More Claims of October Launch for Updated iMac Models

[iSayuSay]

retina display
solid state storage
no optical drive
soldered ram
thunderbolt, usb 3, hdmi,
very, very thin.

A computer can only be very thin OR very powerful. Anything in between would mean compromise.

iMac has been a barely powerful desktop in graphic department. Radeon 6970m was a mid GPU in desktop world. If they're going to make it even thinner by compromising with less GPU power, no RAM slot etc, I'd better get MBA & ATD.

I bought imac because of powahhh, not sleek looks of rMBP. It's the least thing I'd consider for my desktop.

There's no need for a very thin desktop. They can make it marginally thinner so it can be powerful. Maybe if there was a retina display, hopefully, just hopefully, they would SLI/crossfire a couple of high-end mobile GPUs or find a way to cool some high-end GPUs in order to accommodate such a high density.

I dont know, but I'd rather have one desktop GPU -say GTX680- than dual mobile GPU, it would be still more efficient I think, and I had a few issues with gaming on dual GPUs in the past.

Still happy though my 2011 iMac has the longest life cycle of all, it can keep its "newness" for so long, didn't expect this to happen, but wow.

 

[Macintown]

New iMac models in 5 weeks

I went to the Apple store yesterday to buy a new 27" iMac. They told me not to do it and winked when they said I should wait 5 weeks.

 

[hamkor04]

God's sake Apple

oo god's sake do not play with our feelings
just update it without any "too much"

 

[Flood123]

I went to the Apple store yesterday to buy a new 27" iMac. They told me not to do it and winked when they said I should wait 5 weeks.

I've never known of a case where an Apple store employee knew of an upcoming release 5 weeks in advance. Nevertheless I hope we see SOMETHING sooner rather than later.

 

[Macclone]

I'm just pissed and want somebodys head on a stake. Apple really should make a formal statement about these BS claims of an October launch. I too have a wife that wants to upgrade now and I keep telling her just wait. She's getting to the point of telling me she will be buying one August 1 if they aren't out by then. At least if Apple formally announced that they will be updating in October I could get her to hold off. It's just wrong

Go to an Apple store this weekend and see all the people buying Apple laptops and desktops. That is why there is no hurry to upgrade and certainly no reason to announce something that may hurt sales. It is smart business sense.

----------

If the new iMac doesn't fold down and let me use it as a big touch screen, I am going to buy a Windows 8 PC.

Just kidding, Windows 8 is a POS.

----------

You have more disposable income with out the wife.

Hookers are pricey these days.

 

[InfoTime]

Unfortunately, no they can't.
This is because the only ports for of video connections on the iMac is the thunderbolt. That means a couple of things:
1) The 2011 iMac's screen can be used in Target Display Mode to show information from a connected thunderbolt-equipped mac like one of the more recent MBAs or MBPs. Supposedly this means TDM will also work with other thunderbolt-equipped devices, but since those are in such short supply today, it doesn't really matter very much.
2) The 2011 iMacs can output through Display Port to other devices. One of my iMac's Thunderbolt ports usually has a Display Port-DVI adapter in it which I use to connect an external display to my computer. It works fine in terms of backwards compatibility with Display Port in that direction but...
3) ...Thunderbolt ports simply will not accept a Display Port input.

So, yeah, that's why I'm hoping the 2012 iMacs support HDMI in/out ports. I don't just want to hook this machine up to other devices, I also want to be able to use it as a screen for OTHER things, like perhaps a Blu-Ray player, or a game console, or someone else's computer. It seems such a waste to have such a big, beautiful computer screen like the one on the 2011 iMacs be so severely crippled from a lack of input compatibility.

That sucks! I built a gaming PC last year and went through a lot of hell getting a card that worked properly outputting DisplayPort to the iMac (hint, almost nothing in the Radeon 5xxx line). It works great now. I thought I'd buy the next iMac since mine will be almost three years old and AppleCare will run out. They'll need a little more than a few USB 3 ports, Thunderbolt and a decent SSD to get me to budge.

 

[50548]

Huh?

It's amazing how some people can be so naive in forums like this. NO, iMacs will not get a retina display for the following reasons:

- FIRSTLY, because iMacs ARE ALREADY retina displays. On the basis of Apple's marketing definition for "retina", which is the possibility for a user to distinguish individual pixels from a normal viewing distance, there is absolutely no need to have a 5120 x 2880 resolution unless you use it as an oversized iPad;

- SECONDLY, because at Apple form trumps functionality. Therefore, you will NOT see a thin iMac carrying a furnace-like GPU to power such a display. It's NOT going to happen.

In the light of the above, what will happen then?

1 - updated iMacs with the usual less-than-exciting bumps such as USB 3, more RAM and HD and perhaps backlit keys;

2 - at a later stage and following SJ's passing, you're finally going to see the launch of the fabled xMac (as a new, entry-level minitower released alongside new Mac Pros), with the possibility to drive retina screens without hiccups and use much better GPUs without the iMac's space constraints.

 

[wilycoder]

I really do not see the purpose of retina on imac.

I've got a 27 imac and the res is more than adequate at normal viewing distances.

 

[drumrobot]

But waiting 500+ days to update a computer seems like they're leaving revenue on the table. Most of those in the know are waiting, waiting waiting.

Fully agree. I've been waiting since the last one came out (decided to wait for the next version) and I'm disappointed to see that they haven't released one yet. Whenever I see someone buying an iMac at the Apple Retail Store, I'm always tempted to run up to them and tell them how old it is in front of the sales clerk.

 

[AidenShaw]

Whenever I see someone buying an iMac at the Apple Retail Store, I'm always tempted to run up to them and tell them how old it is in front of the sales clerk.

How much time do you spend in Apple stores, and why?

Or do you work in one, and suffer great conflicts?

 

[ctdonath]

How much time do you spend in Apple stores, and why?

For me, the Apple store is in a mall near my workplace. I eat lunch at the mall once a week, and the Apple store is easy to drop into and enjoy gawking at what I want to get next.

 

[ljocampo]

<sarcasm>Wow! I only have to wait 4 more full months before it is released! Golly, I LOVE waiting close to 2 years for Apple to update its desktop family!</sarcasm>

But seriously....what the bleepedy bleep bleep is up with Apple taking years (plural) to release an UPDATE to its destkop.

My wife and I have waited too long for this...we want something now. Bye bye, Apple. I can grab a system with a high end i7, 16GB ram, 256GB SSD drive and 2TB Sata 6Gbps drive, cd/dvd/bluray burner, USB 3.0 system with 24" monitor for $1100....NOW. Buying this afternoon. No, not Dell or HP or Lenovo or other mass-market...mom and pop store that's about $100 more than the name brands but has higher quality/better spec guts.


Shhhhheeeeeeez, Apple.

So you want us to switch to Windoze??? Ain't going to happen. You are not a Mac person. I bet you have an Android phone too!

 

[gatortpk]

If you've liked using OS X, you likely won't buy a Windows machine.

<sarcasm>Wow! I only have to wait 4 more full months before it is released! Golly, I LOVE waiting close to 2 years for Apple to update its desktop family!</sarcasm>

But seriously....what the bleepedy bleep bleep is up with Apple taking years (plural) to release an UPDATE to its destkop.

My wife and I have waited too long for this...we want something now. Bye bye, Apple. I can grab a system with a high end i7, 16GB ram, 256GB SSD drive and 2TB Sata 6Gbps drive, cd/dvd/bluray burner, USB 3.0 system with 24" monitor for $1100....NOW. Buying this afternoon. No, not Dell or HP or Lenovo or other mass-market...mom and pop store that's about $100 more than the name brands but has higher quality/better spec guts.


Shhhhheeeeeeez, Apple.

If you're really a Mac user, and you've liked using OS X, then, NO, you're not going to buy a Windows machine just because the Mac Desktop updates are just around the corner.

(In other words, if you just bought a Windows machine, then it's likely that's what you've been using. If not, then you'll likely got back to OS X soon enough anyway. More computers, more money.)

Remember, Macs don't need hardware updates as often as PCs because they're usually faster to start with (hence the extra expense). Macs do get software updates far more often. I am referring to major OS changes (generally). It appears that there will be a new version of OS X every year now! I'd rather have a nice computer that'll last years and will have 3-5 OS X upgrades, rather than incrementally increasing the hardware and still running the same Windows system. It's cheaper too, I only have 5 Macs around. I'd probably have 10-15 PCs if I used them, I rarely use Windows and still I manage to have a few PCs that I never use (mostly given to me). Just currently Four Macs running 24/7 in this house.

 

[Litany]

October? Why would I want to buy a $3000 computer that uses a 6 month old CPU? If that turns out to be the case, I'll just skip the iMac completely and wait for the 2013 MacPro.

There is absolutely no reason Apple couldn't or shouldn't have updated the iMac back in MARCH.

 

[Lacos]

I am very sad.. Beside this, an October timeframe for iMac?
That the time where the iPhone 5 should arrive..
Who can afford both at the same time?!

 

[Swordylove]

July/August please... I can't hold it longer I'm about to burst!

 

[IlyaPol]

My predictions

1) backlit keyboard
2) better mouse (current magic mouse is crap) or may be they will get rid of it in favour of touch pad
3) thinner or no black frame around the screen
4) clearly improved performance (current performance with FCPX is well below expectations).

formfactor will remain the same. Retina is unlikely (very few people need it - i did not go for new Ipad and MBP with retina and will do it only once my ipad 1 will physically retire).

 

[New Apple]

A computer can only be very thin OR very powerful. Anything in between would mean compromise.

 

[HurryKayne]

Ok,let me resume a little.
Rumors are saying,
Ipad Mini in October,
Iphone 5,Ios6 in Autumn
Imac in Autumn too.
New Apple blender and 6 hours of downtime,Fall.
Have we enough money to face the incoming Fall?
I hope to see Mac Mini and Imac
falling THIS Summer instead.

 

[macs4nw]

Haven't seen this mentioned by anyone but i'm kinda hoping for the new 802.11ac network standard to be included in the next generation iMacs along
with new Time Capsules. I realize that it's still in the draft spec stage as of now
but Apple - as well as others - have jumped the gun on this before (802.11g and 802.11n) and released new hardware well before ratification.

That and Ivy Bridge of course, as well as better graphics.

 

[Randomoneh]

It's amazing how some people can be so naive in forums like this. NO, iMacs will not get a retina display for the following reasons:

- FIRSTLY, because iMacs ARE ALREADY retina displays. On the basis of Apple's marketing definition for "retina", which is the possibility for a user to distinguish individual pixels from a normal viewing distance, there is absolutely no need to have a 5120 x 2880 resolution unless you use it as an oversized iPad;

How about no? Can you do the math? Nevermind, I'll do it for you.

Average human is able to discern [angular resolution] up to ~200 pixels per degree as showed by a study done by Japanese NHK.

At 28'' distance, what is the angular resolution of current iMac 27''?


Below 60! (look at the blue dot)

And one with resolution of 5120x2880? Just above the 100, which would be pretty, pretaay, pretaaay good, I'd say.

 

[SpyderBite]

I went to the Apple store yesterday to buy a new 27" iMac. They told me not to do it and winked when they said I should wait 5 weeks.

Your either lying. Or, the employee made the suggestion based on his/her own personal speculation. Retail employees have no information about new product releases any sooner than the consumer does. That is why you rarely see a leak originate from the Retail division. Just as many people will work for a Best Buy just to steal from the warehouse; people would take a part time retail position just for inside information if it were common knowledge that retail got a heads up 5 weeks before an announcement.

They're not being secretive when they say that they don't know when or what the next new release will be. They truly don't have any more information than you do.

 

[juannacho]

Apple have slightly worked themselves into a corner with the whole 4x pixels dogma by having ALL the current retina devices follow that 'rule'.

For iMac though, why bother? Why not just give them enough of an increase that the retina concept of simply not being able to discern pixels from standard viewing distance holds true?

I'm sat in front of a 27" iMac right now and although it's not a problem, I can just (JUST!) make out the pixels, mainly on text. To become 'retina', this screen doesn't need 4x the pixel count. Even 3x would push the res up into 'effective retina'.

Why not just do that instead of following some none-existant 'rule' that gives you a needless engineering headache?!

 

[whooleytoo]

Apple have slightly worked themselves into a corner with the whole 4x pixels dogma by having ALL the current retina devices follow that 'rule'.

For iMac though, why bother? Why not just give them enough of an increase that the retina concept of simply not being able to discern pixels from standard viewing distance holds true?

I'm sat in front of a 27" iMac right now and although it's not a problem, I can just (JUST!) make out the pixels, mainly on text. To become 'retina', this screen doesn't need 4x the pixel count. Even 3x would push the res up into 'effective retina'.

Why not just do that instead of following some none-existant 'rule' that gives you a needless engineering headache?!

4x isn't an arbitrary rule; it's the easiest way to achieve higher resolution screens without breaking a lot of UI code or making it look worse (tiny UI text/elements, or blurryness).

It's 4x because they're using 2 rows of 2 pixels instead of one 'big' pixel. That enables them to do sharper images and text and finer smoothing, without changing the size of anything. A 3x increase in resolution just makes things more complex. That would mean using 1.73 pixels x 1.73 pixels instead of each 'big' pixel, so you'd introduce blurriness.

Of course, Apple does allow you to use non-Retina resolutions in the new rMBP, and it looks good because the scaling/smoothing is now being done with such small pixels (because of that 4x increase). With a 3x increase, you'd have the same problem, but it wouldn't look quite as good.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.