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

Next-Generation iMacs Already in Production?

Arcadie said:
i was just about to buy a new mac anyway
Click to expand...

Me too! I will just wait.... Sold my macbook a bit too fast but i was going to get an iMac 24" $ 1729 from Amazon!

I guess I have to ask my sister to get involve since she works for the board of Ed!

Do you still get a free ipod when the new generation launches (as a student)!
 
mosx said:
If HDMI is not meant for computer monitors, then why is it everywhere? Displays, notebook PCs, desktop motherboards, desktop GPUs. Like I said, for every one DisplayPort product you have 100 HDMI products.

HDMI 1.3 and DisplayPort are both about 3.5 years now. In that 3.5 years, which connector has become the standard and dominate connector? Yeah, HDMI.



You just proved my entire argument with what you pointed out in red in your own quotation. DisplayPort is royalty free. With DisplayPort Apple gets a royalty free connector AND they pocket $29.99 from required adapter they sell you. Whats better for Apple? $10,000 + $0.04 per device or millions in profits from forced adapter sales?

And I never said that HDMI products get an upgrade via spec upgrades. HDMI 1.4 was just recently approved and will be rolled out as time goes on. HDMI 1.3 is years old now, the same age as DisplayPort. Again, both were finalized around the same time. Which one became the dominant standard?



How mature.



What is not making sense is the fact that you're talking about flexibility via expensive adapters and dongles when you could get the same flexibility built-in with a PC.

If you want to discuss size, a modern PC notebook is only slightly larger than a MacBook Pro. Yet they offer far more powerful GPUs, faster CPUs, blu-ray, full size ExpressCard slots, multi-card readers, HDMI, VGA, quad core CPUs, etc. for less money.



Again, standard PCs are only slightly larger than a MacBook/Pro of the same screen size, yet they offer all of that flexibility built-in with none of the hassle of expensive adapters. They offer more powerful hardware in a SLIGHTLY larger package, with more features as well as proper cooling systems and proper 16x9 displays.



I did answer that question already. You just chose to ignore it because my statements ruined your entire argument.

Mini DisplayPort is all about Apple forcing the sales of adapters to get functionality that is built-in to PCs. On my PC I have VGA, S-Video, and HDMI with audio built-in. I can connect it to any display currently available without having to buy an adapter, even an old standard definition CRT TV.

Apple could easily build standard connectivity into their "smaller" systems. In fact, they did in the past. You know past PowerBooks had fullsize display connectors and S-Video, right?

If Apple didn't care about adapter sales, why did they stop including the adapters with their systems, aside from the Mac mini? The iBooks used to ship with the adapters you'd need. But not any more. Again, if Apple didn't care about adapter sales and the ridiculous profits they make off those sales, why didn't they just include mini HDMI?



I expect VGA to present a clean signal. The VGA out on my PC notebook is extremely clean with no noise. Yet the mini DisplayPort to VGA adapter presents an image that has visible noise and color wavering, isn't sharp at all, and the colors aren't accurate even with calibration. Same with the mini DVI to VGA adapter for my old MacBooks. Using HDMI is like using a completely different computer.



Yeah I have. And guess what? Their 30" display only takes in native resolution over dual-link DVI, not DisplayPort or HDMI.



Thank you for admitting the truth.



Really? Is that why, after 3 years, only a handful of displays support DisplayPort while dozens support HDMI 1.3? Is that why after so many years so many PCs, GPUs, etc. support HDMI while only a couple of Dells and Macs support DisplayPort?



No they don't. But guess what they do use? HDMI equipped PCs passing blu-ray video and audio over one cable.



I don't know. Let's ask the hundreds of thousands over at AVS and then we can get an idea.



A better question is how many wouldn't have a system that can take advantage of the newer formats? I mean when we're talking about Dolby Digital, we're talking about 448Kbps being divided between 6 channels and the bitrate being dynamically allocated between channels. A lot of action in the center speaker? The other 5 channels get a lower bitrate.

Theres a night and day difference between the 640Kbps Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD lossless track on The Dark Knight DVD. All you have to do is listen to the explosions. The DDP track has loud dull thuds for explosions. The lossless track will move your couch and you can feel the explosion in your gut.



Yay more adapters! It'd be 10x easier if Apple just followed industry standards. No need for this adapter nonsense.



So if Apple wanted to save space, why not just use mini HDMI?

Oh thats right, Apple only cares about selling adapters. If they didn't care about the profits from adapter sales, they would have never stopped including them with their portable systems.



So Apple will continue to prefer form over functionality which will reverse their growing trend and isolate their systems and customer base from the rest of the world.



What is? Your argument that mini DisplayPort is about convenience rather than royalty free profit?



You never know when the need will arise. It's best to have the connectivity built-in rather than having to rush out and by a ridiculously expensive adapter. What if your display goes out and you just happen to be around an HDTV or monitor you can connect to? With a PC you can connect and be up and running right away. With a Mac you have to rush out and hope you're buying the right expensive adapter.



Future-proof by not supporting resolutions as high as HDMI. Royalty free so Apple can sell expensive adapters rather than adopt what has become the industry standard. Again, HDMI has no need for DVI-DL, and Apple's VGA adapters don't work good enough to use anyway.

Why not just design systems with functionality in mind like everyone else? If Apple didn't feel the need for their computers to lose more weight than super models, they could build PCs that were truly FUNCTIONAL and this would all be a moot point.

Again, its not like Apple hasn't provided standard connectivity before. Look at the older PowerBooks. Plus Apple included adapters in the box with the iBook. Why can't they include proper adapters in the box with the new Macs? Oh, thats right, because they profit more off of the sale of adapters.



Yeah, I read about that. Another classic example of Apple forcing upgrades by forcing perfectly functional hardware to become obsolete.
Click to expand...

Dude just give it up, seriously.

Oh and HDMi was only meant for TVs. Hence the Max 1080p resolution and the integrated sound channels.
 
What everyone may be overlooking here is that I don't think anyone anticipated how fast LCD TV's would both progress and be purchased. Apple designed their computers to be used with Monitors, rightly so and hence DP and DVI ports. But consumers have flocked to flat screen TV's, and HTPC in big numbers since last Christmas, and as was said, HDMI was designed for a TV connection. No one anticipated many people would be using TV's as monitors! So now Apple has to re-evalulate how to deal with this development. Looks like Light Peak is their solution, which I think will revolutionize the computer world. Fiber is an incredable medium for communications.
 
jackies35 said:
Do you still get a free ipod when the new generation launches (as a student)!
Click to expand...

no. that is a limited time offer that was over before the new ipods came out.

also, just because your sister works for the Board of Education doesn't mean she gets the educational pricing. you'll want to verify before you count on those savings.
 
MacDSmith2 said:
What everyone may be overlooking here is that I don't think anyone anticipated how fast LCD TV's would both progress and be purchased. Apple designed their computers to be used with Monitors, rightly so and hence DP and DVI ports. But consumers have flocked to flat screen TV's, and HTPC in big numbers since last Christmas, and as was said, HDMI was designed for a TV connection. No one anticipated many people would be using TV's as monitors! So now Apple has to re-evalulate how to deal with this development. Looks like Light Peak is their solution, which I think will revolutionize the computer world. Fiber is an incredable medium for communications.
Click to expand...
But you still need a video card on board video is no where near what a card can do. also dose HDCP work over this?
 
Maserati7200 said:
For this case it would be a media event because of the time of year it is now. But if it were early 2010, it would just be a press release.
Click to expand...


got to disagree. the date is NOT the factor.

the answer to the question is what is being announced. if it is a just a spec bump and/or price drop, that's a press release.

if it is a brand new redesigned model with cool new bells and whistles, it's an announcement with a Keynote.
 
MorphingDragon said:
Oh and HDMi was only meant for TVs. Hence the Max 1080p resolution and the integrated sound channels.
Click to expand...

I agree it was meant for TVs but it supports up to 2560x1600 in HDMI 1.3 and 4096x2160 for HDMI 1.4.

I mean I don't want to argue, but the MDP is really inconvenient at the moment. Hardly any displays accept MDP without adapters. And while you'd be crazy to buy these adapters from Apple, its annoying to have to even use them. I've personally gone through 3 DVI to VGA adapters (though mine was free with computer and free under warranty).

For now its annoying, maybe down the road it will become a standard, but that's a ways off. What would have been nice is if Apple spaced out the ports a little better with all that saved room so that I could plug 2 USB devices in at one time.
 
xhambonex said:
I agree it was meant for TVs but it supports up to 2560x1600 in HDMI 1.3 and 4096x2160 for HDMI 1.4.

I mean I don't want to argue, but the MDP is really inconvenient at the moment. Hardly any displays accept MDP without adapters. And while you'd be crazy to buy these adapters from Apple, its annoying to have to even use them. I've personally gone through 3 DVI to VGA adapters (though mine was free with computer and free under warranty).

For now its annoying, maybe down the road it will become a standard, but that's a ways off. What would have been nice is if Apple spaced out the ports a little better with all that saved room so that I could plug 2 USB devices in at one time.
Click to expand...

Everything Apple makes gets in the way of the other, so, example, no TV machine as that interferes with iTunes, no streaming DVR, again, afftects iTunes even though shows are free, no mind range as for some strange reason, Apple thinks everyone needs a $3000.00 mac pro when the Pro Sumer market is 1,000 to 1 in terms of sales, thus why Avid/Digi bought Maudio, more people by Pro Sumer machine parts then Pro parts, and they make more money, so not sure we will ever see a mid range. I think the way to go is a hack n tosh, i7 machine, there are boot loaders now that allow you to download updates with no problems and no bricking your machine.

Then again, maybe Apple will surprise, doubt it, but it could happen, they did say something about machines having more PRO features, hope its better GPU and CPU and express/eSata and not Blue Ray.

Peace,
 
Hamsterz said:
I have been diagnosed with the swine flu for the 3rd time this year, so lets make this a quick one!
Click to expand...

Hey, are you ok?

If you are diagnosed with the swine flu 3 times, you should check your surroundings!!

Are you ok? Serious Note!:(
 
is it not impossible to diagnosed three times with the swine flu? Once you have it, you are then immune to it (unless it is a different strain, which has NOT been discussed in the health world at all).
 
buy what you need...

blackpond said:
I first purchased Apple products with an iPod Nano > then an Apple TV > then an iPhone 3G. I want to buy a Mac but price compared to PC's hasn't been worth it yet. Just purchased a new Windows laptop last month for $300 (and it works just fine, btw). I don't expect to ever see a Mac in that range, but a price reduction of any amount will help the next time I'm looking to buy again. It's good to see Microsoft lighting the fire under Apple's rear and forcing competitive price reductions.
Click to expand...

blackpond, I agree with you and your purchase. My friend just purchased a mini laptop pc (netbook i think??)... Anyway, she loves my macbook but would not spend the money for it.

She wanted the little laptop pc because she loves to surf the net, upload a few pics, and write several blog and that's it...

I think it's ok to purchase a machine that will do what you want it to do.

A lot of people will purchase a iMac or Macbook pro because there needs are a little different.

I love how I can just take the macbook out and have two videos posted to Youtube within seconds (ok minutes after editing) or chat with family and friends using iChat. I love how simple the macbook is and less challenging it is to do things!

I work in the IT department at my job. There isn't anything here but PC(S). They work fine and it meet the needs to run this business. But the machines and server here are expensive as well...

I guess it really depends on what you going to use the mahcine for!! I don't like spending any money on anything but nothing is free. So, I would spend the money on Mac because I love using these machines.
 
Joe The Dragon said:
and for the same price apple puts in 9400m that uses system ram and this has 1gb of video ram + 8gb system.
Click to expand...

The dual core, with 4gb memory and intel integrated graphics is 879.

Still, that quad core monster is just that, a monster. Obvious price savings from using what appears to be a TN panel. Still its touch screen!

Trying to figure out what new technologies that iMac will have, I am leaning towards touch screen as one of them. With Apple products all emphasizing touch I cannot see it just being a mouse or track pad when it comes to iMac, not with the competition all going that way.
 
Shivetya said:
The dual core, with 4gb memory and intel integrated graphics is 879.

Still, that quad core monster is just that, a monster. Obvious price savings from using what appears to be a TN panel. Still its touch screen!

Trying to figure out what new technologies that iMac will have, I am leaning towards touch screen as one of them. With Apple products all emphasizing touch I cannot see it just being a mouse or track pad when it comes to iMac, not with the competition all going that way.
Click to expand...

I just spent 30 seconds directing my hand towards my 24" display and I can't imagine this sort of "touch" being anything else than a gimmick for a desktop.
 
jb1280 said:
I just spent 30 seconds directing my hand towards my 24" display and I can't imagine this sort of "touch" being anything else than a gimmick for a desktop.
Click to expand...

Editing pictures.

touch screen technology doesn't have to be the center of the universe, but there are many things its better at than a mouse/kb combo.
 
Shivetya said:
Editing pictures.

touch screen technology doesn't have to be the center of the universe, but there are many things its better at than a mouse/kb combo.
Click to expand...

The MS tech demos of using a multi-touch aware mouse to do things like this are actually quite impressive.

People sit at their desks with their displays a comfortable distance away in most cases, it's simply not conducive to multi-touch on the display.

A multi-touch tablet that could also become a multi-touch input device for a host computer, as well as the previously mentioned multi-touch mice, make far more sense for desktop size displays.
 
jackies35 said:
blackpond, I agree with you and your purchase. My friend just purchased a mini laptop pc (netbook i think??)... Anyway, she loves my macbook but would not spend the money for it.

She wanted the little laptop pc because she loves to surf the net, upload a few pics, and write several blog and that's it...

I think it's ok to purchase a machine that will do what you want it to do.

A lot of people will purchase a iMac or Macbook pro because there needs are a little different.

I love how I can just take the macbook out and have two videos posted to Youtube within seconds (ok minutes after editing) or chat with family and friends using iChat. I love how simple the macbook is and less challenging it is to do things!

I work in the IT department at my job. There isn't anything here but PC(S). They work fine and it meet the needs to run this business. But the machines and server here are expensive as well...

I guess it really depends on what you going to use the mahcine for!! I don't like spending any money on anything but nothing is free. So, I would spend the money on Mac because I love using these machines.
Click to expand...

i can do all these things with my PC just as fast. i do video calls with my mom who's in another state and use Skype and a $50 webcam. on her end is the same webcam and a 5 year old dell laptop running Vista
 
alent1234 said:
i can do all these things with my PC just as fast. i do video calls with my mom who's in another state and use Skype and a $50 webcam. on her end is the same webcam and a 5 year old dell laptop running Vista
Click to expand...

Like many PC users, you miss the point. That's coming from someone who has been using PCs since 1989.
 
Shivetya said:
Editing pictures.

touch screen technology doesn't have to be the center of the universe, but there are many things its better at than a mouse/kb combo.
Click to expand...

If you are trying to say that a touch screen is gonna be better for editing photos, you haven't done much PS work.
 
MrBean said:
If you are trying to say that a touch screen is gonna be better for editing photos, you haven't done much PS work.
Click to expand...

I am saying it will be better for mom and dad types.

I can do wonders with a pad or even a mouse. However the majority of people who need to do photo editing need nothing advanced, they need simple and even something fun.

Think outside your little part of the world. I do software development and design for a living. The hardest part of the job is recognizing that just because I found something easy, intuitive, or whatnot, doesn't mean the user does. Watching recorded user sessions can show you just how crappy an idea you thought wonderful was. Let alone my favorite part of development, seeing how users have adopted to "features" and how they work around them and when you fix said feature you just annoy them!
 
Shivetya said:
I am saying it will be better for mom and dad types.

I can do wonders with a pad or even a mouse. However the majority of people who need to do photo editing need nothing advanced, they need simple and even something fun.

Think outside your little part of the world. I do software development and design for a living. The hardest part of the job is recognizing that just because I found something easy, intuitive, or whatnot, doesn't mean the user does. Watching recorded user sessions can show you just how crappy an idea you thought wonderful was. Let alone my favorite part of development, seeing how users have adopted to "features" and how they work around them and when you fix said feature you just annoy them!
Click to expand...

If multi touch on the screen of a desktop size machine was going to take off, it already would have, as there are several machines with this technology already available.

The problem is that it has not taken off, and probably never will. Sitting inches from the screen, moving your hands over the screen for minutes/hours at a time, and having a smudged up screen all equate to not such a great computing experience as you apparently think.
 
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