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
Seriously?
It seems as though Apple's vision for what computers should be is recently coalescing with what consumers want in a computer - fast enough, aesthetically pleasing, and easy to use.
exactly. They are FAST ENOUGH TO DO WHAT CONSUMERS WANT. So stop your bitching about quad cores. It could be a friggen single core. If it can run fast enough I am happy. So is everyone else besides a select few.
Ok, looks like they're not going to have Quads.
Its more acceptable to me if the MB/MBP not have to carry
the most current and fastest chips but desktops, i think otherwise.
If an Imac is your main comp, then i would be more disappointed then
excited but I still think they are great machines.
Its more acceptable to me if the MB/MBP not have to carry
the most current and fastest chips but desktops, i think otherwise.
If an Imac is your main comp, then i would be more disappointed then
excited but I still think they are great machines.
Disappointed because it doesn't have two more cores that the average consumer are probably hardly/never gonna use? I actually laughed at this post. A 2.66 Quad is worse than 3.06 Duo as far as my needs are concerned. I couldn't be any happier with my current iMac as my main machine.
and you know what consumers what??? Just because its good enough for you does that mean us "select few" have to put up with what you want????
More Anorexia
I agree and I do not see the obsession with continually thinner iMacs. I have NEVER looked at my iMac and said. Too much junk in the truck for me!
Nor have I had anyone else comment on the thinness either way!!
I would like it to be faster, have LED display, 30" iMac, options for SSD, more USB and FW ports, but NEVER, NEVER has 'I need it thinner' EVER came into a conversation!!
Apple, get off the anorexia kick!!
I agree and I do not see the obsession with continually thinner iMacs. I have NEVER looked at my iMac and said. Too much junk in the truck for me!
Nor have I had anyone else comment on the thinness either way!!
I would like it to be faster, have LED display, 30" iMac, options for SSD, more USB and FW ports, but NEVER, NEVER has 'I need it thinner' EVER came into a conversation!!
Apple, get off the anorexia kick!!
I bet you iMac does pretty darn well with that 4850 in it. Cpu's are plenty fast enough for anything these days, ill be most interested in GPU options and what comes standard. As long as they dont force on us intel integrated crapo graphics we should be just fine.
There are now 2 TB hard drives out that fit the iMac (3.5"), so I can't see Apple taking a huge step back to 2.5" drives due to the massive difference in space.
I could however see an option for an SSD (which I would pounce on).
I imagine the 24" will become as thin as the 20", but I don't know if they can make the 20" model any thinner because of the thickness of the 3.5" drives. I understand your point, but I don't see it happening.
Consumers want whatever they're buying. And they're buying Apple. Lining up to buy Apple products - and paying more - during a recession, despite lower-cost solutions that allegedly off more "vaiue" for the money. This will be a reord year for Mac sales, and there is no evidence that'll change anytime soon. Even without Steve Jobs, the Apple crew under Tim Cook shone. Now that Jobs is back, it's back to the drawing board for the competition. Apple rules the Premium end and we'd all better get used to it.
Yes, we know what people like. It's pretty easy to figure it out. Consumers with enough $$ will continue to hungrily gobble up whatever Apple offers, becase Apple knows what consumers want before consumers themselves know.
The problem lies with the limitations of thought within the MacRumors bubble. Get out of it and you'll see reality.
I'm sorry, but this idea is way off the mark. Apple happens to be one of the most successful companies in the world in the last 6 years. (just in case you didn't know, their stock has gone up 3,000 percent)
And I think it's safe to say that folks are flocking to Apple by the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, based on their aesthetics and ease of use. The iPod, the iPhone, the iMac...all wildly popular and ground-breaking form factor where no one else even comes close.
Bryan
I can. There is 1TB 2.5" drives. The current top-end iMac ships with a 1TB hard drive. I can see Apple having 500GB and 1TB hard drive options in 2.5" factor.
Windows never, but Linux is an extremely good choice.
w
Well first we don't know exactly what this update is exactly. There is big fear it is a minor update but let's be honest we haven't seen the hardware yet. If it is an upgrade that retains dual core Core 2 then yeah I might have to consider a different route for the next computer.
Look at it this way, if one understands Apples technologies in SL a quad core CPU should be considered mandatory in an iMac. At least at the high endit should be, as Apple also needs broader choices. That quad core also needs to be a recent generation CPU. For some software GCD will never see the performance gains possible without the hardware threads available.
Not to mention are the issues a developer faces trying to build and test heavily threaded code on a dual core machine. A developer should need a Mac Pro just to have a highly threaded machine on his desk.
Now I know many dismiss quad cores because they say they can't see a difference in the apps they use. This is certainly possible and can't be argued with. The thing is not everybody uses those apps and not all of those apps have been significantly updated to make use of the SL technologies. The realitiy is some people are finding that the apps they use are already seeing worthwhile gains. SL just means there are more to come.
This is great for people who use apps serially but doesn't even consider the advantages of quad cores and better to people that make use of more than one app at a time. By make use I mean apps that actual do long tasks in background while you work in another app. A quad can significantly reduce the sluggishness seen in Macs when there is a lot going on at one time.
Most importantly Dual Core 2 is now a terrible value in an iMac. Especially if Apple tries to market them like a mid range desktop. Sometimes the cost / value equation gets so out of whack you just have to reject what is being offered up.
Rejection doesn't mean Windows though as a guy has options. One of those options is Linux and another is Hackintosh. These are very much DIY approaches but offer considerable bang for the buck. You may say that isn't a viable solution to which I might agree that it isn't for some. But you have to consider that today you can get real close to Mac Pro performance at a quater of the cost. Maybe raw CPU performance means nothing to you and thus you have no reason to want that sort of performance. That is great and all up until you use a modern machine right beside a Mac. Even if it is running Windows it will run circles around the pokey Macs. Dismissing what is a real difference in performance is just not smart.
Dave
w
Well first we don't know exactly what this update is exactly. There is big fear it is a minor update but let's be honest we haven't seen the hardware yet. If it is an upgrade that retains dual core Core 2 then yeah I might have to consider a different route for the next computer.
Look at it this way, if one understands Apples technologies in SL a quad core CPU should be considered mandatory in an iMac. At least at the high endit should be, as Apple also needs broader choices. That quad core also needs to be a recent generation CPU. For some software GCD will never see the performance gains possible without the hardware threads available.
Not to mention are the issues a developer faces trying to build and test heavily threaded code on a dual core machine. A developer should need a Mac Pro just to have a highly threaded machine on his desk.
Now I know many dismiss quad cores because they say they can't see a difference in the apps they use. This is certainly possible and can't be argued with. The thing is not everybody uses those apps and not all of those apps have been significantly updated to make use of the SL technologies. The realitiy is some people are finding that the apps they use are already seeing worthwhile gains. SL just means there are more to come.
This is great for people who use apps serially but doesn't even consider the advantages of quad cores and better to people that make use of more than one app at a time. By make use I mean apps that actual do long tasks in background while you work in another app. A quad can significantly reduce the sluggishness seen in Macs when there is a lot going on at one time.
Most importantly Dual Core 2 is now a terrible value in an iMac. Especially if Apple tries to market them like a mid range desktop. Sometimes the cost / value equation gets so out of whack you just have to reject what is being offered up.
Rejection doesn't mean Windows though as a guy has options. One of those options is Linux and another is Hackintosh. These are very much DIY approaches but offer considerable bang for the buck. You may say that isn't a viable solution to which I might agree that it isn't for some. But you have to consider that today you can get real close to Mac Pro performance at a quater of the cost. Maybe raw CPU performance means nothing to you and thus you have no reason to want that sort of performance. That is great and all up until you use a modern machine right beside a Mac. Even if it is running Windows it will run circles around the pokey Macs. Dismissing what is a real difference in performance is just not smart.
Dave
I forget that those were recently announced (previously the cap was 640/750 I think).
That is a definite possibility then (maybe even 2 drives as an option), especially because it will allow Apple to have an SSD option as well.
There are quite a lot of people that are happy with their iMac and how it preforms. But what is frustrating is that because is good enough for them they seem to bash anyone that would like a little more. What wrong with wanting something to be a little better. What wrong with wanting a quad core iMac?? Is that so wrong?
As there are not many configurations for the iMac people can only buy wants on offer. What not to say they are wishing for a few more options when they buy that iMac
Anyone that buys Apple knows that they pay a premium for that product. They want an Apple product over a Windows PC product.
I am ready to buy an iMac and am waiting to see what this refresh is going to offer.. I am ready to get the 3.06GHz version with the ATI GFX card in. I like my games too so want something that will play them well. I know that I could do better on a PC but dont want to have a PC so what wrong with me wanting a iMac that has the options for some higher end kit but still have the all in 1 solution
agreed. You can configure the iMac now with some options, why not have more options so you cater for a larger market
That would be a terrible thing Apple could do. They cannot avoid being somewhat Windows friendly if they want to keep selling as much they have been. If they are selling alot is because of their good products and because they had to open to the windows enviroment. SL with exchange , itunes in windows, iwork compatible with office...etc. That wouldn't work in the real world.
The GM comparison doesn't apply now. I bring it up because fans screaming + company deafness is always bad in the long run.
I would so much rather buy a computer every 2 years out of LOVE, instead of every 4 years out of desperation. Again, I believe car-buying is very similar in that respect.