And that would be bad? Why?
Except for some "form over function" fashionistas - what would it hurt to make the Imac a little thicker -- and give it some useful power?
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 iMacs to See Price Cuts?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And that would be bad? Why?
Except for some "form over function" fashionistas - what would it hurt to make the Imac a little thicker -- and give it some useful power?
Sadly Core i7 is going to apply to the 4 core, 8 thread Clarksfields as well.
The current iMac's CPU is at 44W over the previous stepping's 55W.
No! No!
The Mac Pro is a humonguous behemoth of an over-sized high-priced workstation.
The Mac "desktop" should be a mini-tower or small midi-tower - like the Dell Studio XPS.
Apple and Jony Ive could do so much with a mini-tower using Core i7 desktop parts - so sad that they don't.
And no need to get rid of the Imac - it's a nice laptop-on-a-stick for people who want a pretty computer. (Although, they should get rid of the "chin" once and for all. The tacky white plastic Imacs had a huge, ugly chin. The Alu ones hide some of it under the glass - but no chin would be better.)
The Mac Pro is a humonguous behemoth of an over-sized high-priced workstation.
The Mac "desktop" should be a mini-tower or small midi-tower - like the Dell Studio XPS.
Apple and Jony Ive could do so much with a mini-tower using Core i7 desktop parts - so sad that they don't.
And no need to get rid of the Imac - it's a nice laptop-on-a-stick for people who want a pretty computer. (Although, they should get rid of the "chin" once and for all. The tacky white plastic Imacs had a huge, ugly chin. The Alu ones hide some of it under the glass - but no chin would be better.)
Intel's 32nm Clarkdale CPUs moved up to Q4
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/29/intels-32nm-clarkdale-cpus-moved-up-to-q4-a-full-year-ahead-of/
I think I'll wait for a 32nm.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/29/intels-32nm-clarkdale-cpus-moved-up-to-q4-a-full-year-ahead-of/
I think I'll wait for a 32nm.
No matter what Apple does, people on the MacForums iMac board will still complain about color gamut and light bleed.
That is totally stupid. Their "pro" line is hideously expensive and thus innapropriate for many uses. A graphic designer doesn't need the power of macpro!.
And Apples bragging about quality and all that makes it inexcusable that they use inferior hardware. iMacs lcd have been problematic from the start and the common symptom for those lcds is that in time they develop hideous dark spots.
http://nanchatte.wordpress.com/2008...m-imac-24-roasting-with-dark-spots-on-screen/
It used to be designers choice, photograhers liked it (the white one). There is no reason why it should be crap now and why I should rationalise it in the "ah it's consumer afterall" way.
Now for this price you should get the premium hardware. If they used the best - the price would be right. The price is just a bit over the system you could put together yourself with poremium hardware but the small difference is worth it for the added value in aestethics - but unfortunately some of the key imac hardware is low quality OR the build, the design is flawed. And the argument that "it's not a pro machine, it's consumer" doesn't cut it. It's a well powered machine, too thin and that is why it gets too hot, the lcd is bad . maybe because of this design error the components overheat and get weird - but this isn't excusable. All imacs with this problem should be recalled and fixed for free even if out of warranty if apple cares for it's brand.
If they used proper lcds or adapt the design so the case and components inside would't heat eachother and shorten eachothers life or hamper the performance it wouldn't be THAT overpriced - if you take one of the best - 24" Dell monitor, and other computer hardware (same motherboard type and graphic card, other components like power supply, , a very good case etc etc) you would get very close to the iMac regarding the price. The only thing I can think of at the moment apple overprices terribly in computers is RAM for god knows what reason.
I agree.
But laptops are nice for a freelancer for example, who are free to do work where ever they want or for taking their work with them to a client, make corrections there etc... otherwise for mail or limited internet use - hand applications are best. But netbooks also have their use - especially if you work with texts it is a welcome tool to do work on the fly, where ever you are and get on with other things. My girlfriend uses it constantly (10" screen MSI 100) and keeps it in her handbag along with lipstick and girly stuff
. She is a translator and with a netbook she isn't glued to her desk the whole day and can roam around and if there is some relatively small text to do she does it while having a cup of coffe or two in the cafe.How can anyone complain about a price reduction? Amazing. The iMac is the best computer in the world, with the best OS in the world on it. How could lowering its price or offering a wider choice of models cause dissent. Tsk, tsk people
Rich
The question is whether this is a price cut or just stripping down the hardware as it was with the 15" macbook pro or in fact a hidden increase masking as a decrease.
Apple is behaving badly recently and these questions are in place when Apple makes new moves.
Well, now, the 13" MBP was price dropped with an increase in hardware while the cheaper 15" option involves paying more for a larger screen (making it the same kind of premium the 17" commands over the high-end 15"). It's not really stripping down the hardware (unless you're a glass half-empty kind). It's just enlarging the high-end 13" model.
A Core i7 Mac Pro would be cheaper, would not be a workstation, and the size is good. The current Mac Pro is actually too small, and needs to be bigger.
More cosmetically appealing than the Studio XPS.
Here's a problem with desktop computers playing back DVD's: they don't have upconversion in the playback software and/or hardware like you have console Blu-ray players and newer DVD players connected to the appropriate display using the HDMI connection. As such, it doesn't try to "upscale" the resolution to take advantage of the sharpness available with 20" or later widescreen monitors that have HDCP, and even on a well-mastered DVD like the Extended Editions of the Lord of the Rings movies you can see the very distinct "fuzziness" in the background details. Meanwhile in the setup I mentioned originally, when you play back a real Blu-ray disc you get the full resolution of the disc, and on a movie like Disney/Pixar's Cars (my "reference" disc to demonstrate the amazing sharpness of Blu-ray format) looks totally amazing even on a 20" widescreen computer monitor.
As for Apple not supporting Blu-ray, up until very recently getting a license for the technology was a complicated, expensive process. But now that you can get a simplified, "single-point" license for this technology, it also means dramatically lower licensing costs, and that could point the way for Apple to support Blu-ray technology on the iMac, Mac Pro and higher-end MacBook Pro laptops.
Yeah, for people who use their computers for surfing, mailing and watching YouTube clips.
As long as high-end laptops only offer 1/4 of the performance of high-end desktops (Mac Pro vs MBP geekbench high scores: 18765 vs 4584) and are plagued by various bottlenecks, they will remain semi-useless for audio production, video production, 3D animation, serious gaming and many other heavy-duty tasks that neither laptops nor iMacs can handle gracefully. The laws of physics will see too it that headless desktop computers will be around for decades to come.
I don't think we will be getting Clarkdale chips, their TDP is 73 watts according to Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Nehalem_(microarchitecture)
+1. Anyone who thinks laptops will eventually replace desktops (and I know quite a few people who say that) have probably never used a Mac Pro or other large workstation for serious heavy-duty stuff. The Mac Pro is extremely powerful, and nobody who's really serious about their work would trade a MP for a friggin' laptop. That and the fact that heavy, non-portable towers sit under a desk and aren't subject to being dropped and beat on like laptops are.
Which is another reason I think my next Mac is going to be the MacBook Air. I just need something to complement my desktop on the road. I'll hold out until 2010 when my AppleCare finishes on my Macbook and hand it off to a sibling that's using an iMac G4 right.
My Mac isn't my livelihood so it doesn't need that much power. Just keep dropping the price on it Apple.
The embedded quote isn't quite aligned with history. There were two variations on the 15" before. Now there are three. You can't get the same specs as the older "low end" model as they upgraded the specs you get at the "old" lowest price. If you wanted a 9600 graphics chip in your 15" it is same cost now as then (minus variations on currency exchange). Dropping the 9600 is a new config.
Typically, the slide down with minor tweaks is what happens (minor things like hard drive adjustments or not so minor minimum RAM adjustments. ) So the current high end will likely shift to being the "mid range" model. Although, the GT 130 is likely to get replaced by the GT 230 more computational horsepower for same max TDP watts.
The 9400M will be older and even cheaper at that point too. Another way to cut costs is not to move up if chip supplier is making longer run with older part at lower costs. Apple has to be getting a big volume discount here. Practically everything at this point has a 9400M in it.
A price cut would seem to suggest that Apple won't be aggressive in shifting to the i3/i5 Arrandale (sub 36W) mobile solutions if they were to wait till late into Q4 for the update. Intel should be charging a price premium when these first hit the market so that seems doubtful that would end up being a net cost reduction. But perhaps Intel would be very aggressive in trying to kick Nvidia back out of the Apple's core I/O chipset budget.
Sticking with one last refresh of Core 2 Duo would allow Apple to wait a bit longer before jumping into Arrandale which may get them to the first price cut point for that line.
I think the problem is in the imprecision in talking about market scope.
For the overall "Personal Computer" market, laptops form factors will become the dominating category.
There will always be hard core gamers and business folks who need workstations. The percentage of the overall market that they represent is shrinking (and will continue to shrink) over time. If pushed down to into less than 10% (or lower) of the overall market then "desktops have been replaced" effectively. Is it going to drop down to zero percent? No.
The gap between lowest cost "desktop" and "laptop" is getting smaller and smaller. At some point the deskstop can't limbo under the bar anymore.
It is Clarksfield, not Clarkdale, that is a possible choice for the iMac. It is a mobile class processor package.
The non top end Clarksfield are 35-45W TDP which conceptually would work (some power radiation is being moved around from chipset to processor). Would be somewhat of a stretch though running 4 cores (and some half dozen, or more, of GPU cores ) full blast inside of an iMac case. However, not sure if you could do a whole line-up of iMacs with largely the same motherboard if tried that though. Wouldn't make sense to have iMacs with vastly different boards. For example bottom two on Core Duo and upper two on i7/i3 designs. Not going to get maximum scale on parts.
Clarksfield was to be priced a bit high for iMacs though.
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/...le-nehalem-clarksfield-cpus-in-2009-20090421/
Longer term it is Arrandale ( 32nm) is Apple wants to keep the iMac pegged at 2 cores max. Staying at 2 cores would also help them move the prices down. Those arrive has been pulled back from Q1 2010 to Q4 2009 ... but can the iMac wait that long for a refresh?
Ah, I see, well you linked to an article talking about Clarkdale...
I would love to see Clarksfield in the iMac but I don't know how Apple is going to approach the lower clock speeds.
I was thinking we'd see a minor update in the next 1-2 months (and the price drop) then a switch to Arrandale early in 2010.
Sound plausible?
edit: I'm busy trying to figure out when to buy. Can't you tell?
Sorry I didn't get back sooner (been away for a couple of days). I don't recall all the details to be able to answer your questions specifically & can't find the tech forum which had the links but, IIRC, one link had a comparison between Blu-ray DVDs & standard DVDs upscaled, shown on proper HD 1080p & 1080i 32" TV screens.
Most people in the test couldn't see much difference on these 32" screens when sitting more than a few feet away. The recommendation was that in order for most average viewers to appreciate a significant difference in the quality of the Blu-ray DVDS on a 1080p TV, whilst sitting the same distance away, they needed at least a 50" screen.