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
lol.. funny man. Why stop at the Atom CPU.. lets drop it to something thats really pointless like a 386 and a 3.5" Floppy Disk to load mac os
Yes I do.
Wake up, people of 2009 even buy ATOM NETBOOKS/NETTOP.
A 3.06ghz Penryn is fine for 90% people.
Other 10% can buy a MacPro.
The most urgent upgrade needed at the moment for everyday usage is swapping HDDs with SSDs. That's the single biggest leap forward in everyday usage of the last few years.
I suppose you are right, but the article does say the first real info was in September, only a couple of weeks ago.
Nah, you can go further than the Atom. How about some ARM chip thats designed for smart phones. With Onboard Ram and GPU. Some 64GB, NAND storage. It'll be an iPhone with a humongous screen.
The iMac air, could it BE the iTablet!?
(This is too easy seriously)
Get one of these and put Mac OSX on it:
http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentview.asp?partid=10033
Its 11 hours of battery life. Take that Apple.
3 years is a long time in computing. Just think back 3 years from now and see what kit was about then. You might not need it today or tomorrow, but what about next year?? or the year after. if you want it to last 3 years before you think about a replacement then you need to think about furture proofing it as much as possible
I understand what your saying about quad core. The computing industry waits for no man...
It's not about writing our PERSONAL "wishlist", it's about being aware of what the average user needs.
Of course I'd like better specs, peace in the world and so on, but when I talk about the strategies of a company which creates computers for millions people I must take in account what are the REAL needs of most of those people....otherwise you end up creating an expensive but useless product..
I completely agree! I bought 3 new iMacs for my myself, my wife and my daughter about 4-5 months ago and, from my perspective, they're much faster even then my Mac G5 desktop quad that was PowerPC.
How much faster can we expect these machines to go? Perhaps "in a blink of an eye" speed would catch my attention but until then I'm totally happy!
I completely agree! I bought 3 new iMacs for my myself, my wife and my daughter (24" x 2 and one 20") about 4-5 months ago and, from my perspective, they're much faster even then my Mac G5 desktop quad (PowerPC) ever was!
How much faster can we expect these machines to go? Perhaps "in a blink of an eye" speed would catch my attention but until then I'm totally happy!
The fact that its good enough for you at this moment in time though isn't a good argument unless you plan to upgrade every year. Are you saying that technology shouldn't advance because of what you have now. If thats the case then lets keep core 2 duo in macs for the next 3 years and bump up the clock speed every 6 months. These new chips from intel will be standard before too long like core 2 duo is now, but we dont need them in our macs because no one uses a mac for anything more than safari and iTunes.
I'd like to pose a question to all the folks who bash those who "demand" modern specs in the rumored iMac line:
I have a 20'' white iMac. 2,16 C2D with 2GB RAM and a 1TB drive that I installed.
It still is a beautifully designed piece of hardware, that I still admire aesthetically.
As all my friends do. As even my 8 year old daughter does, intuitively I guess.
I run Snow Leopard and iLife 09. I manage thousands of photos and videos in iPhoto. I have 120+ GBs of music in iTunes.
It generally does what I want a computer to do, with the OS of my choice.
Albeit, a bit slow.
The question is: would you pay 1.200 today for this computer?
You see, it's not only what the (alleged) 95% of computer users are content with.
Which I assume my current iMac would be enough for them, specs wise.
It's also at what price, they are going to get it.
Lastly, if there is anything besides the talent of people at Apple that results to the production of innovative, aesthetically superior computers, is demanding customers. Not apologists of subpar products.
I have a 20'' white iMac. 2,16 C2D with 2GB RAM and a 1TB drive that I installed.
It still is a beautifully designed piece of hardware, that I still admire aesthetically.
As all my friends do. As even my 8 year old daughter does, intuitively I guess.
I run Snow Leopard and iLife 09. I manage thousands of photos and videos in iPhoto. I have 120+ GBs of music in iTunes.
It generally does what I want a computer to do, with the OS of my choice.
Albeit, a bit slow.
The question is: would you pay 1.200 today for this computer?
You see, it's not only what the (alleged) 95% of computer users are content with.
Which I assume my current iMac would be enough for them, specs wise.
It's also at what price, they are going to get it.
Lastly, if there is anything besides the talent of people at Apple that results to the production of innovative, aesthetically superior computers, is demanding customers. Not apologists of subpar products.
if you want it to last 3 years before you think about a replacement then you need to think about furture proofing it as much as possible
I understand what your saying about quad core. The computing industry waits for no man...
I agree with future proofing to a certain extent and thats why I'm waiting for the update. The question is where do you draw the line. If we all worried about it too much we would be buying new computers every couple of months.
Quite funny
I love to read that kind of thread, and the flame war against Apple.
I'm no Apple fanboy (I don't even own a mac yet except an iPhone, waiting for iMac upgrade to buy my first one) but I think some people here are too much "power user oriented" and not enough "average user minded", and here is why :
- Quad core : to be honnest, unless you have some very specific applications (video, CAD, etc...), a quad core will be of marginal benefit against a good dual core. Benchamrk show that on day to day basis, a Dual 3GHz is better than a Quad 2.66 (a dual is far enough to process a browser, itunes in the backgroup + 2-3 productivity applications, and despite specific apps, most apps don't take full benefit of quad core yet). Bottom line : for most people, quad core is just no added value
- Thinner is a waste of engineering time : sure, let's make a test : bring your girlfriend to a computer shop. Show her the last Antec P180 full of killer hardware (Quad core, SLI GFX, SSD, 8Gigs of ram, <you name it>). Then show her an iMac. Unless she is a real geek herself (could happen ), strong are the odds that she will prefer the iMac. This is known as WAF.
Considering the population who buys Apple stuff, I would say that design matters as much as power, most Apple user probably thinking "it will be powerfull enough for what I do, but it's much nicer than those PC with wires, unmatching colors, etc..."...plus most people think it's actually macOSX that is really the feature point for Apple hardware, because it's perceived as much easier to use
- I believe the real grief here (that I share as well) is that Mac Pro is ridiculously overpriced...what a lot of people here would actually like is a 1500$ mac Pro with decent power...the iMac is not meant to be a power box, it's just as wishing that the last BMW 3 series could features a 600Hp engine just because you can't purchase a Porsche...
My 2 cts
I love to read that kind of thread, and the flame war against Apple.
I'm no Apple fanboy (I don't even own a mac yet except an iPhone, waiting for iMac upgrade to buy my first one) but I think some people here are too much "power user oriented" and not enough "average user minded", and here is why :
- Quad core : to be honnest, unless you have some very specific applications (video, CAD, etc...), a quad core will be of marginal benefit against a good dual core. Benchamrk show that on day to day basis, a Dual 3GHz is better than a Quad 2.66 (a dual is far enough to process a browser, itunes in the backgroup + 2-3 productivity applications, and despite specific apps, most apps don't take full benefit of quad core yet). Bottom line : for most people, quad core is just no added value
- Thinner is a waste of engineering time : sure, let's make a test : bring your girlfriend to a computer shop. Show her the last Antec P180 full of killer hardware (Quad core, SLI GFX, SSD, 8Gigs of ram, <you name it>). Then show her an iMac. Unless she is a real geek herself (could happen
), strong are the odds that she will prefer the iMac. This is known as WAF.Considering the population who buys Apple stuff, I would say that design matters as much as power, most Apple user probably thinking "it will be powerfull enough for what I do, but it's much nicer than those PC with wires, unmatching colors, etc..."...plus most people think it's actually macOSX that is really the feature point for Apple hardware, because it's perceived as much easier to use
- I believe the real grief here (that I share as well) is that Mac Pro is ridiculously overpriced...what a lot of people here would actually like is a 1500$ mac Pro with decent power...the iMac is not meant to be a power box, it's just as wishing that the last BMW 3 series could features a 600Hp engine just because you can't purchase a Porsche...
My 2 cts
I agree with future proofing to a certain extent and thats why I'm waiting for the update. The question is where do you draw the line. If we all worried about it too much we would be buying new computers every couple of months.
agreed.. I have sold my 15" MBP 2 weeks ago to buy a iMac. I was already to buy the 3GHz version when I saw the rumours about a possible new iMac. I am waiting because I want to future proof my purchase, but there will come a time which will be when MS release Win7 and if apple have not got a new iMac then I will go and buy what I was going to get a few weeks back..
You could always be waiting for the next refresh before you buy and never end up buying anything.
Would they release it without having an announcement? My mum needs a new computer and i'm telling her to wait.
If what i've read is true, invites were sent out last year 4 days before the announcement.
With Apple though anything is possible.
If what i've read is true, invites were sent out last year 4 days before the announcement.
With Apple though anything is possible.
I'm telling you, the iMac Air is the iTablet.
PHOAR!!! ROFLMYGOD Microsoft doesn't have a chances!!!!!!! 1337zes
I predict a move to core i7 for iMac, and if lucky a move to i5 for Mac Mini.
iMac will stay as dual-core, of that i am sure, except the high spec (or at very least it will surely be a BTO option). Expensive i'm sure.
It doesn't make sense to stay on Core 2, except for the Mac Mini.
iMac will stay as dual-core, of that i am sure, except the high spec (or at very least it will surely be a BTO option). Expensive i'm sure.
It doesn't make sense to stay on Core 2, except for the Mac Mini.
When you are talking about the strategies of a company you are not talking as consumer anymore, this was exactly my point. And no, not all of what people wish is useless; and no, not all of what a company creates is useful and affordable. Finally, have you noticed "average user" always refers to others and never to ourselves? Average user is only a statistic reality I'm afraid, not a real person.
this one has quad:
http://uk.gateway.com/products/product.html?prod=DU10
so - bring it ! i will update then...
http://uk.gateway.com/products/product.html?prod=DU10
so - bring it ! i will update then...