+higher quality led backlit display
+double battery life.
Based on the number of MBP's selling you are woefully underestimating these features value to consumers.
Personally I would pay a $200 premium for OS X alone over Vista or XP.
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 With SD Slot, Quad-Core, Possible Xeon? New Mouse and Remote in Pipeline?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+higher quality led backlit display
+double battery life.
Based on the number of MBP's selling you are woefully underestimating these features value to consumers.
Personally I would pay a $200 premium for OS X alone over Vista or XP.
Thats the key sentence. Its your opinion. People will have different opinions. Can we get back to the topic? Getting ourselves worked up on speculation.
Tell me about it.Thats the key sentence. Its your opinion. People will have different opinions. Can we get back to the topic? Getting ourselves worked up on speculation.
Though I might not buy it, I still have some imagination for the "perfect" choices of current and near future hardware.
i gladly would as well! anyway, im hoping these imacs will address my concerns.
i just noticed this yt video --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGSmqrrrQTE&feature=player_profilepage
specs --
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme
4GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory
24-inch glossy widescreen LCD
AirPort Extreme
Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
this is from february of 2008(!!!) by moore's law the imac be 2x faster by now, but its virtually the same hardware! that should give everyone an idea of how outdated the guts of the machine currently is.
That definitely puts things into perspective.
Clarksfield or some other quad core is a must.
Yep. One place I do work for has about eight Mighty Mouse mice (a mixture of wired and wireless species), most since they were first released, in daily work use by different people. None of them have had any problems so far.
Thank God they do. We've had "Mac clones" in the past and the morons at Paystar are still illegally selling some today, and most of these clones were cheap, ugly garbage compared to Apple's models. The few that were any good weren't actually priced that much different to Apple's models (for obvious "get as much as we can" reasons).
Haha, I will admit, I really didn't like the Mighty Mouse at first, but once I started using it, it grew on me and I actually really like it now. Love the scroll ball. Just wish it wouldn't get plugged up and stop rolling sometimes.
Maybe Apple can use their reality distortion field to make a computer as strong as the mac pro, paper thin... or have a fully functioning 14-Qubit Quantum Computer.
They should make CPU and HD upgrades easier. This is "impossible" today without sending it to a Apple store.
It was always "impossible". I remember the Quadras at school. Some kids in my year 8 class got into one and freaked out because they didn't know how to find the hard drive.
/Nostalgia
Feb 2008, hell I've owned that machine since August 2007. Not to mention the update in mid-2008 was the same thing, except for a NVIDIA 8800 option. The 2009 update was the same processors, a little more hard drive space, and a notch down in standard graphics (however the BTO options were better).
In short, the iMac has changed very little since 2007, and if you forget the look, it is the same as the 2006 model.
I will break this down as basic as possible as I have for other Windows worshipers that are friends or acquaintances. Even if a Windows machine has similar or greater specs, the Mac will ALWAYS be faster in boot time, shutdown times, and basic application launch speeds. Case in point, I sat my iMac next to friends tricked out quad core PC over-clocked at 3.5Ghz running XP Pro, we flipped the power button, guess who was running first with almost a Ghz less clock speed, a NEWER OS, and 2 less cores? Me, by a LONG SHOT. He said the results were tainted due to PAE giving me an extra 800MB of RAM, not true at all. Another test, we both booted Win XP, another test won by a hair for the iMac. Now granted EFI booting is WAY faster CMOS/ROM, but we are talking an over-clocked GAMING rig here, and the guy who owns it has a masters degree in computer science, so it works great. Games, FPS, and resolutions, he pwned my iMac of course (2 8800GTS in SLi), but I didn't buy my computer for games that's what my Wii is for, I bought it to do work, audio and photography.
Needless to say, he understands why people go with the Macs now. Yes. they are expensive, but there are GREAT advantages that come with the price.
sure, & that's great. everything i'm saying still holds. buying the imac 2 years ago -- fantastic investment. a year ago: nice investment. but buying it right now (whether there was a rollout scheduled soon or not) -- atrocious investment. what apple has been doing w/ the imac lineup is not just unacceptable, it's borderline unethical, in my opinion. there will have to be a major hardware overhaul very, very soon.
That is not the point of what I was saying, the point is it's IMPOSSIBLE to compare a Mac to a Windows machine because of differences in the coding of the OS's. Will OSX load faster on a better hardware? OF COURSE IT WILL, lol. Macs will still give you a FANTASTIC user experience on less than current hardware, FACT. This makes most of these fanboy spec arguments null and void in my eyes.
Spot on! User Experience - that's what it's all about.
As an ex-PC fanboy of 20 or so years, I switched to mac a year ago and no way would I go back to PC. It would be like moving from a beach-front villa in the Virgin Islands back to a bedsit over a curry shop in the wrong end of Birmingham!
True.
Specs or not . . . generic PCs are running Windows. Add to that the tasteless designs, and small wonder why those that can afford to are turning to Apple in greater numbers.
Priceless!
Reminds me of SJ's comment about a glass of icewater in hell . . .
I grew up in a Microsoft household, we had Windows 1 on up, and before that good ole DOS. I like Windows, I use it on a daily basis and quite good at using it, but sadly it's core tech is very old and slow. My father was a computer programmer by trade, he always told me Macs were toys, I wanted an original Mac SO bad when I was a kid. He has used mine and taken back his statement that they were toys, he said the UNIX in Mac OSX is the best he's ever used and the computer feels blazing fast. He checked out the development tools and couldn't believe that Apple gives Xcode away for free. I switched in May of 08 after years of occasional studio use with Macs, I will never go back unless MS comes out with something truly revolutionary and Apple goes back to the dark ages of OS 8-9.
Keep in mind that the price of the entry level 24" iMac has come down over $500 since then, added a better entry level video card, etc.
Yes, the iMac is sorely in need of a major technology refresh, but at its new lower price the iMac is not that much expensive than other all in one computers from Dell, etc, that are on the market (and those don't have aluminum chassis, IPS quality LCD panels, etc, etc, etc).