Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Mini and iMac Product Part Numbers? Available Tomorrow?

milo said:
Funny, I thought it was APPLE's job to design their machines. If they don't have what it takes to use the latest technology, then yeah, that IS their problem.
Click to expand...
They would use the latest technology, just not the latest high-end technology. And that can be a problem.

cheradenine said:
FWIW, I have an 8-core Mac Pro. It's completely hamstrung by the requirements of awful, expensive FB-DIMMs. On anything that cares about memory bandwidth (like pretty much everything) it IS trounced.

Not that I'm complaining - it is after all 12 months old. When the new 'Pros are out, I'm sure they'll leapfrog again. But I was hoping I could, get some iMacs with, ideally Core i7, but at a push quad cores for the office. These alleged "updates" seem pretty stale to me. I'm prepared to pay a significant premium - but there's no way I could justify the kind of price differential to a Mac Pro which, in the short term, is slower and twice the price; and in the long term will give performance we don't need and be twice the price. :(
Click to expand...
Nehalem should solve the FB-DIMM and memory bandwidth problem.
 
iMacmatician said:
The lack of a mobile quad-core tells me that Apple is still not putting lower-clocked quad-cores in the same lineup as higher-clocked dual-cores. We saw this with the lack of a 8-core Mac Pro for 5 months after Clovertown was announced. And now we see this in the iMac. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think we'll see quad-core iMacs until 2011 (depending on Intel mobile quad-cores) unless Apple changes their stance on this.
Click to expand...

I was worried this would happen again, but I guess I'm not that suprised. Apple just seem to have this thing about the image of a computer. If they went all quad core the highest would be 2.83GHz and then be out performed by previous iMacs for a number of tasks. I'm not sure it will be as far away as 2011, but if the processors are dual core in the next iMacs then I wouldn't expect quad core until there are some available that outperform the highest clock dual core Apple have previously used with an appropriate TDP.

The sad thing for some consumers is that Apple probably don't need quad core to sell iMacs. Refurb single socket Mac Pros will perhaps be like gold dust.
 
milo said:
Sorry, but I'm going to differ on that one. I'd argue that the mini design, specifically requiring the use of laptop parts (especially optical and hard drive) is one of the biggest design blunders Apple has made in recent years.
Click to expand...

How many people in the mac mini demographic need something more powerful than a laptop?
 
Will the Mini be able to run two displays simultaneously? or only support one output at a time?

Here's me hoping for a dual screen setup from the mini....

I can dream cant i?
 
nick9191 said:
And the Mac Pro/PowerMac has had the same design since 2003. Yet no one cares because it looks good.

Every idiot on here was clamoring for a MBP redesign just because and the new ones look arguably worse.
Click to expand...

*clap* Truth, truth.

iMacmatician said:
They would use the latest technology, just not the latest high-end technology. And that can be a problem.

Nehalem should solve the FB-DIMM and memory bandwidth problem.
Click to expand...

Except, EXCEPT, except... a full-spec Tylersb...

Know what, this has nothing to do with what you said. Never mind. :p
 
Umbongo said:
I was worried this would happen again, but I guess I'm not that suprised. Apple just seem to have this thing about the image of a computer. If they went all quad core the highest would be 2.83GHz and then be out performed by previous iMacs for a number of tasks. I'm not sure it will be as far away as 2011, but if the processors are dual core in the next iMacs then I wouldn't expect quad core until there are some available that outperform the highest clock dual core Apple have previously used with an appropriate TDP.
Click to expand...
Mobile dual-cores seem to have reached a peak of around 3.07 GHz, although I think I heard a 3.2 GHz coming soon. Hopefully that means quad-core can come up and overtake dual-core in both total speed and core speed.
 
Perhaps the specs in both the iMac and the mini haven't jumped a great deal because Apple plan on slashing the prices to fit in with the economic situation.
 
iMacmatician said:
They would use the latest technology, just not the latest high-end technology. And that can be a problem.
Click to expand...

Apple should be able to use the latest high-end technology, not just chips that are newer but not particularly faster than the old ones they are replacing.

NT1440 said:
How many people in the mac mini demographic need something more powerful than a laptop?
Click to expand...

I'm sure tons of them would like to have a desktop hard drive to store their MP3s and home movies and photo collections.

And I'm sure all of them would like the box to be cheaper due to the use of desktop parts. Using desktop parts isn't all about power, it's about cost as well.
 
shanmugam said:
4GB RAM
24" LED Display
More HDD
and may be better GPU
and may be price cut

will not make you happy? :confused:
Click to expand...

Sure, if the company releasing this machine was Dell or some other average PC maker.

But this is Apple we're talking about. Innovators. Self-proclaimed creative geniuses working there. With nothing innovative to show in their flagship desktop computer in almost an entire year?

If all Apple is going to do to the iMac is give it minor spec bumps (and not even quad cores), then they don't have to wait this long to do their refresh. The processor specs look no different on these supposed new iMacs. By the time of their next refresh next year, the iMac will be so ridiculously outdated that people will be laughing at the iMac.

If this news is true, Apple should be ashamed of themselves. I suspect Apple has more to offer than this.
 
I am not counting this one a successful release until Apple integrates Blu-Ray in these models or has it be an option.

getting frustrating being a customer of Apple's they pick and choose which technology to "allow" their systems to carry.
 
NT1440 said:
How many people in the mac mini demographic need something more powerful than a laptop?
Click to expand...

It depends on if we use Apple's idea of what the Mini's demographic should be or the actual demographics (which includes people like me who hate All-In-Ones but still want something reasonably powerful, and people looking for a high end HTPC who want more than :apple:TV can offer).
 
milo said:
I'm sure tons of them would like to have a desktop hard drive to store their MP3s and home movies and photo collections.

And I'm sure all of them would like the box to be cheaper due to the use of desktop parts. Using desktop parts isn't all about power, it's about cost as well.
Click to expand...
Cheapest mac around. There you go.

The mini is apples bottom of the barrel device, if you want cheaper, you dont want mac.
 
roebuck86 said:
Perhaps the specs in both the iMac and the mini haven't jumped a great deal because Apple plan on slashing the prices to fit in with the economic situation.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. These specs are way more exciting if they come with a price drop, but I'm not getting my hopes up. Knowing apple, I wouldn't be surprised if they raised prices on at least some models.
 
Eidorian said:
Anything backing that up?
Click to expand...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

milo said:
Apple should be able to use the latest high-end technology, not just chips that are newer but not particularly faster than the old ones they are replacing.
…
And I'm sure all of them would like the box to be cheaper due to the use of desktop parts. Using desktop parts isn't all about power, it's about cost as well.
Click to expand...
Considering that the iMac already uses 55 W CPUs, somehow they couldn't improve the iMac's cooling to handle 65 W CPUs…which are more powerful and cheaper than the mobile dual-cores they would otherwise use.

colickyboy said:
If all Apple is going to do to the iMac is give it minor spec bumps (and not even quad cores), then they don't have to wait this long to do their refresh. The processor specs look no different on these supposed new iMacs. By the time of their next refresh next year, the iMac will be so ridiculously outdated that people will be laughing at the iMac.

If this news is true, Apple should be ashamed of themselves. I suspect Apple has more to offer than this.
Click to expand...
Dual-core Arrandale Q1 2010 iMac says hello.

We probably won't see quad-core Clarksfield for reasons detailed above.
 
milo said:
Sorry, but I'm going to differ on that one. I'd argue that the mini design, specifically requiring the use of laptop parts (especially optical and hard drive) is one of the biggest design blunders Apple has made in recent years.
Click to expand...

Here I agree... Throw away the Mini design and bring back the G4 Cube style. THAT WAS AWESOME and so ahead of it's time. Now I'd be perfect...
 
nick9191 said:
And the Mac Pro/PowerMac has had the same design since 2003. Yet no one cares because it looks good.

Every idiot on here was clamoring for a MBP redesign just because and the new ones look arguably worse.
Click to expand...

I know that this is simply preference, While the old MBP was no where near ugly, the new one is beautiful.
 
mdntcallr said:
I am not counting this one a successful release until Apple integrates Blu-Ray in these models or has it be an option.

getting frustrating being a customer of Apple's they pick and choose which technology to "allow" their systems to carry.
Click to expand...

Define successful release? I would only want Blu-ray to be an option because I've got no use for it in the near future and it would just push up prices. If it's an option, awesome, otherwise, not so awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back