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

New iMacs Shipping January 2009?

aviationalyours said:
I live in Qatar. My internet connection speed is 500Kbps. And people are all over Blu-ray especially since PS3s are selling like hotcakes. And I hear your example with the 46".

But we are talking about a 20"/24" screen that isn't even HD (yet). DVD is just fine for that. I would rather save my resources for something else.

On the other hand it would make sense in the Mini, but then it wouldn't be the low-end mac. It would be an advanced apple TV, the home theater mac. Which might make sense as Apple pulled all the Mini ads.

We'll see I guess:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
don't care about watching BD movies on my mac, i'll use my 52" for that. what i'd like to use my mac for is burning my own videos taken with my HD camcorder on blu-ray.
you're saying i should downscale them for dvd?
or buy a pc for that?
 
Ok

AidenShaw said:
A DVD's native resolution is 640x480¹ - 300K pixels.

The 20" Imac is 1680x1050 - 1764K pixels. That's more than enough for 720p HD - 720p is 1280x720 - 922K pixels.

The 24" Imac is 1920x1200 - 2304K pixels. It is 1080p HD capable - 1080p is 1920x1080 - 2074K pixels.

Believe me, shrinking a two megapixel picture down to 1.8 Mpixel will look a lot better than stretching a 300 Kpixel image to about 2 Mpixel! :eek:

My comment, though, was that slow internet speeds will give life to Blu-ray Disc - replying to someone who's opinion is that BD is dead on arrival. Your internet speed and anecdotal evidence supports me.

Yes, DVD is good enough for most people. (Crappy 128Kbps MP3 or AAC is also "good enough" for most people, apparently.)

But, any laptop or desktop with a screen that is much larger than 640x480 should benefit greatly from the high resolution BD image, even if it need to be scaled down to a 1680x1050 or smaller screen.

There's also the advantage that you can buy the BD version of the movie, and play it on your big screen, your desktop, and your laptop. There's little excuse for Apple not to add BD drives as BTO options on all systems.



¹ In square pixels...
Click to expand...

Fair point... I didn't get my numbers right

But if people are rich enough to buy a 24" iMac they should have a suitable TV with a Blu-ray player.

If they put in a suitable graphics card like a 9600 or a 9800 (I wish) and not the 9400M and increase all the other specs it might make sense. But I don't wan't anything overheating for playing a movie. And anyway, the iMacs are already expensive. And.. I am against this whole optical drive and wish that the MacBook dosen't have one. But for the same price no one will mind the Blu-ray drive :)

And yes I don't get how people watch torrented 128Kbps :confused:
 
Jeve Stobs said:
don't care about watching BD movies on my mac, i'll use my 52" for that. what i'd like to use my mac for is burning my own videos taken with my HD camcorder on blu-ray.
you're saying i should downscale them for dvd?
or buy a pc for that?
Click to expand...

i burned an AVCHD from a SantaRosa Macbook, it plays fine in a Ps3, probably even a 360. while technically not blu-ray, it is 1080p, the footage I shot with an HD camcorder and it cost me about .10 to produce, instead of burning a $10 BD disc
 
PuckDaddy said:
...while technically not blu-ray, it is 1080p...
Click to expand...

And there are people who can't tell the difference between an MP3 and a CD.

You could convert a 240x180 Quicktime video to 1080p - but even though it is "HD" it isn't high definition by any means.

There's a lot more to HD than pixel count - and BD is currently the best way to get the bitrates needed to keep those videos from looking like YouTube garbage shown full screen.


PuckDaddy said:
....it cost me about .10 to produce, instead of burning a $10 BD disc
Click to expand...

And I'm sure that it's worth ten cents ;) .
 
I highly doubt Apple will change the appearance of the iMac, which is still an attractive display piece, unless they go to a full screen, like the new HP All-in-Ones.

The rest is easy to gauge: Quad Core, 2 GB Minimum, Nvidia graphics, Apple DisplayPort.

No Blu-Ray, if Jobs is to be believed from his statement earlier.

Might we see an upgraded 22" and 25" screen size, comparable to the other all-in-ones?
 
AidenShaw said:
Because the Lord God Jobs decrees that it be thin?

Let's see - if the new Imac had an Atom processor, no Ethernet, no 1394 (of course), no optical, a mini-PCIe SSD like a netbook - it could be less than .75" thick.

Wow. And nearly useless.

6_145_412.jpg
mini-PCIe SSD
Click to expand...

:D
Agreed. Let's hope His Steveness isn't reading this, otherwise we might end up with (near) useless trash like this.
 
Tallest Skil said:
MacWorld isn't Apple's convention. It's set up by a magazine and Apple attends. There used to be a MacWorld in New York, but Apple told them that there shouldn't be two shows. When they kept MacWorld New York going, Apple pulled attendance and the show collapsed in on itself.
Click to expand...



http://www.idgworldexpo.com/live/wec/about.aspx

http://www.macworldexpo.com/

http://www.macworld.com/article/137596/2008/12/apple_kills_expo_reax.html?t=

its set up by igd, macworld magazine are under their umbrella but have nothing to do with running macworld expo
 
one thing i know... if they have a 260gtx / 9800gt or something then i will buy a new imac.... as i buy need macbook due to new 9400m....

hoping the new imac will have some good power...


need top end gpu / quad core then i have it bought :p
 
This AppleInsider post seems relevant to this discussion

The chips -- the Core 2 Quad Q8200 (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400 (2.66GHz/6MB L2), and Core 2 Quad Q9550 (2.83GHz/12MB L2) -- are low-power desktop chips operating at 65W compared to the 55W of the current iMacs' mobile processors. Therefore, a decision by Apple to employ the chips inside the iMac line could signal a need for modifications to the computer's cooling methods.
Click to expand...
Story

Apparently there is talk of a new cooling mechanism in the iMacs. I don't think we're talking about i7 territory, but Quads non the less.
 
AidenShaw said:
Atom processor, ...
Click to expand...

No, this is for the about to be announced

Yixian said:
iMac Air
Click to expand...

The world's thinnest all-in-one (a true all in one with no keyboard/mouse/power cord). Steve can have one. The rest of us can have a thicker than normal iMac (since we'd be naughty to want an xmac and we might not choose an ACD).

We'd have space for two hard drives and still have an optical drive. Not BD, we don't want Time Capsule backup competition (oops, cancel that second hard drive).

We'd have enough space/cooling for the latest desktop chips (the 940, not the 965; we don't want to be geedy). Max ram more than 4GB with more than two slots. We'd get to keep firewire until we get USB3.0. Up-to-date GPU options ...

I forgot. It's about what's good enough, not about the latest tech. I'll get a second-hand G4 then.

Actually Steve would have a 1mm thick prototype (you don't notice that the image is projected unless you sit down to use it).
 
I think the new iMacs will develop a new cooling system; since the older models do relatively get hot at times. A new redesigned maybe??? who knows perhaps, in the future.
 
I know...the new iMacs are coming out in January, but I need a computer now. I'm a PC user that can't wait to convert to Mac. I need a computer really bad, and my PC just crashed. Should I just hold off as long as I can, or do you think that the current Macs are sufficient enough. I don't know how much longer I can hold off.
 
ayeplussjr said:
I know...the new iMacs are coming out in January, but I need a computer now. I'm a PC user that can't wait to convert to Mac. I need a computer really bad, and my PC just crashed. Should I just hold off as long as I can, or do you think that the current Macs are sufficient enough. I don't know how much longer I can hold off.
Click to expand...

Sure, the current iMacs are not bad at all, and from what I have read, the new version might not have too much new to offer. Just a spec bump. Unless you do extensive multimedia (photo editing, video editing, gaming), you would see no perceivable difference. It all depends on what you do.

How about a Macbook? Maybe later you can add an ACD.

If you need a computer real bad and an iMac is what you want, and you're not a serious multimedia guy, go get the current iMac.. If something unexpectedly sweet turns up, pay the re-stocking fee and exchange it for a brand new one.
 
fleshman03 said:
This AppleInsider post seems relevant to this discussion


Story

Apparently there is talk of a new cooling mechanism in the iMacs. I don't think we're talking about i7 territory, but Quads non the less.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the cooling system will be across all the iMacs or just the 24". Previously (before this cooling system rumor) I thought only the 24" would be large enough to handle the 65 W CPUs. Now, if the cooling system comes to the 20" iMac as well as the 24", we could see an all-quad lineup! :)

Ramashalanka said:
No, this is for the about to be announced
Click to expand...
Announced what?

saisrujan said:
Sure, the current iMacs are not bad at all, and from what I have read, the new version might not have too much new to offer. Just a spec bump. Unless you do extensive multimedia (photo editing, video editing, gaming), you would see no perceivable difference. It all depends on what you do.
Click to expand...
Fair point, although most updates are spec bumps. And quad-core would give more than a bump in the CPU area.
 
Why is everyone so gung-ho for quadcores? What is the appeal in daily computing? Gaming? Or do we all do lots of encoding,decoding?
 
onlinemoniker said:
Why is everyone so gung-ho for quadcores? What is the appeal in daily computing? Gaming? Or do we all do lots of encoding,decoding?
Click to expand...
More performance for the price compared to mobile dual-cores. They will also help in any sort of CPU-intensive tasks like video editing.
 
NVIDIA Chipset Verses Intel Chipset

Hi, I'm new here on MacRumors, and so far this website has been very helpful and informative. I'm looking forward to buying my first iMac, and the anticipation for MWSF is killing me!

Perhaps this has already been discussed, if so please post of link to the correct discussion, but could someone explain the advantages of the NVIDIA chipset over the Intel chipset?

From what I understand, the quad-core gives more performance for a lower cost, but why is Apple making the brand switch to NVIDIA?

Thank you for any responses or links- any information on this subject is helpful. (And it will make the wait a little more bearable!)
 
Mackilroy said:
Funny how the other companies that offer it don't design their software and hardware together, they just make hardware that runs Windows (which, as was pointed out, has plenty of DRM to let it play Blu-Ray discs in it).

I'm certain you don't want more DRM in Mac OS X, eh? ;)
Click to expand...

So? Is that EVER going to go away? In order to have digital media be it downloaded or via BR there will be protection for the IP of the owner and producers. That is the way it is and will be for some time.

And what about the software companies not designing the software or hardware? Does apple design the DVD drive? No. Do they use a standard decoding process for playback? Yes. They did not design work aside from the physical design for the DVD drive integration and not the actual design work for the drive and software. Even if they did that R and D has long ben paid for. Apple uses MS active sync in order to make the iPhone work with exchange - they simply took a software app that worked for their needs and used it. Why is HD content any different? That could be added as a plug-in to QT like AVI support. Just my opinion - which according to my wife and kids is worth - well, zero. :)

D
 
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