named may have helped them decide what to do, but by no means would it have been the driving force behind the decisions.

Try taking some business courses why you're working on your IT degree. You might learn a lot. Apple releases iPhone with limited functionality. Users see potential and create workaround to get third party apps on iPhone. Apple notices demand for iPhone Apps and creates development kit and app store. Customers get what they want, sales skyrocket, and Apple makes lots of money.

On the other side of the coin, Ive creates the machine he wants to buy in the PowerMac cube. More expensive than regular PowerMac. Users don't see point when they have have a better performing machine with less money and Apple loses money. This is what happens when you don't listen.

there is no need for stupid sarcasm. the imac is plenty powerful for some quite demanding tasks, you know that.

I've had one for 18 months and no, I don't know that. Quite the opposite in fact. The all too frequent slowdowns and occurrences of the beachball tell me that this machine is disappointingly mediocre for the price. I spent months trying to convince myself that it wasn't that bad, that it would grow on me, but that never quite worked. Its a lot like an Acura TSX in many ways. Flashy, stylish, and premium priced, but deep down its still just an Accord.

nothing wrong with the mobile platform, its small, and quite powerful these days

Not from my experience, no.

if the iMac was updated soon enough im sure 8GB would be supported by 2 DIMMs, thats a lot of RAM.

So was the 32MB I put in the Performa 5200, and the 640MB I maxed out my Ibook with. Also, it doesn't matter if it supports 8GB of memory if the 4GB modules are $350 or roughly 10x the price of the 2GB modules.

yes that would be nice to have, but in order to do that and keep the "thinness" (which apple would want to do) i think they would either
a) use 2.5" HD's
b) redesign

b isnt likely IMO.

I don't give a crap about the thinness, I'd rather be able to easily pop the back off to access the components like the original. While we're at it, can we have VESA mounting back too.

the current graphics chips are quite powerful!

The Performance could have fooled me. They're also two generations behind now. Don't take what comes out of a corporation's PR department. They're job is to get you to buy a computer, not give you an unbiased assessment. These are afterall, the same people who were singing the PowerPC's praises like three days before they switched to intel.

hub hub hub hub hub. the iMac is not a laptop, is it so hard to purchase a $10 hub?

Wasn't the point of the iMac to have have a mess of wires all over the place? I have one, when the iMac's USB ports recognize it. They do tend to loose connection a lot.

yet the original iMac came with 3 USB2.0 ports, so apparently it doesnt meet your standards!

The hard drive was user serviceable though, so when it filled you could replace it and not have to use a USB port.

while it would be nice, the chance of 8GB being supported in the next iMac is enough for the machine.

Like I said earlier 8GB using 4 2GB Dimms is $130. 8GB using 2 4GB DIMMs is north of $700. The high capacity chips are far too expensive for any reasonable person to purchase. Right now 2GB is the practical limit per DIMM slot and with 2 SO-DIMM lots, the practical limit will be 4GB until higher density RAM becomes affordable.

not if you know how to use them. they are not expensive! go buy a dual case or drobo, perfect! easy to take away as backups or give to a friend. while internals would be nice, i find externals more efficient to use.

They're $30 more expensive. Nice as a time machine drive. Like I said before, you can't use them with bootcamp, they're slower than internal drives, and notoriously unreliable compared to the same drive mounted internally.

yes but of course that doesnt mean that its limited to doing only that.. even the base model is quite powerful and would easily beat one of your precious G5's, and thats not even the top model..

Of course its going to beat and old computer. Compare it to the modern equivalent to the G5 (Core i7) and the iMac will be blown completely out of the water. Think about of it this way.
Core 2 Duo Mobile=G4
Core i7=G5

ok what the hell are you on?? do you even know me, my personality, my knowledge or my lifestyle? how dare you stereotype me into some group when you have no idea about me!

Uh, isn't this what you've been doing the whole time? Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. You don't know us, you don't know our needs, yet you have the right to pass judgement on what we should be happy with based only upon your own view of computers. The iMac may be powerful enough for you, but we are not you. We have different standards and perceptions than you based on what we do and how we do it. How capable or fast a machine is subjective depending on your individual circumstances.

im quite aware of that, i believe i said before that the higher end Quadro could easily double the price of your MP.

I think you said why bother it would double the price of the machine.

if i were to buy a MP, fully loaded, every-single-piece of hardware would get used thoroughly! (except for the high end quadro maybe, i wouldnt use that much)

Not unless you're using the most specialized high end software. Not a lot of software will take advantage of all 8 of those cores and the programs that do probably cost as much as the computer.

hhmmm i am liking this 28" iMac very much, especially with desktop expandability. i assume that the iMac would be MUCH thicker (because of large HD's, bigger RAM, GPU etc)??

Thicker I can deal with if it means a second hard drive, more ram, and actually being able to get inside the case again. That being said, if its in Mac Pro territory price wise, Apple is not going to find many takers. The one problem though is that the 28" is a TN panel and less expensive than the IPS 24" currently used.

 

[DoFoT9]

Comparatively, yes. With modern software, it is often quite sluggish, the video card I find subpar, and I'm halfway to maxed out on ram.

so you only have 2GB of RAM.. what software do you run and what other specifications do you have?? by the sounds of it you don't really know much about computers at all and bought a computer that was a little underpowered for your uses. then again i doubt it, even my MBP can handle what i throw at it, which is quite a lot.

Try taking some business courses why you're working on your IT degree. You might learn a lot. Apple releases iPhone with limited functionality. Users see potential and create workaround to get third party apps on iPhone. Apple notices demand for iPhone Apps and creates development kit and app store. Customers get what they want, sales skyrocket, and Apple makes lots of money.


On the other side of the coin, Ive creates the machine he wants to buy in the PowerMac cube. More expensive than regular PowerMac. Users don't see point when they have have a better performing machine with less money and Apple loses money. This is what happens when you don't listen.

i was thinking about taking a business course, maybe in the near future. good point.

I've had one for 18 months and no, I don't know that. Quite the opposite in fact. The all too frequent slowdowns and occurrences of the beachball tell me that this machine is disappointingly mediocre for the price. I spent months trying to convince myself that it wasn't that bad, that it would grow on me, but that never quite worked. Its a lot like an Acura TSX in many ways. Flashy, stylish, and premium priced, but deep down its still just an Accord.

gah stop editing!! tell me again what software you are running. my 2,8ghz iMac doesn't experience any slow downs.

Not from my experience, no.

maybe not from yours, mine is different

So was the 32MB I put in the Performa 5200, and the 640MB I maxed out my Ibook with. Also, it doesn't matter if it supports 8GB of memory if the 4GB modules are $350 or roughly 10x the price of the 2GB modules.

you can wish all you want, but its not going to happen.

I don't give a crap about the thinness, I'd rather be able to easily pop the back off to access the components like the original. While we're at it, can we have VESA mounting back too.

sounds like your parallel reality brain talking rather then the 'actual' world..

The Performance could have fooled me. They're also two generations behind now. Don't take what comes out of a corporation's PR department. They're job is to get you to buy a computer, not give you an unbiased assessment. These are afterall, the same people who were singing the PowerPC's praises like three days before they switched to intel.

yes they are a tad behind, but what programs are going to utilise it... hhhmmmm... none! unless you are a heavy gamer and want to use AA at exceedingly high rates then the GPU is perfectly fine.

Wasn't the point of the iMac to have have a mess of wires all over the place? I have one, when the iMac's USB ports recognize it. They do tend to loose connection a lot.

you would have wires sitting around regardless if you are using all 3 USB slots, what are a few more going to do? SOME hubs are very "cool" looking and may look your setup look nice

The hard drive was user serviceable though, so when it filled you could replace it and not have to use a USB port.

sounds like the clincher to me! i would buy it just for that

Like I said earlier 8GB using 4 2GB Dimms is $130. 8GB using 2 4GB DIMMs is north of $700. The high capacity chips are far too expensive for any reasonable person to purchase. Right now 2GB is the practical limit per DIMM slot and with 2 SO-DIMM lots, the practical limit will be 4GB until higher density RAM becomes affordable.

good point, one thing i hate about the iMacs is that they use SO-DIMM memory.. whatever happened to normal desktop RAM!!!

They're $30 more expensive. Nice as a time machine drive. Like I said before, you can't use them with bootcamp, they're slower than internal drives, and notoriously unreliable compared to the same drive mounted internally.

they can be used with bootcamp if you know what you are doing, i daresay a very large portion of iMac purchasers wouldnt even want to run bootcamp.

Of course its going to beat and old computer. Compare it to the modern equivalent to the G5 (Core i7) and the iMac will be blown completely out of the water. Think about of it this way.
Core 2 Duo Mobile=G4
Core i7=G5

youve known apple for longer than me, therefore you know what they are like.. meaning you know they take time to roll over to new changes, there is no use comparing them.. just wait until apple changes to i7 and then discuss it.

Uh, isn't this what you've been doing the whole time? Judge not lest ye be judged yourself. You don't know us, you don't know our needs, yet you have the right to pass judgement on what we should be happy with based only upon your own view of computers. The iMac may be powerful enough for you, but we are not you. We have different standards and perceptions than you based on what we do and how we do it. How capable or fast a machine is subjective depending on your individual circumstances.

nope, i was giving my opinion, you were giving yours.. and then you started assuming that you know me, which is where i draw the line. its not very nice.

the imac is capable enough for me as a secondary machine, not as a primary machine.

define "we". where in this society & community do you fit???

I think you said why bother it would double the price of the machine.

exactly, emphasis being on the doubling the price of the machine, and not on the fact that the start of the sentence was different.

Not unless you're using the most specialized high end software. Not a lot of software will take advantage of all 8 of those cores and the programs that do probably cost as much as the computer.

and who says im not?? if i had the money to buy a high end MP i would most certainly have the money to afford the software, i manage my money quite well.

Thicker I can deal with if it means a second hard drive, more ram, and actually being able to get inside the case again. That being said, if its in Mac Pro territory price wise, Apple is not going to find many takers.

which would most likely be the case, so just leave it how it is.

do you still want an xMac or are you after a compeltely new redesigned iMac that fits exactly your standards? i cant see either happening tbh.

 

[iMacmatician]

nothing wrong with the mobile platform, its small, and quite powerful these days

I believe the CPU gap between mobile CPUs and desktop CPUs will increase in the future.

hhmmm i am liking this 28" iMac very much, especially with desktop expandability. i assume that the iMac would be MUCH thicker (because of large HD's, bigger RAM, GPU etc)??

Could be, I guess, although I don't see the thickness increasing too much because 28" may give ≈30% more internal space than the 24" even if the thicknesses were the same. Of course even one of the two (4 RAM slots or 2 HD bays) would be an upgrade over the current iMac.

Speculating a bit further, the 20" could have the 9400M, the 24" could have the 9600M (losing the high-end BTO), and the 28" could have the 9800M. So in that case the 28" GPU may not be hotter than the existing 24" 8800M GPU, which would be helpful considering the extra components in the 28".

Interestingly, the 17" MacBook Pro is slightly thicker than the 15" MacBook Pro and MacBook.

Thicker I can deal with if it means a second hard drive, more ram, and actually being able to get inside the case again. That being said, if its in Mac Pro territory price wise, Apple is not going to find many takers. The one problem though is that the 28" is a TN panel and less expensive than the IPS 24" currently used.

on the panel. I'd say the price could be a bit higher than the high-end 24" iMac. Also it is well speculated that the Mac Pro is likely to increase in price in the next update.

 

[BenRoethig]

so you only have 2GB of RAM.. what software do you run and what other specifications do you have?? by the sounds of it you don't really know much about computers at all and bought a computer that was a little underpowered for your uses.

I knew exactly what I was getting into here, I just hoped it wouldn't be as bad as it was. Moving to windows was not an option, with airport and graphics upgrade options the MacPro was $2500 (without a display add $300-400 for that), Apple canned the affordable variant of the PowerMac/MacPro line, and refuses to let anyone else Mac computers with Mac OS X. So in other words, the options were an underpowered iMac with a 20" screen or exactly the same specs with a 24" screen for $300 more. Getting a CPU faster than 2.4ghz cost $2300 and there was no video card upgrade to speak of in the 24" machines. Its really hard to buy a machine that fits my needs when it no longer exists. I can't snap my fingers and have a Mac based on desktop hardware magically appear.

gah stop editing!! tell me again what software you are running. my 2,8ghz iMac doesn't experience any slow downs.

Right now just iLife. I was planning to purchase Aperture, Final Cut Express, and logic express, but I found the performance of iPhoto, iMovie, and Garageband to be extremely poor. I have cut back on a lot of things I used to do and was planning to do with this machine.

you can wish all you want, but its not going to happen.

Get an internship in cupertino or something?

sounds like your parallel reality brain talking rather then the 'actual' world..

You're right. Unfortunately, the reality is Apple is going to make pretty looking low end machines with little usability under the current. Time for Steve gracefully retire to take care of his health and and put Ive on a shorter leash. Engineers should be the driving force in what hardware is in a computer, not an artist.

yes they are a tad behind, but what programs are going to utilise it... hhhmmmm... none! unless you are a heavy gamer and want to use AA at exceedingly high rates then the GPU is perfectly fine.

Quake 4, which had been on the Mac a year and a half prior was choppy beyond low-medium setting at 800x600 resolution and i even had slow down in Warcraft 3 and the (Q3 based) JKII and JA. My G3 iBook performed better with the AAA title of its day.

sounds like the clincher to me! i would buy it just for that.

You might have an unlimited money supply, but I like to get more than 18 months out of my machine. Especially with video files, Apple lowballing the hard-drive size limits the usefulness of this machine. Being able to replace the current 320GB drive with a 640GB (without a desk full of drives or having to remember which drive my files are on) model might extend the life of this piece of...iMac for another year. I don't quite remember a hard drive ever filling up quite this fast.

good point, one thing i hate about the iMacs is that they use SO-DIMM memory.. whatever happened to normal desktop RAM!!!

SO-DIMMs and Desktop DIMMs have reached parity on price and performance. The problem with SO-DIMMs is that you don't see too many solutions with 4 or 6 DIMM slots. A second pair of SO-DIMM slots (for the 8-GB max) would be a very welcome improvement.

they can be used with bootcamp if you know what you are doing, i daresay a very large portion of iMac purchasers wouldnt even want to run bootcamp.

A large portion of iMac purchasers are teenagers. If we went solely by the lowest common denominator, Apple would only make the white Macbook. Plus, Apple moved us down into this market, we didn't choose to be here.

youve known apple for longer than me, therefore you know what they are like..

I know what they were like, the current company bears little resemblance to the company of five years ago. Many product lines have gone away and they've funneled all their efforts on the upper low to lower middle end segment of the market. Innovation has been replaced by style and shoving progressively weaker (comparatively. The current iMac like started out on desktop hardware) machines into smaller spaces. I have some hope they'll start to move the other way by using the 65w SFF quad cores with the next iMac, but I'm not holding my breath.

meaning you know they take time to roll over to new changes, there is no use comparing them.. just wait until apple changes to i7 and then discuss it.

Apple doesn't play in the desktop market any more, so like the desktop core 2s, Apple probably won't be using it.

the imac is capable enough for me as a secondary machine, not as a primary machine.

I know this very well, but since Apple doesn't make a primary machine that's remotely affordable...

define "we". where in this society & community do you fit???

The traditional low to middle end PowerMac user who has been left high and dry by Apple.

exactly, emphasis being on the doubling the price of the machine, and not on the fact that the start of the sentence was different.

Using a low, middle, and high end Quadros/ and or FirePro cards in addition to the super high end 5600 instead of consumer Radeon and Geforce cards will not double the price though.

do you still want an xMac or are you after a compeltely new redesigned iMac that fits exactly your standards? i cant see either happening tbh.

I would prefer a single slot Bloomfield MacPro, but would take a desktop based iMac if the design wasn't basically sealed like the current ALU models. The xMac was the theoretical workstation above the PowerMac (x as in server/workstation like the xServe), which is what the MacPro is. Problem is they left the desktop slot to be filled only by the 24" iMac in the process.

 

[gkarris]

^^^ lost track of what is being discussed...

Looking at other computer companies, 2 Gigs is now pretty standard as far as specs, even for a budget computer:

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/s...=Everyday+computing&series_name=a6700z_series

http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/inspndt_530s?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs

(not talking about the ultra-low-budget computers for $249 or the Atom based ones - those still come in at 1 Gig).

With memory soooooo cheap - why not just get the extra and future-proof yourself?

For my cheap-o Acer laptop I got last November, I wanted to add a 2 Gig chip for it, but at $20/each, I just went ahead and bought 2...

 

[xoggyux]

Two of them easy access. External drives are expensive, unreliable, a cable mess, and not useable as a boot-camp drive.

In what world do you live? External hardrive expensive?
3.5"
1.5TB $129 (11.6GB/$)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8995554&type=product&id=1218008110810
1TB $99 (10GB/$)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8983772&type=product&id=1218004429317
500GB $80 (6.25GB/$)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9019279&type=product&id=1218009475263


2.5"
320GB $90 (3.6GB/$)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8992904&type=product&id=1218007085552
500GB $134 (3.7Gb/$)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9084108&type=product&id=1218018141821

Obviously the 3.5" are cheaper and also the bigger the more capacity the cheaper the Gb/$ (e.g. 1.5TB external Seagate for $129) but thats also true for internal HDDs, in fact the cheaest 1.5TB internal HDD i have found is $129 same price!!!!, and the cheapest 250gb internal HDD i have seen is about the $100 also, so very similar (furthermore, you can get 2.5" hdd enclosures for ~5 on ebay and ~10 for 3.5" which makes any internal "possible cheaper" HDD only ~5-10 cheaper than its equivalent external counterpart. SO DON'T TALK WHAT YOU DONT HAVE IDEA ABOUT!!!!!!

 

[polaris20]

^^^ lost track of what is being discussed...

Some people like to come into every thread that mentions anything remotely related to a desktop and derail it with their strong sense of self-entitlement.

 

[iMacmatician]

Especially with video files, Apple lowballing the hard-drive size limits the usefulness of this machine. Being able to replace the current 320GB drive with a 640GB (without a desk full of drives or having to remember which drive my files are on) model might extend the life of this piece of...iMac for another year. I don't quite remember a hard drive ever filling up quite this fast.

I think we may see a HD bump this coming update (320/500 GB?). We waited 2 years for 160/250 GB to go 250/320 GB.

Innovation has been replaced by style and shoving progressively weaker (comparatively. The current iMac like started out on desktop hardware) machines into smaller spaces. I have some hope they'll start to move the other way by using the 65w SFF quad cores with the next iMac, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah I'm hoping for 65 W quad-core too, although I think we may see it only on the 24" (heat). And I agree on the weaker hardware bit, although not necessarily for every model (Mac Pro, high-end iMac to a good degree).