New iMacs Shipping January 2009?

[illegallydead]

8Megs RAM - what are you going to do with that much memory???

HDR photography, 3D modeling and animation, and multitrack recording using lots of soft synths and plugins.

The guy was making a joke. He specifically said Megs, as in MEGAbites. Harkening back to the "good 'ol days"

Lots of PCs I sell are coming with 6-8GB ram. I don't expect the iMac to come with 8GB on the base model, but it would be nice to be able to expand the memory to what current comsumer PCs can do.

Apple is not one to really care what consumer PC's can do. They make their money off people getting fed up with consumer PCs and switching, then keeping them sucked in buying new macs every 2 years (or less) out of fear of switching back, even tough PCs work just dandy. The thought of "going back" keeps people buying Mac even though they are comparatively under-speced...

 

[fleshman03]

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...

And to think I was worried the processor conversation was a little dry for others to follow.

I'd expect a Nehalem processor in an iMac sometime 1Q '10 next year. Laptops will be updated a little earlier (October '09.) This is more optimistic than some others will say.

 

[Kwill]

I'm really hoping for a redesign of the iMac, it's held that shape since the G5...

It was redesigned 15 months ago. Perhaps you didn't notice with all the glare.

 

[Ambrose Chapel]

And to think I was worried the processor conversation was a little dry for others to follow.

I'd expect a Nehalem processor in an iMac sometime 1Q '10 next year. Laptops will be updated a little earlier (October '09.) This is more optimistic than some others will say.

heh well i have a vested interest in all this talk - my G5 is showing its age and i am getting upgrade fever. but 2010?? and that's optimistic? yikes, maybe i won't be holding out for nehalem.

 

[xhambonex]

they could do this extensive redesign where they remove that glass and give us a matte screen

 

[Bubba Satori]

The guy was making a joke. He specifically said Megs, as in MEGAbites. Harkening back to the "good 'ol days"



Apple is not one to really care what consumer PC's can do. They make their money off people getting fed up with consumer PCs and switching, then keeping them sucked in buying new macs every 2 years (or less) out of fear of switching back, even tough PCs work just dandy. The thought of "going back" keeps people buying Mac even though they are comparatively under-speced...

True enough. And it's hard to argue with Apple's strategy and success. And to be honest, most of my Mac customers could care less about the latest hardware or upgradabilty. That's not why they're buying Macs.

 

[mathcolo]

iMacs????? I want Snow Leopard!

 

[katewes]

they could do this extensive redesign where they remove that glass and give us a matte screen

Hey how about a Matte screen option?

The option to keep FW400 and Matte is all I would really want.

they could do this extensive redesign where they remove that glass and give us a matte screen

Apple needs to bring back the matte screen. If you search for online polls, search for "macbook matte glossy polls", consistently between 40% to 55% want matte. Apple doesn't care about customers needs. All it cares about is sales figures and producing artistic design. But lots of customers need something that they have to work with for hours, and staring at a glossy screen is really aggravating for some (40-50%). So please don't reply to say you love the glossy screen. Fine, have your glossy screen. But those other half who want matte screens should get the option too. We're not saying change everything to matte, just give us the option.

Apple, if its money you're after, charge us more for it. Rip us off. Make if financially worthwhile for you to offer the matte screen, but do it.

 

[rockdog]

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 think that is some peoples beef with the iMacs. For things such as gaming they have to go to the expense of buying a separate computer just to game when you should be able to do everything with one machine. Windows users do. (I don't really consider the Mac Pro to be an all in one gaming machine. But that is just me)

 

[djellison]

Still way too expensive

For whom? Laptops costing half as much as an MBP have BR drives in them. There is no excuse. Apple are simply stalling to eek out the absolute max profit from every over-priced machine they sell.

 

[iMacmatician]

online polls

I already doubt those numbers.

 

[Eric S.]

Cost ? If Apple was selling cheap computers that cost logic would make sense.

It makes sense for Apple, just not for us as customers.

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.

All I can assume is that Apple hasn't figured out how to make what they consider would be sufficient profit from Blu-Ray, otherwise they would be jumping into it.

 

[wizard]

Well not exactly

Correct me if I'm wrong, alright?

The current iMac uses an Intel logic board (What I'm calling a chipset, is that the wrong term?)

Unfortunately yes it is a bit confused. A chipset gets soldered to a motherboard with a lot of other stuff, so you are not exactly on the same page here. Generally a Intel chipset consisted of the processor, and the so called north and south bridges. The level of integration generally increased with each new revision of these chipsets. Not too this isn't the whole computer as a number of other things get connected to the chipsets including RAM and some form of ROM/Flash.

They are moving towards an Nvidia board.

That is they are going to a Nvidia chipset of some sort. That based on the info leaked in Apples latest software releases. Note that we don't know exactly what variant of the 9400M this might be. It could be the very same mobile chip used in the new MacBooks, it could be a variant clocked faster or it could be another member of the family with a different feature set.

The important thing to remember is that Nvidia has already acknowledged that what became the 9400M was initially suggested to Apple as a desk top chip. There is a good possibility that there is a faster 9400M type chip with a desktop interface in the wings.

Still building off the Mobile Montivia Platform.

Could be or it could be Intels current desktop chips. I'd love to see i7 but that would imply that Nvidia has a variant of 9400M ready to go with a quickpath interconnect.

My point is that the iMac does not require a mobile chip. If the computer is scheduled for a redesign they can throw anything they want into it. The only limitation being thermal management within Apples noise guidelines. Going desktop does however allow them to keep more current with processor specs.

While it probably doesn't mean much now, people have rightly pointed out iMacs lack of a quad core CPU. It would be far easier for Apple to keep the specs competitive if they used desktop chips. I mentioned now on purpose because for most uses dual core does pretty damn good with todays software and the demands of a general user. That may not be the case in the future so arguments about iMac trailing in CPU count may have more basis in reality.

i7 is a desktop chip. There isn't a Mobile Montivia platform that will accept the chip. (At least I'm not aware of any.)

Well not that we know of. You are assuming that a mobile platform is required though and that is what I'm having trouble with. It isn't and frankly the current iMacs are a bit of a hybrid design as it is. Apple can be very creative with respect to what they put into the iMac.

Further the finds about the iMacs coming GPU really don't indicate that that GPU is using a mobile bus interface. Just recently Nvidia announced a variant of the 9400M with a bus interface for ATOM. They could just as well have an interface for the desktop processors of today or even quickpath.

I also think you are putting a little too much faith in a non-SJ keynote at MWSF. I think Spec bump to 4-core Penryn chips and maybe a case design to look like the new ACD.

Well frankly I don't know what to think of the lack of SJ at MWSF. I don't believe it has anything to do with what comes out at MWSF, except for the possibility of a blockbuster device. Remember last years MWSF was kinda underwhelming as it was and Apple had weekly product releases for about two months after MWSF. They might not have anything of substance for the show but for me that is speculation right now. It really looks like dropping out of MWSF has been in the works for a couple of years now. I'm more worried that there haven't been any juicy leaks yet.

In any event I'd be the first to admit that i7 is a stretch. It would however be good to see Apple really stretching to innovate and bring bleeding edge products to the market. Further if they don't go i7 but do deliver a totally redesigned iMac, using the older mobile technology, that would mean that i7 would be a long time coming to a general Apple desktop machine. That would be enough to cause me to punt with respect to any new iMac.


Dave

 

[wizard]

// For the people who are going to interpret your comment incorrectly, he means an nVidia chipset with the 9400 integrated GPU that supports Quickpath for the current Nehalem processors, *not* a GPU that connects via Quickpath //

Yeah that is a little clearer! On the other hand if you have an integrated chip, then the GPU is more or less connected via quickpath. This isn't much different than some of the AMD/ATI chipsets. It does offer a small performance advantage and may be interesting given the move to GPGPU computing.

Does anyone know if Intel has licensed the new architecture to nVidia to make motherboards?

That I don't know, but if Apple is involved we wouldn't know until a product came out. I still fall back to what Nvidia described as the original concept for what became the 9400M. All speculation for now, but for somebody that was concerned about compute power over graphics, i7 and a 9400M + quickpath would be very appealing.

Even it they don't go i7 i'm very curious as to what the 9400M's top clock speed is. All indications are that it runs much cooler in the laptops than intels old parts so bumping up the speed for the desktop seems to be a real possibility.

Well, I know it is unlikely, but they could just sell the drives for video and data burning purposes (and non-hollywood video) and just say that full Blu-ray movie support will come in a future software update. Then they would have an installed base once it is ready..

I suspect we will never see Apple supporting BluRay. There would have to be a drastically more aggressive adoption of BluRay by consumers. With consumers rejecting the DRM associated with BluRay I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Dave

 

[M!M!C]

Why Not??!!

Ok, i'm tired of reading no Quad, too much heat!

a) If the iMac was not so anorexic, Apple could supply decent cooling. Seriously, who ever says their iMac is too thick? I don't remember looking at the side profile EVER!! So she gets a little thicker with age, who doesn't

b) If others such as Dell can do it, why not ?

Dell $1989

• PROCESSOR XPS One™ with 24-inch widescreen display and Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8200 processor edit
• OPERATING SYSTEM Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1 edit
• KEYBOARD XPS One® Wireless Keyboard including trackpad and media controls
• INTEGRATED SPEAKERS Premium JBL speakers with integrated subwoofer (25W total) and Soundblaster Audigy software
• MOUSE XPS One ® Wireless Mouse
• PRODUCTIVITY Microsoft Works 9.0
• MEMORY 4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800Mhz - 2 DIMMs
• VIDEO CARD 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 9600M GT
• HARD DRIVE 750GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
• FLOPPY & MEDIA READER 8-in-1 Media Reader Included
• OPTICAL DRIVE 8X Slot load CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW)
• SOUND CARD SoundBlaster® Audigy™ HD Software Edition
• TV TUNER & VIDEO XCELERATOR HD Capable Analog/Digital TV Tuner and Remote Control

Apple $2269

• 24"
• 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• 4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB
• 750GB Serial ATA Drive
• NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS w/512MB GDDR3
• Apple wireless Mighty Mouse
• Apple Keyboard (English) + User's Guide

Now if Dell can put a better system together for less, why can't Apple do the same. Heck, I don't even mind paying more NOT to have M$!

Blu-Ray for burning would be very nice!
30" For this semi-pro would be very nice! (i can't afford the big rig)

Again, i can understand if NO ONE is doing it and we are asking for the impossible. BUT when you can buy a system today that is all in one with these specs, how can anyone say Apple can't?? I thought Apple was the more intelligent, more forward thinking than the rest?? If not, perhaps they need to license their OS so we can put it on REAL hardware.

So the choice is a horrible OS on great hardware, or a great OS on horrible hardware.

 

[wizard]

Heck, I don't even mind paying more NOT to have M$!

I've never minded the little extra for a Mac but on some systems it is a lot more than a little more. This mostly due to Apples long upgrade times.

Blu-Ray for burning would be very nice!
30" For this semi-pro would be very nice! (i can't afford the big rig)

Well BluRay doesn't look like it is in the cards. 30 inches always impresses but Apple would need a suitably high resolution screen.

Again, i can understand if NO ONE is doing it and we are asking for the impossible.

Even if no body was doing it, it still is possible. Remember when the iMacs first came out nobody was doing all in one like that.

BUT when you can buy a system today that is all in one with these specs, how can anyone say Apple can't??

I'm not sure a lot of people are saying Apple can't rather I think they are hung up on Apple only ever using mobile chips. That is a big limitation in my mind.

I thought Apple was the more intelligent, more forward thinking than the rest?? If not, perhaps they need to license their OS so we can put it on REAL hardware.

One of the reasons I'd like to see Pystar succeed isn't that I want to buy their hardware but rather I want Apple to take a long hard look at the hardware they are selling. That doesn't mean that the iMac must go or move to desktop chips but rather we need to see more variety from Apple that addresses concerns raised here.

Apple needs at least one machine that is easy for them to keep current. Neither iMac or Mini are the sorts of machines that can be quickly rev'ed and thus remain current.

So the choice is a horrible OS on great hardware, or a great OS on horrible hardware.

I don't think either the iMac nor the Min are horrible, they each have a purpose in life. What is horrible is not having a lineup that is broad enough to service a good cross section of the user community. Not to revive the xMac debate but that type of PC is a lot easier for Apple to update and keep current, especially if based on desktop processors.

Dave

 

[Tallest Skil]

30 inches always impresses but Apple would need a suitably high resolution screen.

And the 2560x1600 H-IPS screens that they ship now are... unsuitable?

 

[Umbongo]

Now if Dell can put a better system together for less, why can't Apple do the same.

Well they can and probably will, but I guess that was the point of your post.

Also the Dell isn't really a better system (in my eyes). Quad 2.33GHz vs. dual 2.8GHz means the iMac is going to be faster for most things the intended audience of these systems will be using them for. The iMac also has a faster GPU and a better display panel (H-IPS vs. S-PVA).

Obviously the Dell has advantages, blu ray and a tv tuner for starters, but if the new iMacs are quad core with LED displays Dell aren't going to be taking away potential iMac customers.

 

[Saladinos]

One word: Chin.

Yup. They could make it look more like the LED cinema display. That thing is just stunning!

Remove the chin and make it look like the LED display (full black/glass front, thin aluminium bezel).

They could also offer an option to have an LED panel installed in to the iMac in place of the CCFL one.

 

[jackfrost123]

if apple use the current tdp core i7 (what dumbf. name) nehalem cpus with their humongous 120tdps in place of their current 45watts ones, they might as well do this with the imac:

not to mention them using cooling fans akin to these ones:

 

[jackfrost123]

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.

So true, what a load of bull. Itunes is the reason they've made the radio remote for the ipod classic incompatible with the iphone. I HATE IT SO MUCH that they want to force me to buy from itunes and listen to it on my iphone instead of letting me listen to fm like every $5 phone on the globe, and I KNOW that's the reason they are doing it, I am SURE, tactics like these to me are not excusable....

 

[Eidorian]

if apple use the current tdp core i7 (what dumbf. name) nehalem cpus with their humongous 120tdps in place of their current 45watts ones, they might as well do this with the imac:

not to mention them using cooling fans akin to these ones:

I take it you've never used a Dell Studio XPS. I'm a little surprised that X58 is hitting a µATX form factor so quickly.

 

[jackfrost123]

I take it you've never used a Dell Studio XPS. I'm a little surprised that X58 is hitting a µATX form factor so quickly.

nope never have, never will, just like back in high school I had a bunch of decent but average looking broads going after me, and they werent bad kids but I dissed them in favour of better things. If you do go that way congratulations you got a 6% of extra superfloous power and a fugly machine.

Btw, technically speaking I am sure you can appreciate the difference it makes putting the cpu in a big old ugly box and squizing it in 1.5 cm thin aluminum and plastic sheets.

 

[iMacmatician]

if apple use the current tdp core i7 (what dumbf. name) nehalem cpus with their humongous 120tdps in place of their current 45watts ones, they might as well do this with the imac:

not to mention them using cooling fans akin to these ones:

Finally, the PowerBook G5 Quad is possible!

 

[AidenShaw]

No, it's not. Blu-ray isn't even stupid on a laptop. Watching Blu-ray movies on a screen with a resolution lower than 1920x1200 is stupid.

Actually, watching BD movies on a 1280x800 screen is not stupid at all.

If you own the BD version of the movie, you should be able to watch it wherever you want. Do you think that one should buy the DVD version as well for the laptop?