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.
New iMacs Next Week?
- Thread starter mhnajjar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
assuming it'll just be larger HDDs and Penryn, it kinda pisses me off to have been waiting so long... is apple SO wrapped up with the iPhone SDK that they couldn't have updated the iMac at the same time back in february when the MacBook received YET ANOTHER update after only 4 months?
has anyone else noticed what seems to be a lack of interest for desktop computers at Apple? it's like 99% of their resources are going towards iPhone... it feels like they're training a new CEO, and that this new CEO sucks... or Steve Jobs is too stubborn to see that things like the MacBook Air are stupid and will most likely fail... the word "innovation" is really overused at Apple... they should perhaps research other words to use, like "dumb" or "reasonable profit margins", or "aluminum + glass was en vogue in the 90s, Jonathan"
has anyone else noticed what seems to be a lack of interest for desktop computers at Apple? it's like 99% of their resources are going towards iPhone... it feels like they're training a new CEO, and that this new CEO sucks... or Steve Jobs is too stubborn to see that things like the MacBook Air are stupid and will most likely fail... the word "innovation" is really overused at Apple... they should perhaps research other words to use, like "dumb" or "reasonable profit margins", or "aluminum + glass was en vogue in the 90s, Jonathan"
I'm excited that it looks like a new iMac is coming out. This has made me hold off from buying anything new for the time being. The one thing that really needs to be updated: the graphics card.
Apple has been back and forth on the graphics card in these machines for so long. Also, the iMac has had a 256mb card in it for the last two years. That's a long time without an increase in the size, and it something I really don't understand. The iMac is supposed to be the high-end consumer model. How can a high end machine have two year old technology in it? I know that they've switched cards in the models, but none have gone above the 256mb mark. So, what is this issue? It seems more of a skimping on parts than anything else. I know that this isn't a big issue to a lot of people, but it is to anyone who uses their machine for gaming.
I know that gaming has always been a sore spot, but I have always found there to be plenty of games to keep me entertained. The main issue though that has come up in the last couple of years is a suitable Apple gaming machine. The iMac does handle most stuff pretty well, but let's face it, without an upgrade to the graphic card, this machine will be obsolete out of the box. The games that are coming out in the next year are much more dependent on a large card. So, without a 512mb card, most games are going to play like garbage. There is the option of a Mac Pro though.
As far as the Mac Pro goes, the name says it all. This is a machine that was geared toward the high end professional user who needs lots of power. Plus, there is no way ever that I would spend upwards of $2500 to $3000 on a machine just for gaming. I'm sorry but that's ludicrous. I don't think it would be that big of a deal to have at least two iMac models, one with each screen size, to have a comparable graphics card to the Mac Pro. The seems reasonable and I don't see why this would be a problem. There is another solution though.
Apple needs to make a machine that fits in between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Why? Upgradability. Let's face it, the iMac is a pretty machine and has all sorts of great things associated with it, but it's biggest problem is upgradability. It is a throw away machine. When your needs outstrip the resources of the machine, you have no option but to get another one. I see that as a problem. Why? Because I haven't had that problem with the machines that I owned in the past.
My most recent machine is just hitting six years. It's a dual 1.25Ghz mirror drive door. How has it survived so long? Because I was able to upgrade almost every component. When I needed more storage, I added an additional 250gb hard drive. When I was having issues playing newer games, I replaced the graphics card with a 256mb one. When I needed to burn DVD's, I added a 16x Superdrive along with the Combo drive that was already in it. The only reason I'm needing to upgrade it is that it won't handle any of the Intel programs, and updated Apple software doesn't work so well. So, now I have to face the problem of upgrading and the iMac seems to be the only machine that has a reasonable price tag for what I need it to do. This brings me back to my other point, a machine that could be the high-end consumer machine, a half-height tower.
Apple really needs to develop and produce a half-hieght tower machine for those of us who would like to have the option of upgradability without the monster price tag of a Pro. The machine wouldn't even had to be a quad core, but it should have options. The base model could be comparable to the higher end iMac, and then it could go up from there. That's not even the important part. The important part would be that you could replace parts as you needed to. It could have two drive bays for hard drives, and maybe two for optical drives, and definitely the ability to add more graphics cards or to swap out the current one.
I just don't understand why this hasn't come out yet. There is a market for it, as Apple is well aware of now. With the whole psystar development, it should be clear that people are willing to go that route because Apple is not filling that demand. So people are either building their own boxes or looking more into these boxes that psystar has available. I know that most people who have used Apple computers in the past would like to stay with them, but that becomes difficult when you really don't have an option that fits your needs.
So, I am really hoping for a nice increase in the graphics capabilities of the iMac, along with some general improvements. I would be sad to think that for the first time in around 20 years, I would have to pick a homemade box or something else over an Apple branded machine.
Apple has been back and forth on the graphics card in these machines for so long. Also, the iMac has had a 256mb card in it for the last two years. That's a long time without an increase in the size, and it something I really don't understand. The iMac is supposed to be the high-end consumer model. How can a high end machine have two year old technology in it? I know that they've switched cards in the models, but none have gone above the 256mb mark. So, what is this issue? It seems more of a skimping on parts than anything else. I know that this isn't a big issue to a lot of people, but it is to anyone who uses their machine for gaming.
I know that gaming has always been a sore spot, but I have always found there to be plenty of games to keep me entertained. The main issue though that has come up in the last couple of years is a suitable Apple gaming machine. The iMac does handle most stuff pretty well, but let's face it, without an upgrade to the graphic card, this machine will be obsolete out of the box. The games that are coming out in the next year are much more dependent on a large card. So, without a 512mb card, most games are going to play like garbage. There is the option of a Mac Pro though.
As far as the Mac Pro goes, the name says it all. This is a machine that was geared toward the high end professional user who needs lots of power. Plus, there is no way ever that I would spend upwards of $2500 to $3000 on a machine just for gaming. I'm sorry but that's ludicrous. I don't think it would be that big of a deal to have at least two iMac models, one with each screen size, to have a comparable graphics card to the Mac Pro. The seems reasonable and I don't see why this would be a problem. There is another solution though.
Apple needs to make a machine that fits in between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Why? Upgradability. Let's face it, the iMac is a pretty machine and has all sorts of great things associated with it, but it's biggest problem is upgradability. It is a throw away machine. When your needs outstrip the resources of the machine, you have no option but to get another one. I see that as a problem. Why? Because I haven't had that problem with the machines that I owned in the past.
My most recent machine is just hitting six years. It's a dual 1.25Ghz mirror drive door. How has it survived so long? Because I was able to upgrade almost every component. When I needed more storage, I added an additional 250gb hard drive. When I was having issues playing newer games, I replaced the graphics card with a 256mb one. When I needed to burn DVD's, I added a 16x Superdrive along with the Combo drive that was already in it. The only reason I'm needing to upgrade it is that it won't handle any of the Intel programs, and updated Apple software doesn't work so well. So, now I have to face the problem of upgrading and the iMac seems to be the only machine that has a reasonable price tag for what I need it to do. This brings me back to my other point, a machine that could be the high-end consumer machine, a half-height tower.
Apple really needs to develop and produce a half-hieght tower machine for those of us who would like to have the option of upgradability without the monster price tag of a Pro. The machine wouldn't even had to be a quad core, but it should have options. The base model could be comparable to the higher end iMac, and then it could go up from there. That's not even the important part. The important part would be that you could replace parts as you needed to. It could have two drive bays for hard drives, and maybe two for optical drives, and definitely the ability to add more graphics cards or to swap out the current one.
I just don't understand why this hasn't come out yet. There is a market for it, as Apple is well aware of now. With the whole psystar development, it should be clear that people are willing to go that route because Apple is not filling that demand. So people are either building their own boxes or looking more into these boxes that psystar has available. I know that most people who have used Apple computers in the past would like to stay with them, but that becomes difficult when you really don't have an option that fits your needs.
So, I am really hoping for a nice increase in the graphics capabilities of the iMac, along with some general improvements. I would be sad to think that for the first time in around 20 years, I would have to pick a homemade box or something else over an Apple branded machine.
Penryn is a processor, Montevina is a platform. We are currently using Santa Rosa as a platform.
Thank you Chosenbydestiny. I guess my next question is: what is the advantages of Montevina over Santa Rosa?
I think we would see the 20 inch have maybe the 2.4/2.8 extreme option and the 24 inch be 2.8 extreme standard (but staying the the 2.4 price) plus a new higher cpu speed option. maybe 3.06
also hdd and graphics update to the 512 bit that's in the macbook pro's should be introduced
there isn't going to be a blu-ray option seeing apple would introduce it on the mac pro first since that's their prized computer.
I'm also hoping the imac's are 2gb ram standard
also hdd and graphics update to the 512 bit that's in the macbook pro's should be introduced
there isn't going to be a blu-ray option seeing apple would introduce it on the mac pro first since that's their prized computer.
I'm also hoping the imac's are 2gb ram standard
why wouldn't / couldn't Apple use dual-core xeon desktop processors in the new iMac? it seems the only advantage to Penryn is battery life, and that would make the MacBook and MacBook Pro's updates worth it... but as the iMac is a desktop, who cares about batter life? plus, if they were going to go with Penryn, wouldn't they have done it already?
As it applies to the iMac, an 800MHz memory bus vs. 667MHz.
For the MacBook and Mac Mini, it would also be a better integrated GPU (though still inferior to the AT in the iMac/Mac Pro and the nVidia in the MacBook Pro/Mac Pro).
Cooling is one. The dual-core Xeon Harpertowns in the previous generation Mac Pro required large active cooling systems. Also, those CPUs require a workstation/sever chipset (the Intel 5x00 series) which is more expensive then the mobile chipsets used in the rest of the line. And that chipset requires buffered DIMMs which are also more expensive.
So you'd end up with a larger form factor machine that cost a good deal more to own and upgrade with not a significant improvement in performance.
I thought Nehalem was the new platform, and Montevina was just the new processor in the Santa Rosa platform. I may be wrong. And the Nehalem platform, if I'm correct, eliminates the FSB with quickconnect, and it is much faster than the FSB, but correct me if I'm wrong (about this whole thing.
All the refurb iMacs on the Apple store now have the "Limited Time Special Price"
Guess they're trying to clear them out
Guess they're trying to clear them out
refurb imacs
Been that way for a while. I guess I'm gambling that the new imacs will be enough of an upgrade that I'll choose one or hopefully have the chance to still get a refurb for $1499.
Been that way for a while. I guess I'm gambling that the new imacs will be enough of an upgrade that I'll choose one or hopefully have the chance to still get a refurb for $1499.
yeah, it's been like since what... 2 months? welcome to the waiting room, you're a little late.
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.
I'm aware of it. A colleague of mine is actually putting such an "option" together right now and is going to let me see how things go. It's funny because he's a PC user interested in buying a Mac, but he thinks the Mini is overpriced, doesn't want an all-in-one, and can't justify the price of a Mac Pro. And I know many like him. I can't believe Apple isn't aware of that potential market.
I really don't want to go that way, but if Apple refuses to sell me the machine I need (and many others need, I might add) then so be it. They won't get my money. Seriously, I'd prefer not to do that, but the current iMacs (which is what I would buy) are pathetic and the displays are a deal-breaker. Unless this update brings matte display options and/or better quality displays, I will certainly be investigating the "options" you're referring to.
I'm aware of it. A colleague of mine is actually putting such an "option" together right now and is going to let me see how things go. It's funny because he's a PC user interested in buying a Mac, but he thinks the Mini is overpriced, doesn't want an all-in-one, and can't justify the price of a Mac Pro. And I know many like him. I can't believe Apple isn't aware of that potential market.
That's because, to PC people who have spent their lives downloaded cracked and pirated software and who are motivated only by numbers, the concept of an OS tied down to tightly to the hardware to make everything run so seamlessly is so alien and unacceptable to them that they refuse to accept it and instead go for the dubious way which destroys that tight integration between hardware and software, and then complains that OS X sucks because so many things are not supported, when its their own fault for not using supported hardware in the first place.
All I want to see...
An HSCP-ready HDMI input. Not likely though because SJ seems to think people never use more devices than a single Mac.
An HSCP-ready HDMI input. Not likely though because SJ seems to think people never use more devices than a single Mac.
Well, given that PC users are 90% of the computer users out there, I think you're going to have a hard time shoehorning them into any preconceived ideas like that--just like Apple is having a hard time shoehorning them into their pointlessly limited hardware offerings. Face it, at some point Apple has to open things up a bit and broaden their hardware line-up. As more people come to Macs, more and more people will demand more of Apple's relatively meager hardware offerings.
I'm a long-time Mac user. Did my first design work on Macs in 1991 (using Aldus Freehand
) and bought my first Mac in 1994. However, I'm on the side of PC users on this. Apple's hardware line-up sucks right now. The iMac has overstayed its welcome. Apple needs to kill it and move on. There's an obvious gaping hole where a mid-range tower should be, and I'm not the only one out there noticing it. Many high-profile tech commentators have noticed it, including lots of Mac-friendly ones. Check out this guy's thoughts on the matter. He sums it all up nicely.
Price drop for iMac in Spain!!!
And wireless mouse and keyboard for free!
http://www.fnac.es/dsp/?servlet=tree.HomeEspecialesServlet&tree=8&especial=apple_vida&page=1
And wireless mouse and keyboard for free!
http://www.fnac.es/dsp/?servlet=tree.HomeEspecialesServlet&tree=8&especial=apple_vida&page=1
I have to disagree with you here. The iMac is the perfect all-in-one machine. In fact, I'm getting rid of my PowerMac to get a 24" iMac. It's powerful enough to do most design/imaging work and has bluetooth, isight and other bundled offerings the towers don't.
Of course, I'd also like to see a mid range tower -- the cube 2.0. But that would be in addition to, not a replacement for the iMac.
I mostly agree, but I don't wouldn't call Apple's simplified product line pointless. On some level, it is quite smart to offer a simple product line, but I believe Apple takes it way too far. There's room in their lineup for one at least more Mac - the midrange tower.
Let's look at this from the perspective of a savvy potential PC->Mac switcher. Your choices for a desktop Mac include:
1. Mac Mini.
2. iMac.
3. Mac Pro.
Keeping our potential switcher in mind...
1. Essentially a headless laptop. Weak, out of date, and surprisingly expensive. Made for people whose needs don't exceed email and web surfing or maybe a cheap file server. Not going to appeal to the more savvy PC users.
2. An all-in-one. Our savvy switchers very well might have a nice LCD which they want to bring to their Mac, so this won't do. Also, it lacks a video input, so you won't be connecting your PC, PS3, or 360 to it.
3. Mac Pro - not overpriced considering what you get, but it's very expensive and more powerful than what most people would ever need.
Assuming you have your own monitor or don't otherwise want an all-in-one, where does that leave you? There's a $1500 price difference between the most expensive Mini and the least expensive Pro - and that difference reflects a ridiculously large gap in performance.
I think Apple should condense the Mini into one SKU and drop the 4-core Mac Pro, leaving ample room for a 4-core minitower at maybe $1800. They still get a simple product line and lots of PC and Mac users get a hell of a usable machine. I quite like the iMac, but one-size does not fit all.
BTW, I'm an Apple user since the Apple IIe and I have a budget for a new Mac, but Apple doesn't leave me with much choice - I don't want to buy a Mac Pro because it's more money/power than I want, I don't want an anemic Mini, and I can't use my consoles with an iMac. So it's not just switchers whom Apple is leaving in the cold with their sparse product line. Why can't they at least put an HDCP-capable DVI and/or HDMI input on the iMac?
Don't forget BlueTooth 2.1+EDR.
MBA had incorporated it first and the iMac will adopt it.