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.
Online Ad Evidence of Imminent iMac, Mac Mini and MacBook Updates?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Inheritence
All the Mac lines inherit research gleaned from the likes of iPhone, Touch and the looming MacBook Touch form factors... The Thin Apple Line.
Reduces materials use, improves recyclables like glass, aluminum and overall materials quantities which in turn add to Apple 'greening'...
Also reducing costs by having construction processes all same or similar...
All the Mac lines inherit research gleaned from the likes of iPhone, Touch and the looming MacBook Touch form factors... The Thin Apple Line.
Reduces materials use, improves recyclables like glass, aluminum and overall materials quantities which in turn add to Apple 'greening'...
Also reducing costs by having construction processes all same or similar...
Ok people. I have a HP windows notebook right now and it isnt fast as can be, but not slow either. I am looking into an iMac. All I want is a snappy computer that can run web browsing, email, photoshop, after effects, flash and dreamweaver. I have heard even with 2gigs of memory iMacs are screaming fast and snappy as hell. I have no idea what you people are complaining about? Is OSX not smooth and snappy even on low end systems? Exactly it is. So for a windows user, even without Quad Cores, come November, Apple has themselves a new customer. Well minus the act I have a 3GS... iPhone for life.
Stop your bitching
Stop your bitching
That's what dutch people always ask themselves. It's the same with Adobe software.. Replace the $ with a , we're already used to that
^haha ... the SNL one
http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/4656101/12447278
I think everyone pretty much gets where SJ is going with making things thinner and smaller
The iPod micro is around the same size as the current shuffle.
Thinner, chinless and faster iMac
This may seems strange, but why couldn't the iMac be both thinner, drop the chin and be faster?
The Macbook Pro arguably uses the same components. The enclosure is, however, much thinner and smaller. If Apple will use LED displays in the iMac's then, the only main difference is that the iMac uses 3,5" HD's. These are bigger, but there is also a lot more room behind a 20" or 24" screen compared to the maximum 17" of the Macbook Pro.
I think they will switch to Core i5 or i7 processors and will be able to make it much thinner and maybe even loose the chin.
This may seems strange, but why couldn't the iMac be both thinner, drop the chin and be faster?
The Macbook Pro arguably uses the same components. The enclosure is, however, much thinner and smaller. If Apple will use LED displays in the iMac's then, the only main difference is that the iMac uses 3,5" HD's. These are bigger, but there is also a lot more room behind a 20" or 24" screen compared to the maximum 17" of the Macbook Pro.
I think they will switch to Core i5 or i7 processors and will be able to make it much thinner and maybe even loose the chin.
imac air
http://www.google.es/#hl=fr&source=...e+Google&aq=f&oq=imac+air&fp=c47efb2f7948e4aa
and you can see imac air
http://www.google.es/#hl=fr&source=...e+Google&aq=f&oq=imac+air&fp=c47efb2f7948e4aa
and you can see imac air
Thinner means cooler components which means poorer performance. People was hoping for thicker one so it could handle desktop CPU and GPU, but we won't see one anytime soon. IMO it sucks because it doesn't really matter is it few CMs thicker if performance would be a lot better for same price
You may be onto something there...
That would be one way that a thinner monitor case would make sense to me, if they put the logic board, drives, etc, back into a low profile base.
Kind of like the old G4 iMac/iLamp/dome-and-screen models from 2002-2003 time frame.
I would not object, especially if it allows for good quality and improved performance of components (CPU, GPU, HD, Optical).
Given that the iMacs I've owned and ones I've worked on, at least for the G5 and on have run hot, it seems that moving the screen away from the heat generators might give longer screen display life? maybe??
This is what really worries me about the i#. I don't particularly like Intel's graphics and I like 13" notebooks. At least I'll be able to snag one of the current models for a good price at school when Apple rolls out the new ones if they're really not any "better".
I'm not understanding why everyone here is so obsessed with quad-cores. What are you guys trying to do on your iMacs that you aren't already able to do?
I'm using a 2006 Macbook that runs on a 1.83 C2D, has 2 gigs of slow ram and a GMS 950 video card that uses 64 megs of shared RAM. And you know what? I can do everything 95% of people buying iMacs will be doing. I run CS4 no problem, Aperture, and iMovie. I can have all these programs open at the same time and be playing music from Itunes and casually using Safari and have no slowdown. I was actually really close to buying a new Macbook Pro when I realized that I can do everything on this 3 1/2 year old macbook without any problems.
I'm assuming the current iMacs can edit HD video without problems because my two year Gateway desktop can. So what does that leave for a new quad-core iMac to do? It's not marketed to run all the new directx10 and 11 games. That's not what Apple is designing it for. And most of them don't even make use of quad-cores.
The only thing I think the iMac needs is the same thing that is bottlenecking all PCs; the harddrive. We need SSD, but that is not feasible yet. Other than that, it could use a new mouse and I guess a dedicated graphics card in all models but the cheapest.
The C2D chips are not an issue. Most of us will never use them to their full potential. The industry needs to focus on software optimization and SSD development. I'm sure in a year or two, when mobile quad-cores are a dime a dozen, smaller and more energy efficient, Apple will through them in the iMac, but there is no hurry.
Let Windows users freak out about quad-cores and useless technical specs that no one makes use of, and 8 gigs of RAM, 2 gig video cards, PCs that burn 1000 watts of power and have 3 fans, and score really high on benchmark tests. Who cares? Their operating system needs that stuff to work well. OS X doesn't. 95% of people don't. And that's who the iMac is for.
Oh and it would be cool to have an SD card slot, too.
I'm using a 2006 Macbook that runs on a 1.83 C2D, has 2 gigs of slow ram and a GMS 950 video card that uses 64 megs of shared RAM. And you know what? I can do everything 95% of people buying iMacs will be doing. I run CS4 no problem, Aperture, and iMovie. I can have all these programs open at the same time and be playing music from Itunes and casually using Safari and have no slowdown. I was actually really close to buying a new Macbook Pro when I realized that I can do everything on this 3 1/2 year old macbook without any problems.
I'm assuming the current iMacs can edit HD video without problems because my two year Gateway desktop can. So what does that leave for a new quad-core iMac to do? It's not marketed to run all the new directx10 and 11 games. That's not what Apple is designing it for. And most of them don't even make use of quad-cores.
The only thing I think the iMac needs is the same thing that is bottlenecking all PCs; the harddrive. We need SSD, but that is not feasible yet. Other than that, it could use a new mouse and I guess a dedicated graphics card in all models but the cheapest.
The C2D chips are not an issue. Most of us will never use them to their full potential. The industry needs to focus on software optimization and SSD development. I'm sure in a year or two, when mobile quad-cores are a dime a dozen, smaller and more energy efficient, Apple will through them in the iMac, but there is no hurry.
Let Windows users freak out about quad-cores and useless technical specs that no one makes use of, and 8 gigs of RAM, 2 gig video cards, PCs that burn 1000 watts of power and have 3 fans, and score really high on benchmark tests. Who cares? Their operating system needs that stuff to work well. OS X doesn't. 95% of people don't. And that's who the iMac is for.
Oh and it would be cool to have an SD card slot, too.
A quad core would be a good step for the iMac. If people did not bother to update computers or whatever with new technology then we could be at a stand still. Putting the i5 or i7 into a iMac would allow developers to write more complex applications, putting a better GPU into a iMac would allow those that want to play games and want to have mac play the latest games with decent GFX setting without the need to turn effects down or off
Just because it good enough now does not mean to say it will be in 6 months or 12 months. By your way of thinking we would all still be on 386 and 6800
Just because it good enough now does not mean to say it will be in 6 months or 12 months. By your way of thinking we would all still be on 386 and 6800
The way people continually go on about the iMac "chin" is borderline pathetic.
The aluminium models look far better than the white models due to the black trim around the screen. On saying that, it's the best looking all in one on the market and when using the iMac it's not something you even see.
If you've held off buying an iMac because of the "chin" then more fool you. God knows how pedantic you folk must be in other walks of life if that's what you base purchasing a computer around.
The aluminium models look far better than the white models due to the black trim around the screen. On saying that, it's the best looking all in one on the market and when using the iMac it's not something you even see.
If you've held off buying an iMac because of the "chin" then more fool you. God knows how pedantic you folk must be in other walks of life if that's what you base purchasing a computer around.
Although I am excited to see the updates, I am MUCH MORE excited to see the new multi-touch mouse and new keyboard!
I need a Mac Pro and 30" LED Cinema Display update too so I can buy a new video system!!! Probably won't happen till Jan-March 2010 Please give it Light Peak Apple!
I need a Mac Pro and 30" LED Cinema Display update too so I can buy a new video system!!! Probably won't happen till Jan-March 2010
Please give it Light Peak Apple!
Whats with everyone wanting to drop the chin? Its a nice design touch that links it to its heritage when Macs had their floppy drives underneath the screen.
http://www.google.es/#hl=fr&source=...e+Google&aq=f&oq=imac+air&fp=c47efb2f7948e4aa
and you can see imac air
That is FREAKING AWESOME!
I had no idea that the iMacs screen is held in by 14 magnets. I LOVE the way Apple uses magnets in cool innovative ways! There's nothing 'funny' about it. Macs, and indeed all tech gear, generally costs much less in the US than in other countries. Kep in mind though that the price will include VAT, and there is no extra sales tax or otherwise to be added.
This attitude is entirely ridiculous. There are many things that would be much better on a quad core. General system usage (I find it hilarious that Apple is pushing something like GCD, while the faithful say using more cores isn't necessary!) for one obvious one.
Let's cover the stuff I do personally here. Since you want to use a personal anecdote, so will I. I like to:
Write music
Edit HD AVCHD video (absolutely sucks on the Mac, is amazing on Windows)
Software Dev work (Games and iPhone)
Web Dev work
Graphics work
All of these things would benefit from more cores, especially when I am generally running 2-3 fairly heavy duty apps at once. The iMac is a joke. The next step up is...a grossly overpriced Mac Pro? I can build a windows 7 PC that would smoke the base mac pro for ....a third of the price? Something around there. It's not pretty either way. And Windows 7 is pretty darn nice, and does many things OSX looks like it won't be doing for years. Needless to say I'm a little peeved to be using "The World's Most Advanced OS" when it cannot perform basic tasks with current media formats. What gives Apple? Also Windows 7 runs faster than OSX on Apple hardware for whatever reason. Snow Leopard feels like a dog compared, and I don't know why.
Anyway back to the topic. Apple hardware is around...three generations out of date now? We have the C2D->C2Q->Ci7->Ci5, with the last looking entirely fantastic. I would very much like an i5 based system. There is no reason why we cannot have better OSX machines except for one: Greed. Apple wants to maintain massive profit margins, and does not respect their customers enough to give them what many want.
It is true that for many users a C2D is fine. Absolutely. However there are also LARGE amounts of users that would save time, and work more efficiently on modern hardware. In computer years, Apple is ancient. If they launch a new iMac with a freakin C2D they will be mocked. Period. You've seen that the latest usage statistics peg OSX at around 5% market share right? Do you really think that bodes well for Apple long term, given how much less attention they appear to be paying to the Computer segment, and the pro users? Logic and Final Cut, while still "standards" (because of entrenchment), are not paid very much attention from Apple. The updates absolutely sucked. The users are not happy in general. Dev work on the computer side of things is slow as molasses, and Apple is very much becoming an iPod/iPhone company.
The point is, there is really no defending Apple on their computer hardware offerings. Every single one is pretty much abysmal, with maybe the exception of their laptops which are very nice to use, and hardware wise are at least mediocre. They sell on style, and an OS that looks nice. That's it really. They "just work" as much as the latest Windows does (maybe a little worse, ugh, so buggy...). Quad core is an absolute necessity at this point. Windows laptops will have it, commonly, soon.
Don't get me wrong. While I recognize Windows 7 is fairly impressive, I'm not a huge fan of Windows in general. I get stressed using it, for whatever reason. I know my way around it very well, and could do whatever, but I find that it just bugs me in general. However, I can work very well on it, it never crashes, it never gets viruses or malware (unless you're a complete idiot), it has loads of great software available, and generally does many things better than a Mac, and of course it does some things worse. But you can great hardware for it, it's affordable, and it's cutting edge. Mac's are generally none of these things, unless you're talking about the design. Big freakin whoop.
If Apple launches a new design with old internals, they could be in at least some trouble...
That is FREAKING AWESOME!
you can see imac air configurator links on the right
There are a lot of ways for Apple to advance the technology of the iMac without worrying about a quad-core. So many people here are saying it's quad-core or bust for the new iMac, and I'm just saying that, as a consumer machine, the iMac doesn't even come close to tapping out the power of a C2D and has no need of a quad-core. Though, a new GPU would be nice.
Apple can move forward by focussing on making their iMac thinner, more energy efficient, quieter, cooler, better looking, designing a new keyboard and mouse, adding better speakers, or a better screen. These are all important technological advances that, in my opinion, at this point, are more important than worrying about an overspecced quad-core that no one in the iMac market demographic needs.
I'm personally glad that Apple doesn't simply focus on the latest and greatest specs like all other PC makers do.
Because everyone just wants it to say quad even though half of them probably don't have any idea what they would ever need/user it for. GCD is REALLY a let down as far as i'm concerned. The two programs I use to edit with are Quicktime 7 for post production and iMovie. Neither of which support GCD. Are you people really in that much of a rush that you need a quad core to encode something? Unless you are encoding a 3 hour movie I couldn't see why the majority of you need it. The only thing a quad is actually beneficial towards at the moment is gaming or PROFESSIONAL editing. Which if you are doing the first one you should've bought a PC and the second is what the Mac Pro is aimed at(Which if you can't afford just buy a used one and trick it out for less money). So quit whining. It's like a bunch of babies who want a different color lollipop even though it tastes the same.
All of those upgrades you mentioned are simply NOT tech advances. They are design changes. A quad core is way more of a "technilogical advance" than a new keyboard and mouse. Do you not see how absurd that is? You do realize that many of us make our livings through computers? All the time you spend watching beachballs, or waiting for things to draw on screen, or to load, or to render, or process etc etc etc is money lost, since as everyone knows, time is money (it's true).
If your opinion is that a new keyboard and mouse is more important to users than a computer that operates at a much faster speeds, I'm afraid most people would think your opinion is woefully wrong.
Many people can tap out the power of a C2D quite easily. Many won't, yet many more will, and pretty easily. Using that line of reasoning simply isn't valid. Saying aesthetic improvements are more important than keeping current hardware borders on insulting.
Apple's computer offerings are complete crap. Nothing more, nothing less.
And whats wrong with wanting to game on a MAC. Its only let down by the hardware. I would much prefer not to have a PC and a Mac. I love my Mac and would love to be able to play more games on it as well..