BD-ROM with DVD-R/RW burner is where I'd aim at in the slot loading form factor.
Otherwise quads are cheap.
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
Otherwise quads are cheap.
And? Look at how much a Mac Pro costs in Europe (cha-ching). Apple sells the overwhelming majority of their computers in the US so I don't see them axing a BTO option just because it would be more painful in Europe.
But from what I'v read people want writer and how much BR writer slot loading and slim costs? Just reader of course is more likely to be introduced.
If Apple is going BR it won't be BTO, because they could do that 1000 time in 2009
If they go BR, they go full front.
Yes, shame on Apple (or any other company) for making market decisions based on where their sales come from.
Get over the Europe elitism thinking that the European Apple market is even a fraction of the one in the US.
Here's a news flash, European companies routinely do the same thing to Americans with German made autos, Italian made espresso machines, etc, but you don't see us claiming that Europeans are douche bags.
Elistism? Where did I use this word? What I want is reasonable pricing. If so maybe Apple should stop selling it's software and hardware in Europe? It's only a fraction. You know thought? Often gets in the way of truth. Pain clears the mind of thought. Free your mind, let the truth make it self know.
It's not ? Anyway - I think it helps to keep in mind that the European Union is the largest economy in the world...
That, while true, has little to do with how large of a market they are for Apple.
As I said previously, I routinely pay a huge premium over here for European goods such as my autos (Audi), coffee makers (Jura), etc, that goes far above differences in the exchange rate.
The reason is that the US is a small market for these products and as a result I pay accordingly.
If you find the Apple sticker shock too appalling then don't buy one, there are plenty of other options.
It also might not occur to you that it costs more money to do business in Europe to do more invasive business laws, manufacturing requirements, etc. While there is nothing wrong with any of this, it often results in an additional cost of doing business in those markets.
Off topic- Wow, you still don't get it. I, and most readers here, don't care if it's biased towards a Mac. My god, you must lead a frustrating life.
Back on topic - all I need a is a quad with hyper threading and I'll buy an iMac the day it's announced instead of saving for a MacPro. If they don't do that, I'll have to hold off longer to save some more $$$. Those mac pros aint cheap. And the sad thing is, the price is competitive with other manufacturers.
I don't need blu-ray, although I would love being able to watch them on my new quad mac.
However, in the UK there is the National Health Service which is paid for in taxes like this.
Well its not like the US has expanded in oh... nearly 50 years. Not to knock the wind from their sails, but they simple add more nations to the group but they are no where near equal in ability, freedoms, or much of anything, like the individual states are within the US.
When you get to that level of homogenization let me know. I can venture to any state in the US and feel at home. Its far different to group people of different countries than have them all in one area. I do know this, when push comes to shove - say some kind of world level emergency - its far easier for the US to mobilize an effort as a whole than a group of nations. Meaning, old grievances don't ever die, they just hide.
I would think the size of an economy surely influences Apple's decision at least on whether to target it as a market ? Right ?
At this point, more than half of Apple's revenue possibly still comes from the US. That doesn't mean that they don't clearly have their eyes on global expansion right now, with emphasis on Europe and China. Future overall foreign sales at some point surpassing those in the US seems to be a sure thing from my point of view. That's the only point I have.
EDIT: Some actual data. (Note that "The Americas, Europe, Japan, and Asia Pacific segments exclude activities related to the Retail segment. The Americas segment includes both North and South America. The Europe segment includes European countries, as well as the Middle East and Africa. The Retail segment operates Apple-owned retail stores in the U.S. and in international markets.")
And i would say the flip can be said in that there is a mac rumors site that constantly reports on non-mac related rumors/news. Either way it boils down to folks trying to convince others that there preference is the "right" one instead of just that, their preference. I don't think anyone who has a pc will say they are flawless, but the arguments that you will get 3,000 viruses and malware installed during the post get really old, as well as those "im a pc" adds.
I do envy that. I've gotta hand it to you Brits on that one. I'm jealous. You can see what just talking about it does to our country!
Wow, what a waste. I just went through the last several hundred posts and learned nothing. Then I noticed that the last post was at #666. Maybe that's trying to tell me something.
I gotta agree with what has been said about a Xeon iMac, it sounds like joke, honestly. Have you guys seen the cooling devices that are attached to those in mac pro.
Clarksfield makes the most sense without a doubt. It uses about the same TDP as the current processors but is much, MUCH faster and under Snow Leopard it should be screaming fast.
Apple has a track record for being first out of the gate in many cases with new Intel CPUs.
Let's hope that they can pull a rabbit out of Steve Job's Ass and get this thing out by Xmas time!
Forgive me for piling on late in this. I'm a long-time (registered) lurker who normally reads but doesn't get involved.
If Apple makes a 4-core iMac, then they have a sale with me. I have a wheezing P4 Gateway from 2002, the time when I switched my main Desktop Publishing work from Mac to PC. I did it reluctantly, but XP was just more stable and the Pentium 4 was just much better than my options of G4s.
I thought things had changed once we got Intel in Macs and OSX has matured. My needs for a home office are modest. I don't need to go MacPro or a 30 inch monitor. An iMac is very appealing to me because of the form factor as well as the ease of the operating system. However, I do a lot of Photoshop, and I can't accept settling for a dual-core even though I'd be willing to pay a premium for the Apple OS and the form factor.
I'm running Windows 7 Beta now and it's a very clever OS that solves many of my dislikes of Microsoft. If the new iMacs are not Quad, then it's off to NewEgg for me. (I don't want to deal with the awful bloat-ware of the prefab manufacturers ever again -- it will be Apple or Build My Own.)
I see a lot of threads on here defending Apple by pointing out that they're profitable and have customer satisfaction, or insisting that people don't care about desktops anyway, etc. That's all very well. I love my iPod and want an iPhone and if Apple dedicates their company to iPods, more power to them. However, no calculation can assuage me that anything in the Apple OS makes up that deficit of two cores if I'm going to run filters in Photoshop or rip music for my iPod.
For those of you insisting that Mac will save me tons of headaches because of a lack of viruses, clutter, etc., I ask: have you used Windows 7? It doesn't have everything -- bugger all, I'm already saying I'd be willing to a little more for a seamless Mac I don't have to screw together, but I won't pay more and get less performance out of it. I don't think I'm alone.
If Apple makes a 4-core iMac, then they have a sale with me. I have a wheezing P4 Gateway from 2002, the time when I switched my main Desktop Publishing work from Mac to PC. I did it reluctantly, but XP was just more stable and the Pentium 4 was just much better than my options of G4s.
I thought things had changed once we got Intel in Macs and OSX has matured. My needs for a home office are modest. I don't need to go MacPro or a 30 inch monitor. An iMac is very appealing to me because of the form factor as well as the ease of the operating system. However, I do a lot of Photoshop, and I can't accept settling for a dual-core even though I'd be willing to pay a premium for the Apple OS and the form factor.
I'm running Windows 7 Beta now and it's a very clever OS that solves many of my dislikes of Microsoft. If the new iMacs are not Quad, then it's off to NewEgg for me. (I don't want to deal with the awful bloat-ware of the prefab manufacturers ever again -- it will be Apple or Build My Own.)
I see a lot of threads on here defending Apple by pointing out that they're profitable and have customer satisfaction, or insisting that people don't care about desktops anyway, etc. That's all very well. I love my iPod and want an iPhone and if Apple dedicates their company to iPods, more power to them. However, no calculation can assuage me that anything in the Apple OS makes up that deficit of two cores if I'm going to run filters in Photoshop or rip music for my iPod.
For those of you insisting that Mac will save me tons of headaches because of a lack of viruses, clutter, etc., I ask: have you used Windows 7? It doesn't have everything -- bugger all, I'm already saying I'd be willing to a little more for a seamless Mac I don't have to screw together, but I won't pay more and get less performance out of it. I don't think I'm alone.
I haven't seen bloat from Dell in ages. Even the consumer desktops just ship with Acrobat Reader and at worst the Dell Dock. You can even opt out of their security software.
They're charging and arm and leg for Lynnfield though. The Studio XPS Desktop with a Core i7 920 is ahead of the Studio XPS 8000 and at $50 less than the 8000.
I am running both OS X and the Windows 7 RC on my 2009 2.93ghz dual core iMac and I vastly prefer OS X. Windows 7 is a big improvement but it still has a lot of the headaches that drove me to Apple in the first place.
I should also add that the C2D Extreme in the higher end iMacs is quite peppy. I run Lightroom 2 with a very large library and find that edits and filters snap onto my large RAW image files as fast as I can click on them. I've seen noticeable performance boosts in many of my applications with Snow Leopard.
If you do decide to go with a PC I would 2nd the advice to look at Dell. For desktop computers there is little doubt that they are offering very good bang for the buck these days, and the quality of their components is noticeably better than many of the other ones I have been working with over the last couple of years.
I don't know what the speed comparisons for the two chip species is, but technically that 1.7GHz quad-core could actually perform (marginally) slower than the current iMacs' 2+GHz dual-core ... especially since not much software actually uses the multiple cores yet. It might well be faster in say Photoshop, but slower in Office (just as example software names).