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 Shipping January 2009?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What are you looking for? It's already the perfect design. There's really nothing to change except maybe making it thinner.
It was something like 49W @ 2.0Ghz for the venerable PowerPC 970FX.
I don't expect anything beyond 55-65W processors in the iMac. That's the cooling suggestion and not the power draw.
Surprisingly enough the iMac keeps getting a boost in the power supplies since the switch over to Intel. Remember the Core Duo models being called super, green? We're almost at 300W today.
I don't expect anything beyond 55-65W processors in the iMac. That's the cooling suggestion and not the power draw.
Surprisingly enough the iMac keeps getting a boost in the power supplies since the switch over to Intel. Remember the Core Duo models being called super, green? We're almost at 300W today.
Dear Apple,
Please remove the PSU from the iMac and use a power brick instead and then you will be free to remove the iMac's chin.
Thanks,
Possible, but i think there's a better chance of the 65w SFF quad cores. A lot more power for the money than the 2ghz quad core penryn. Then again, with how obsessed Apple is with thinness these days...
None. There isn't going to be a mobile chipset that supports quickpath for well over a year.
A bit thicker form factor.
Needs Quad-Core real bad, prolly not the Core i7's since those are so new.. but would be nice! And I would like an impressive video card, ala nVidia 260 Core 216 with 864MB of RAM or a slightly more practical ATI/AMD 4870 with 1GB of RAM. I likes me video games!
But yeah, if it had a Core i7 Quad and an impressive Video Card, it might halt my plans to build a Hackintosh. I'll get the 24" model with my 24" connected as a second monitor... MMMMMMMMMMM
I like video games too, thats why I built a gaming PC
. The video cards in the current iMacs are pretty lame honestly. Even the highest end 8800 is beat easily by the 9800 GTX (which by the way is $150 on tiger direct).I've been holding out on buying a new apple for a few months now for this exact reason.
Still trying to decide between iMac and Mac Pro -- if iMac upgrades to QuadCore (which I'm certain they will).. and in result opening room for more memory, I think that will definitely sway me in the iMac direction!
As for Blu-Ray, I think it's highly unlikely at this point.. my guess would be January of 2010.
I don't see the FW400 going away at all, too many external systems and HD's depend on it.
I highly doubt any external changes, although it'd be sweet. I don't think we have much to complain about as far as the iMac appearance goes. Most changes this year will be internal.
Can't wait!
Still trying to decide between iMac and Mac Pro -- if iMac upgrades to QuadCore (which I'm certain they will).. and in result opening room for more memory, I think that will definitely sway me in the iMac direction!
As for Blu-Ray, I think it's highly unlikely at this point.. my guess would be January of 2010.
I don't see the FW400 going away at all, too many external systems and HD's depend on it.
I highly doubt any external changes, although it'd be sweet. I don't think we have much to complain about as far as the iMac appearance goes. Most changes this year will be internal.
Can't wait!
Perfect ? You're kidding, aren't you ? Seriously.
Why thinner ? Good grief, is anorexia contagious ?
It would be helpful if it was an inch thicker so that it could offer better access to it's components for complete upgrades and better heat dissipation.
One more thing, as much as I do love Core i7 it only excels at video encoding and server-side memory intensive applications.
Games aren't getting much of a benefit from it.
Games aren't getting much of a benefit from it.
$2,499. Yes it would be or at least have the possibility to do upgrades without being forced to get the MacPro.
Well than that is the nail in the coffin of an i7 in an iMac. I don't think it's well over a year though. More like WWDC announcement of a MBP-Quad and shipping in September or a special event in October. Regardless, sometime in 2009.
That's been a very interesting aspect of the i7 reviews that I have seen. Gaming gets almost no benefit from the new i7 improvements. Odd.
17" MPB in 2009???
OK oh spec meister, will we ever see an upgrade for the 17" MBP?
Inquiring minds want to know ;-)
OK oh spec meister, will we ever see an upgrade for the 17" MBP?
Inquiring minds want to know ;-)
Hmm...
Darn it, the last post of mine that I can easily find only goes back to December 8th.
I was going to link to one of my posts where I got the specs of the new MacBook Pro correct with only one difference (no 500GB hard drive option).
And then where I got the specs of the current iMacs correct with only one difference.
And then where I got the specs of the Early 2008 MacBook Pro correct, with two differences.
I may not work for Apple, but I'm pretty darn good at figuring specs.
When I'm off, I'm off optimistically, which is really a shame for everyone wanting incredible specs...
A 30" iMac would be incredible, but when they're that big, you start to get into Mac Pro territory, price-wise. A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.
Also, with the new iMacs getting LED backlighting, the price would be particularly prohibitive, since the standalone 30" Cinema Display, when updated, will remain at its current price point.
Of course we will. If Apple kills the 17" MacBook Pro, the Mac Pro is next.
2.8GHz standard with 3.06 BTO (if there is a quad core "Montevina" Penryn, we might see that)
320GB HDD standard with an SSD and maybe 500GB as BTO
4GB DDR3 RAM
9400M+9600M combo
SuperDrive
I'm not a spec meister, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once. Yes, at MacWorld.
I'm not whining thank you very much. Just adding my thoughts on what I would like Apple to do with the upgrade at MacWorld
Incase you forgot what the term "upgrade" means here are a few definitions for you
If I was whinning then my orignal post would have gone like this:
Probably cost. For Apple, that is. The fewer parts they have to support, the cheaper it is for them. They get to order in bigger quantities, and it simplifies their development and testing processes.
Pretty much. This was the exact quote: "Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace."
I'm expecting this or the next rev of the iMac to bump the 24" screen down to the midrange model. i think with every version of the iMac (except maybe the G3) eventually only entry-level model had the small screen.
thanks to everyone clarifying the quad/Nehalem situation. is it still realistic to expect iMac-ready quad-core Nehalem chips (Clarksfield?) towards the end of 2009? i'm holding out for that in my next iMac...
thanks to everyone clarifying the quad/Nehalem situation. is it still realistic to expect iMac-ready quad-core Nehalem chips (Clarksfield?) towards the end of 2009? i'm holding out for that in my next iMac...
Clarksfield is the Nehalem processor that is due 2nd 1/2 of 09. That means one of two things.
1) It'll be late = January/Febuary 2010
2) It'll be on time = WWDC announcement or special event.
LinkIntel said:
Cost ? If Apple was selling cheap computers that cost logic would make sense.
Do you believe he is being truthful about that ?
It was a smart *ss one liner for getting a laugh. It's a cop out. I sell lots of computers with a Blu-ray burner. None of those companies have complained about Blu-ray being a "bag of hurt." It's a lame crack and a lousy excuse for Steve preventing customers from having Blu-ray on their Macs that other computer users have access to for less money than Macs without them.
The only reason Macs don't have Blu-ray is iTunes.