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

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

drsmithy said:
If you are running an OS with SMP support, it will schedule threads onto multiple processors and you will see a benefit from multiple cores whenever you are multitasking. Even though OS X was fairly late to the SMP game it's been capable of doing this reasonably well for a good 2-3 years now.
Click to expand...
I have worked as a C++ developer for a couple of years and I don't have much experience with Cocoa, but from what I've been reading yesterday regarding Grand Central Dispatch, it seems very easy (or a lot of easier) to incorporate multicore support into your applications. Its a very well designed and smart system.

At first I had some reservation at a possible quad core iMac (I had a Quad Core PC which was very underutilized before my imac) , but now it seems to make perfectly sense to equip macs with more cores.
 
dwd3885 said:
you can't do any of that, true..But I got to thinking, people upgrading computers is just something that doesn't happen often.
Click to expand...
It's not really the "upgradeability" itself that's significant, it's the flexibility it delivers to the whole product line. A single "Mac" standalone chassis could quite feasibly cover needs (and price points) from people who current buy Mac Minis to (some) people who buy quad-core Mac Pros, also including pretty much everyone who buys an iMac, just by changing the default configurations.
 
dwd3885 said:
There's a direct benefit: Less space, less heat, less noise, less clutter.
Click to expand...
Where the heck are you that the difference in size is meaningful ? Inside a coffin ? A _briefcase_ takes up as much room as a desktop PC.

There's no reason a desktop should produce more heat and noise. Quite the opposite, in fact.
 
drsmithy said:
Where the heck are you that the difference in size is meaningful ? Inside a coffin ? A _briefcase_ takes up as much room as a desktop PC.

There's no reason a desktop should produce more heat and noise. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Click to expand...

hmm, let's see. a dorm room where many people don't have enough room for a frickin Mac Pro?
 
drsmithy said:
It's not really the "upgradeability" itself that's significant, it's the flexibility it delivers to the whole product line. A single "Mac" standalone chassis could quite feasibly cover needs (and price points) from people who current buy Mac Minis to (some) people who buy quad-core Mac Pros, also including pretty much everyone who buys an iMac, just by changing the default configurations.
Click to expand...

The mini-tower is also nice for the most common upgrade - the point-of-sale upgrade. ("Can you add more memory, a second DVD and a second disk drive?")
 
dwd3885 said:
hmm, let's see. a dorm room where many people don't have enough room for a frickin Mac Pro?
Click to expand...
Firstly, who said anything about something the size of a Mac Pro ?
Secondly, with that said, even a Mac Pro isn't going to have any meaningful impact on the living space in the average dorm room - it'll just be out of sight and out of mind under the desk.

I spent years living on campus with a full-tower PC (and a few others as well) in my room back in the day. The idea that my life would have been at all easier if it (or any of the others) had been smaller is simply laughable.
 
drsmithy said:
Firstly, who said anything about something the size of a Mac Pro ?
Secondly, with that said, even a Mac Pro isn't going to have any meaningful impact on the living space in the average dorm room - it'll just be out of sight and out of mind under the desk.

I spent years living on campus with a full-tower PC (and a few others as well) in my room back in the day. The idea that my life would have been at all easier if it (or any of the others) had been smaller is simply laughable.
Click to expand...


Hmm. I guess the numbers where the iMac is the number one mac desktop is irrelevant then. Fact is that nobody cares about upgradeability.
 
dwd3885 said:
Hmm. I guess the numbers where the iMac is the number one mac desktop is irrelevant then. Fact is that nobody cares about upgradeability.
Click to expand...

It's just wrong to say that nobody cares about upgradeability. I care about it, and I would never consider an iMac. If Apple had not abandoned the midrange tower space I would have replaced my PM G4 long ago. It has just about reached the end of its useful life now, and since neither the mini nor the Pro fit my needs I guess I'll be going the hackintosh, Psystar, or (gasp! I can't believe I'm saying this) Windows desktop route.
 
dwd3885 said:
Hmm. I guess the numbers where the iMac is the number one mac desktop is irrelevant then.
Click to expand...
They are to the discussion.

The only other options are the overpriced and slow Mac Mini, or the overpriced Mac Pro, so it's hardly surprising people buy the iMac. If they want a decently capable machine that isn't stupidly expensive, their only choice *is* an iMac.

Fact is that nobody cares about upgradeability.
Click to expand...
Some people do. I would never suggest they were more than a minority though, so what's your point ?
 
AidenShaw said:
The mini-tower is also nice for the most common upgrade - the point-of-sale upgrade. ("Can you add more memory, a second DVD and a second disk drive?")
Click to expand...
Micro ATX offers a nice balance of size and power today especially with the memory controller, IGP, and/or PCI-Express controller going onboard for Nehalem/Westmere.

mini-ITX is set to take off even more now under Clarkdale. All that you need to leave open is the RAM, hard drives, and GPU options. It doesn't take all that much space either.
 
I'm getting to the point financially where I may have to sell my MacBook Pro and use the money in other areas. That leaves me faced with either a refurbished Mac mini, which would be too slow, or a PC, which wouldn't run OS X. :(
 
I would have been happy to get easy access to the HD and the GPU. I think that would have covered at least 50% of the annoyances with the iMac design even if Apple was the sole supplier of a handful of GPU upgrades. Choice after the fact, even a small amount, would be nice.
 
Are you serious?

dwd3885 said:
Hmm. I guess the numbers where the iMac is the number one mac desktop is irrelevant then. Fact is that nobody cares about upgradeability.
Click to expand...

The number one Mac desktop....

Apple has three systems that are not laptops:

  1. A humongous maxi-tower that starts at $2499
  2. A "toy" mini that's horribly constrained
  3. The Imac

Of course the Imac is number one. When the alternatives are an expensive maxi-tower and a restricted mini - there's no wonder.
 
I can see how tech guys look at the iMac and think it's just an overpriced, overgrown laptop with a big screen and a desktop hard drive. And it is.

However on the flipside, I've set up three of them for different people this year already, and all of them, including the guy coming from a Power Mac G5 remark how fast it is, how nice the screen is, etc. For them, the iMac suits the need, therefore the cost is worth it.

The sad thing is not what the iMac is or isn't; it's the fact that there's no cheap i7-based Mac Pro for $1200-$1500. I think that's what a lot of you guys are really mad about.

Forget about a $700-$900 desktop with a quad core, even though you can get a cheap Windows quad core machine. It's Apple. They're always more expensive. We know this.

EDIT

Even a modern day version of this would be nice. Cut a couple hundred off for hardware generally getting cheaper, and I don't see why this doesn't exist. Actually, this is what the quad MP should have cost.

Even better, a modern day version of this. Imagine a Mac Pro for $1299.
 
Eric S. said:
Bingo.
Click to expand...

+1

Even more than that, I rather a mix between a Mini and Mac Pro. If I can have a thin iMac with a 2.66 GHz processor for under 1.5K, then why can't I have a 2.66GHz fatter tower for $900? It would be perfect!

..thats a whole 'nuther topic though!
 
Eric S. said:
It's just wrong to say that nobody cares about upgradeability. I care about it, and I would never consider an iMac.
Click to expand...
I care about upgradeability but the Mac Pro is financial just out of my reach.

The cheapest mac pro here in Europe costs 3500 dollars (2300 euro) ! What other choice do a lot of people have then to go for the iMac ?
 
drsmithy said:
Some people do. I would never suggest they were more than a minority though, so what's your point ?
Click to expand...

Good. At least we can agree that catering to the minority isn't that important. Although towers are what people are used to they don't have to have them to enjoy and love their computer.

We can also agree that the Mini needs to be turned into a Mini Tower. I'd say, start it just under the power of the lowest end iMac with up to as much power as a midline iMac. Same hard drive sizes and ram (up to 8gb). Something that at no more than $700 was equal to the 20" iMac.

I bet all in one desktops will become more popular as companies try to get people back into buying desktops instead of laptops.
 
Drag'nGT said:
I bet all in one desktops will become more popular as companies try to get people back into buying desktops instead of laptops.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.. It's known as "the oscillating cycle" in the trade.

First, whittle them down to 1" screens <mine's smaller than yours!>

Then, bring 'em up to 52" screens <mine's bigger than yours!!>

:rolleyes:
 
I wouldn't mind a mid range tower, or the iMac a lot better for the same price or cheaper. I don't really care about space, but want a really good Mac, but considering how expensive Mac Pro's are, then the price of a screen, I can't justify it when I could get the iMac which has a screen, blue tooth, airport etc for less. Plus it can run every game almost max. But a cheaper tower would be good, for people who have the room.
 
Sambo110 said:
I wouldn't mind a mid range tower, or the iMac a lot better for the same price or cheaper. I don't really care about space, but want a really good Mac, but considering how expensive Mac Pro's are, then the price of a screen, I can't justify it when I could get the iMac which has a screen, blue tooth, airport etc for less. Plus it can run every game almost max. But a cheaper tower would be good, for people who have the room.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I'm thinking about a tower Mac, but my only options in my price range is a Mac Mini or a PowerMac.
 
Apple Is Losing It's Lead In The Price vs. Quality Lead.

Unless Apple realizes that the luster of their reputation is fading & gets aggressive about pricing I see them losing market shar. Their attitude of offering middle of the road hardware & over charging for it will not cut it now. There are to many Windows machines out there that are offering twice the value for up to 40 percent less. Windows machines offering touch screens, blue ray & new high performance processors I hope forces Apple to get aboard the value bus. Speaking for myself I can no longer pay a heavy Apple Tax just to have the OSX operation system. I will never go back to Windows but I may be forced to move to Android or Linux if that's what it takes to get a good OS & quality hardware.
 
Andy348 said:
+1

Even more than that, I rather a mix between a Mini and Mac Pro. If I can have a thin iMac with a 2.66 GHz processor for under 1.5K, then why can't I have a 2.66GHz fatter tower for $900? It would be perfect!

..thats a whole 'nuther topic though!
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what the single proc PowerMacs were back in the day for $1299. A little more expensive than your $900, but still a far cry from $2500.
 
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