Good luck.
yeah...it's..uh....it's gonna take a while.
...which is why I'm eager to hear about what the new iMac is going to bring.
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.
Next-Generation iMac: Quad-Core Processors? No Blu-Ray?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yeah...it's..uh....it's gonna take a while.
...which is why I'm eager to hear about what the new iMac is going to bring.
An iMac would need a thin, slot loading BD drive. We are talking north of $150 for that.LOL you ppl need to stop following Apple so closely and open your eyes.
4x blueray drive for a PC is only $20 MORE than a DVDRW
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106325
is $20 going to break the bank in your case?
HD downloadable content works fine for me, I don't care about expensive BD capability on my iMac. Optical storage has been largely supplanted by more affordable back up drives.
I do care about having a quad core processor though. The iMac needs quad core to remain competitive as that is where most other manufacturers are going at that price level.
Hopefully we'll see a 30" screen in the future as well, BD might be nice then. Though I imagine we may seen an iTunes enabled Apple TV before that.
I do care about having a quad core processor though. The iMac needs quad core to remain competitive as that is where most other manufacturers are going at that price level.
Hopefully we'll see a 30" screen in the future as well, BD might be nice then. Though I imagine we may seen an iTunes enabled Apple TV before that.
How are the burn speeds? How long does it take to back up 25 GB BluRay with important data? I am interesting if this can be done quickly but at 4x I am skeptical
I don't think you get my point.
Millions or billions of people are still very far from having an HDTV. And even if they did, Macs are not meant to replace their living room sets, so the point of having a built-in reader in Macs is moot. Unless you show me the same ripping possibilities that DVD offers for those who want to stream or put their legally bought content in other home media supports.
I support BluRay and love the format on TV. I am just not willing to pay for it on a 24" computer screen.
BluRay belongs on TV - that is my motto in this "conflict"
Thank you. There is absolutely no point in having Blu-Stillborn-Ray on Macs...unless you love to create 50Gb backups every day.
Go search my post on MR, I won't do it for ya.
They bother to sit there because they are interested in the technology somehow; it doesn't mean they have to adopt it at the same time as the rest of the benighted industry.
AGAIN, the point is very simple...of course Blu-Ray looks better than DVD in terms of definition, and of course it has more storage space as a media.
This does NOT mean that Macs need it now, that the price difference is compensated by the marginal quality gains for the average consumer, and that people are buying their stupidly overpriced discs in droves. Not to mention that the appeal is even lower for those who are thinking of using such discs on their smaller screen desktops only...Apple will have Blu-Stinking-Ray when it deems necessary, perhaps as a BTO or by providing full OS support for it (if this is not already the case).
If I were designing the new iMac's I would not include bluray.
However I don't care for the bluray technology at all and its destined to fail. Downloadable, storage and streaming are the future and that's where it's headed. I don't need a stinking disc, just give me the same technology in downloadable material and a way to play it and you've got a winner.
However I don't care for the bluray technology at all and its destined to fail. Downloadable, storage and streaming are the future and that's where it's headed. I don't need a stinking disc, just give me the same technology in downloadable material and a way to play it and you've got a winner.
Macs are expensive enough, why should we have to add the price of a PS3 on top the premium we already pay? Who distributes video via disk? The movie studies do. Why does the world revolve around you? Why is it wrong to purchase a PC to use it the way I want?
4x is ~18 MB/s. So to burn 25 GB would take ~25 minutes, but I doubt the speed is "flat line", burning is slower in the beginnig and faster in the end.
Though on an iPod or a smaller TV (42 and less) I find that HD content is overkill.
Lol hahaha sorry. Guess I need to get me a Samsung then huh?
Because that's the way Apple makes money and conquers markets...not by believing a handful of MR members, but by REALLY identifying consumer needs throughout their target segments.
Not happy? Go buy a PC. That's what people craving for the fabled headless xMac already do, I presume...without ANY damage to Apple's bottomline.
Fully Support? I have an AVCHD Canon HD camcorder. Found out the hard way that Macs don't fully support that format. Do a google search for "AVCHD Mac" and see what I mean. 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.
Quad core is needed much much more than Blu-ray at this point. I doubt very much we are going to get both so if i had to choose id go quad all the way. If they stick at core 2 duo but add built in Blu-Ray reader and make the case slightly thinner how is that an improvement of note?
I'm pretty sure this claim has now been thoroughly debunked. The iMac is a consumer desktop, Clarksfield are consumer CPUs. The Mac Pro is a workstation, with workstation-class Xeons.
Dell sells Core 2 Quad Vostro models alongside Xeon-based Precision workstations, and nothing "cannibalizes sales" from anything else. Quad ≠ workstation.
The newer processor is nice, but hasn't the performance bottleneck in iMacs always been the motherboard and graphics? Or, as my non-Mac friends would tease me, "Laptop hardware in a desktop form factor at server pricing."
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
I don't care about BD at all, I just want quad-core.
Otherwise, I'll have to save longer for a Mac Pro. I might end up doing that anyway even if the new iMacs have a quad option, since I don't want an all-in-one.
Otherwise, I'll have to save longer for a Mac Pro. I might end up doing that anyway even if the new iMacs have a quad option, since I don't want an all-in-one.
The only blu-ray I burned with mine was on a dual layer disc (50 GB). It does single layer at 8x, which is around 35 MB/s (I would guess 15-20 minutes for a full 25GB). I can't remember what speed dual-layer is rated at, but I think my disc was only 2x so it took a while. The LG can actually burn single layer at 8x even if the disc isn't rated for it. It is some special feature of that brand.
Fixed.
God bless the 24-inch base iMac with its 9400 but with its gorgeous 24" 16:10 IPS LCD Panel (worth 500$ ALONE, making the current 24" imac an excellent bang for the bucks).
If you don't play, 9400 is GOOD.
Whereas a crappy LCD is crappy for every use.