Next-Generation iMac: Quad-Core Processors? No Blu-Ray?

[Fastshutter]

i tried using Vegas, but I couldn't stand the interface.

I had to get over a hump, and then I came to appreciate it. Certainly has room for improvement.

Not sure what I should have done though, returned the camera for something of lesser quaility (at the time, the camera I chose was a highly rated consumer cam) or made an expensive Mac Pro purchase for the $500 HD cam.

A quad-core i7 iMac will make my heart ache...

 

[Buzz Bumble]

Hahaha, Blu Ray to first appear in a consumer product? Yea right. You can expect Blu Ray to appear in the MacPro first, for us Professionals.

Stories are already starting to appear for updated Mac Pros. My guess would be Blu-ray READERS in iMacs and Blu-ray BURNERS in Mac Pros ... at least to start with.

agreed.

so, if they do move from a 2.9xGHz dual core Penryn to a 1.7xGHz quad Clarksfield, will the additional cores compensate for the loss in clockspeed? has Clarksfield been benchmarked?

Herein lies the real problem - convincing John and Jane Public that "1.7" is actually better than "2.9". With both models still being sold in some high street resellers, most people are likely to go for the bigger number (at probably a cheaper price).

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Stories are already starting to appear for updated Mac Pros. My guess would be Blu-ray READERS in iMacs and Blu-ray BURNERS in Mac Pros ... at least to start with.

The first DVD burner in an Apple product was in the swivel head iMac.

Ahhh, those were the days.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

The current high end penryn runs $851 so that is not that big of a jump. The 1.7 Clarksfield would be an improvement over the current 3.06 penryn and this list price is ~$300 less.

Apple of course doesn't pay "list price", but the price differences between models is probably about the same anyway - a $5 difference between the list prices of "chipA" and "chipB" will still be around $5 at Apple's "bulk rate" pricing.

 

[pr5owner]

Fixed.

God bless the 24-inch base iMac with its 9400 but with it's gorgeous 24" 16:10 IPS LCD Panel (worth 500$ ALONE, making the current 24" imac an excellent bang for the bucks).

you realize apple doesn't even make your LCD panel? apple makes no HW at all, your panel is most likely an LG, now think about this.......

would LG make a better panel branded under Apple than their own line or make the best panel with their own name on it?

also dont be so quick to say apple is the greatest stuff look at this link from last year, its not the first time apple ripped off their customers (apple put some crappy LCD in their imac but charged the same price)

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/31/apple_hit_with_another_millions_of_colors_lawsuit.html

 

[Buzz Bumble]

What's so special about watching bluRay on Mac versus HDTV?

Nothing, but it does give you a second option if someone wants to watch the football on the main lounge room TV, you can watch a movie on the iMac in another room ... not everyone has a TV (let alone a DVD player) in everyroom.

 

[jaw04005]

The first DVD burner in an Apple product was in the swivel head iMac.

Ahhh, those were the days.

Nah. It was the Power Mac G4 that launched a year before the iMac G4 in January of 2001.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/jan/09dvd.html

 

[Umbongo]

you realize apple doesn't even make your LCD panel? apple makes no HW at all, your panel is most likely an LG, now think about this.......

would LG make a better panel branded under Apple than their own line or make the best panel with their own name on it?

also dont be so quick to say apple is the greatest stuff look at this link from last year, its not the first time apple ripped off their customers (apple put some crappy LCD in their imac but charged the same price"

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/03/31/apple_hit_with_another_millions_of_colors_lawsuit.html

Actually there are different qualities of panels that share the same model number and some manfucturers buy the best ones. Whether Apple are doing that on specific panels remains unknown. They have been reported to have done so before though.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

Considering PCs had Quad Core since 2006 and since last year Quad core processors have became standards in desktops PCs, I fail to see how putting a quad core in an iMac (and being 2 years late to the party) is going to rain crap on Windows

The iMac is not like other "PCs". It's all very well sticking a super-hot quad-core chip in a standard desktop box with 60 noisy fans and a separate screen. Instead of comparing Apples to lemons, try checking the specs for the all-in-one PCs from companies like Dell, HP and Acer - I haven't got time to check and you may well be correct there too, but I doubt it.

 

[Umbongo]

The iMac is not like other "PCs". It's all very well sticking a super-hot quad-core chip in a standard desktop box with 60 noisy fans and a separate screen. Instead of comparing Apples to lemons, try checking the specs for the all-in-one PCs from companies like Dell, HP and Acer - I haven't got time to check and you may well be correct there too, but I doubt it.

PC manufacturers were using the quad core processors Intel designed for all in ones just before Apple updated the iMacs last time.

 

[AAPLaday]

man you people are used to getting jerked around....

apple releases 1 small upgrade, you ditch your machine and buy the new one
apple releases another small upgrade, again you ditch and buy
then ANOTHER small upgrade you ditch and buy.

how about they release a computer thats UP TO DATE with CURRENT 2009 standards. and then you buy? if not, dont throw away your money.

currently computers have........

quad core i7s (not crappy i5s, becuase apple's pricing is not "Budget" pricing, i5s are for slow machines)

tripple ch ram (almost all i7 boards have tripple ch slots)

a real graphics card, a 9400 is a sad joke by todays standards.

most desktops have BD roms at least if not burners (in apple's price range)

1080p LCD's at a minimum

If you re-read my post im for quad core not against it and a you can put a Radeon HD 4850 in an imac

 

[JMW3215]

When is the keynote going to be?

I am looking to buy a macbook for school, but i want to wait to see what the new macbooks will be like. does anyone have any idea when the new mac keynote will happen?

 

[conradzoo]

For what it's worth, my new iMac doesn't need a disk drive at all, dvd, blu-ray, whatever...

The one on my early Intel Mac died a year ago, and don't miss it a bit. Got me a cheap (but working) external for the rare occassions, less then a dozen times a year I guess.

No, my new Imac likes to have:

Easy swappable hard drive;
Matte screen;
Quad-Core;
Decent graphic card;
and not the least, A sexy re-design.

 

[GlennH]

I know a lot of people don't care about Blu-ray, but come on already. How many years have to go by before Apple gets with the times and includes a BD drive at least as an option for the iMac?

If you have Blu-ray movies you may just want to watch them on the computer on occasion. A 24" panel has full HD resolution and Blu-ray will look better than DVD on it. Or what if you want to get screengrabs from a Blu-ray to post on the internet? You know, stuff you've been able to do routinely on decent PCs for like 5 years now.

And Apple is a charter member of the Blu-ray association. What a joke.

Big thumbs down if no Blu-ray support.

 

[whatever]

I agree completely. I have over 80 Blu-ray discs, it would be nice to not only watch them on the Mac but also to be able to rip/convert them for playback on a home media player, my iPhone, etc.

Well, for starters, that would be totality illegal. And from day one everyone knew that Sony made the Blu-ray difficult to rip.

Don't people understand that there is not visual benefit to watching Blu-ray movies on displays smaller than 42 inches. You're better off ripping DVDs or renting/buying online movies.

The gamble that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD made and lost was that people are stupid enough to buy the same movie a second and sometimes a third time (VHS, DVD and HD). And what hurt Blu-ray was the fact that the disc itself is the same size as a DVD. If it was smaller, I think people would have been suckered into it. But as it, the average person watching a Blu-ray disc on a display smaller than 42" that is not 1080P will not see any difference between a Blu-Ray disc than an upscaled DVD.

 

[Eric S.]

The iMac is not like other "PCs". It's all very well sticking a super-hot quad-core chip in a standard desktop box with 60 noisy fans and a separate screen. Instead of comparing Apples to lemons, try checking the specs for the all-in-one PCs from companies like Dell, HP and Acer - I haven't got time to check and you may well be correct there too, but I doubt it.

And that's why Apple's reliance on the iMac as its only midrange desktop solution (in a word) sucks.

If we do see a quad-core iMac, I expect it will be with a Mac Pro-like price tag.

 

[SimonMW]

I really do not think that the new iMac will have a quad core. If this where to happen then it would eat into the mac pro quad core line up.

The Mac Pro uses much better specced processors as well as being clocked faster.

You need better than a Core 2 Duo to adequately edit AVCHD on macs. It's what made me decide to buy a Windows PC + Sony Vegas over a Mac Pro for triple the price.

You're in for a shock if you think any system can edit AVCHD effectively. It's a dog of a codec to handle regardless of your system.

PS: For those asking 'who needs 4 cores anyway?' those 4 cores let me use a resource hog like Firefox while burning a DVD, checking email and doing something else intensive like running an emulator... with no slowdown. I have to use two cores at work and it's snail-like at times.

What has that got to do with the number of cores that you have? Unless the software is designed to use all the cores it will never use them all. Most of the time you are chugging away on a single core.

At the moment I use a MacBook Pro 13" as a portable FCP editing system. I don't have any major complaints about its speed to be honest. The only time its lack of speed shows up is with Compressor because unlike your email program and DVD burner that really can use all cores.

I really do not know why so many people are demanding multiple cores when all they are doing is really basic stuff like email and DVD burning!

 

[rmhurdman]

I am looking to buy a macbook for school, but i want to wait to see what the new macbooks will be like. does anyone have any idea when the new mac keynote will happen?

Please don't shout.

I'm buying a new (my first) iMac as soon as they announce them. So I can't wait either.

I think it will be October 20th, as soon as the current promotions run out. As others have pointed out, it's also a Tuesday and a couple days before Windows 7.

 

[gianly1985]

you realize apple doesn't even make your LCD panel? apple makes no HW at all, your panel is most likely an LG, now think about this.......

I'm not sure if you deserve an answer.

Where did I write that Apple MAKES lcd panel? (this is called "straw man fallacy", search it on Wikipedia)

The PLUS of Apple iMacs (24" iMacs) is that they MOUNT an IPS Panel. It's PLUS, a BONUS, SOMETHING UNUSUAL, SOMETHING with a MONEY VALUE.

That was my point and my answer to you jizzing about "1080p minimum" PCs. (50$ worth TN 1080p panels...)

It was ONE OF MANY PROOFS to show how sometimes people JIZZ ABOUT NUMBERS without not even knowing what they're talking about.

People go blah-ing about BR, super-GPUs and so on and ignore a lot of DETAILS (sometimes pricey details that is difficult to write on the "specs list") that make the iMac user experience ALREADY better (I mean ALREADY with March 09 Imacs) than the one on every all-in-one on the market....

would LG make a better panel branded under Apple than their own line or make the best panel with their own name on it?

No, Acer simply wouldn't buy that IPS panel from LG. That's the problem. But Acer can do it thanks to people jizzing about numbers like "1080p minimum" like you did. Why should they use a better panel if all you people are happy? They'd end up rising the prices and being regarded as a unreasonably (because people don't get these details) pricey brand......oooooooops....
You deserve a 16:9 23" (=a slightly larger 20") TN all-in-one....at least it would be "up to date with 2009 standards" for you.......I prefer the 2006 apple standard (24" IPS 16:10, silence, easily tiltable, etc)...as I see it, the OTHERS are not up to apple standards...

also dont be so quick to say apple is the greatest stuff look at this link from last year, its not the first time apple ripped off their customers (apple put some crappy LCD in their imac but charged the same price"

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...s_lawsuit.html

Here it goes again...straw man fallacy...i talk about the 24" iMac and you try to make me look wrong with an unrelated story and putting in my mouth words I never said....

Straw man

 

[guitarlord]

Well, for starters, that would be totality illegal. And from day one everyone knew that Sony made the Blu-ray difficult to rip.

Don't people understand that there is not visual benefit to watching Blu-ray movies on displays smaller than 42 inches. You're better off ripping DVDs or renting/buying online movies.

The gamble that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD made and lost was that people are stupid enough to buy the same movie a second and sometimes a third time (VHS, DVD and HD). And what hurt Blu-ray was the fact that the disc itself is the same size as a DVD. If it was smaller, I think people would have been suckered into it. But as it, the average person watching a Blu-ray disc on a display smaller than 42" that is not 1080P will not see any difference between a Blu-Ray disc than an upscaled DVD.

Wrong. I made a post earlier on this. Basically it is not about screen size it is about resolution. A 24" imac is full HD and you will therefore get the benefits. Not going into my last post again.

 

[VenusianSky]

Don't people understand that there is not visual benefit to watching Blu-ray movies on displays smaller than 42 inches. You're better off ripping DVDs or renting/buying online movies.

Don't people understand that some people own BD players, buy movies for them and may occassionally want to watch those same movies on their laptop without having to purchase another copy? Not all BD's come with a digital copy either.

 

[flopticalcube]

I am looking to buy a macbook for school, but i want to wait to see what the new macbooks will be like. does anyone have any idea when the new mac keynote will happen?

Your font size is too big, tone it down. This thread is about iMacs, not MacBooks.

 

[GlennH]

Well, for starters, that would be totality illegal. And from day one everyone knew that Sony made the Blu-ray difficult to rip.

Don't people understand that there is not visual benefit to watching Blu-ray movies on displays smaller than 42 inches. You're better off ripping DVDs or renting/buying online movies.

The gamble that both Blu-ray and HD-DVD made and lost was that people are stupid enough to buy the same movie a second and sometimes a third time (VHS, DVD and HD). And what hurt Blu-ray was the fact that the disc itself is the same size as a DVD. If it was smaller, I think people would have been suckered into it. But as it, the average person watching a Blu-ray disc on a display smaller than 42" that is not 1080P will not see any difference between a Blu-Ray disc than an upscaled DVD.

We're not talking about sitting 10 feet across the room here. I assure you one could see the improvement in resolution with 1080p sitting only 2 feet from a 24" LCD vs. upscaled DVD 480i. Besides, for newer movies all many of us are buying now is Blu-ray. Regardless of resolution we shouldn't have to rent a DVD of a movie we already bought to watch it on our computer. That's just stupid.

I have a 2007 24" iMac. I would possibly be interested in upgrading to a newer iMac in a year or so, but absolutely will not do so without a Blu-ray drive. Period.

 

[SimonMW]

why would anyone want to watch a bluray on 24 inch screen? geez

They don't. They are video professionals like me who want to be able to burn Blu-Ray discs for clients.

 

[frosse]

They don't. They are video professionals like me who want to be able to burn Blu-Ray discs for clients.

Or connect to a TV and enjoy bluray.