Online Ad Evidence of Imminent iMac, Mac Mini and MacBook Updates?

[Ben Logan]

At Fry's: HP Pavillion Slimline with quad core 2, 6 GB RAM, 750 GB HDD, Blu-Ray ROM and TV Tuner for $880.

Regarding the "Mac Value Equation:"

Looking at the specs above, it really does look like Apple charges an absolute premium for their hardware. A lower powered machine from Apple costs more than a higher powered machine from a vendor which runs Windows.

One counter argument might be that OSX runs so well, Apple can afford to spec out their machines with low-end processors, and they still beat the pants off PCs for so many tasks (for example, I just went to check my email on my wife's PC and Firefox took almost a minute to fire up. Maddening!).

But, if HP can build a machine for the consumer with relatively high specs like those listed above for under a grand, why can't Apple?

Put another way: should the consumer really be "punished" by Apple with low end specs on their consumer machines, simply because OSX runs so well that it closes the gap left by Apple's insistence on "hobbled" hardware?

Just think how incredibly nicely OSX would run on those specs listed above. I used to be an apologist for Apple along these lines: "Well, Apple uses Motorola chips. Motorola just can't match Intel." But those days are long gone.

 

[Theclamshell]

Along with glowing reviews from the Faithful, praising the innovation.

hahaha i bet you someone would actually defend that too lol

 

[TennisandMusic]

Regarding the "Mac Value Equation:"

Looking at the specs above, it really does look like Apple charges an absolute premium for their hardware. A lower powered machine from Apple costs more than a higher powered machine from a vendor which runs Windows.

One counter argument might be that OSX runs so well, Apple can afford to spec out their machines with low-end processors, and they still beat the pants off PCs for so many tasks (for example, I just went to check my email on my wife's PC and Firefox took almost a minute to fire up. Maddening!).

But, if HP can build a machine for the consumer with relatively high specs like those listed above for under a grand, why can't Apple?

Put another way: should the consumer really be "punished" by Apple with low end specs on their consumer machines, simply because OSX runs so well that it closes the gap left by Apple's insistence on "hobbled" hardware?

Just think how incredibly nicely OSX would run on those specs listed above. I used to be an apologist for Apple along these lines: "Well, Apple uses Motorola chips. Motorola just can't match Intel." But those days are long gone.

Unfortunately Windows 7, at least, runs extremely well and feels faster and snappier on a mac vs. it's native OSX install. OSX is not that efficient or better than Windows 7, in that sense. If this weren't true I would agree with you, but it's just not the case. I would love it to be so however.

I'd also love to get that native AVCHD view and editing Apple. It's handled incredibly in Windows, can we finally get the same capabilities?

 

[jmpage2]

Regarding the "Mac Value Equation:"

Looking at the specs above, it really does look like Apple charges an absolute premium for their hardware. A lower powered machine from Apple costs more than a higher powered machine from a vendor which runs Windows.

One counter argument might be that OSX runs so well, Apple can afford to spec out their machines with low-end processors, and they still beat the pants off PCs for so many tasks (for example, I just went to check my email on my wife's PC and Firefox took almost a minute to fire up. Maddening!).

But, if HP can build a machine for the consumer with relatively high specs like those listed above for under a grand, why can't Apple?

Put another way: should the consumer really be "punished" by Apple with low end specs on their consumer machines, simply because OSX runs so well that it closes the gap left by Apple's insistence on "hobbled" hardware?

Just think how incredibly nicely OSX would run on those specs listed above. I used to be an apologist for Apple along these lines: "Well, Apple uses Motorola chips. Motorola just can't match Intel." But those days are long gone.

It is difficult to compare a desktop computer to an all in one like the iMac. If you don't care about the machine footprint, noise level, cable clutter, etc, then absolutely there is more computing power per dollar to be had with Windows desktop machines.

The iMac, to keep the super small profile and quiet operation uses a mix of desktop and laptop parts. You pay a premium for that, no question about it. When the current version of the iMac was introduced a couple of years ago it was actually a pretty good value proposition.

Since that time the value proposition has slipped further and further as the PC world have moved to higher performance video solutions and quad core processors, as well as 6GB of RAM becoming the norm in most $1000 machines.

This is why it would be expected that Apple might move to i7 architecture to remain competitive, but apparently it is not meant to be, at least not yet anyways.

 

[gunraidan]

Or maybe the reason they aren't seeing much improvement is that the applications they use, such as Final Cut, CS4, Premier, etc, aren't currently written to take advantage of GCD.

This is what I've been saying the whole time.

Are you seriously just arguing for the sake of arguing?

 

[Eidorian]

It is difficult to compare a desktop computer to an all in one like the iMac. If you don't care about the machine footprint, noise level, cable clutter, etc, then absolutely there is more computing power per dollar to be had with Windows desktop machines.

The iMac, to keep the super small profile and quiet operation uses a mix of desktop and laptop parts. You pay a premium for that, no question about it. When the current version of the iMac was introduced a couple of years ago it was actually a pretty good value proposition.

Since that time the value proposition has slipped further and further as the PC world have moved to higher performance video solutions and quad core processors, as well as 6GB of RAM becoming the norm in most $1000 machines.

This is why it would be expected that Apple might move to i7 architecture to remain competitive, but apparently it is not meant to be, at least not yet anyways.

There's even some all-in-one competition at $1,000 and under but the sales don't seem to going well compared to the iMac.

A quad core Q8200 Dell Studio 19" with a touch screen runs around $1,000 and sports the ever so lovely 9400. It might be the desktop variant that does have higher clock speeds compared to the mobile one.

The XPS One runs on the high end but the Q8200 needs to be replaced by some Q9505S/Q9550S

 

[jmpage2]

This is what I've been saying the whole time.

Are you seriously just arguing for the sake of arguing?

What I have been doing is pointing out the many errors in your statements. You state that programmers have only just gotten a grip on dual core architecture and that it will be another three years for them to make the move to quad core.

This is patently absurd and shows you have limited understanding about how easily programming projects can be written (or simply modified) to take advantage of an unlimited number of cores in SL. Some developers were able to modify their projects to take advantage of GCD in a matter of weeks. Not years as you indicate.

I'm done discussing it with you as you obviously have no understanding of how it works and instead choose to argue pedantically that a quad upgade to the iMac would not provide much benefit.

 

[anooosy]

unibody mac mini

I would love to see a unibody mac mini.... that would be an insta purchase for me

 

[jmpage2]

Sadly some of us need more than Core 2 Duo, again.

Well, the high price of clarksfield puts Apple in a tough spot. They probably could'nt justify putting it into anything other than a top of the line iMac, but they won't do that because it requires a different motherboard and there is no way there are going to be multiple mobo's in different iMacs within the same size.

The more affordable options such as the i5 don't have the right thermal characteristics for the iMac, unless apple pulls a unicorn out of their ass with some cool new thermal tech.

All of this leaves only the 2.66 Xeon as a choice, but they would have to get specially binned ones from Intel so they could have different speed bumps to get users into the higher end machines.

Apple have also been very reluctant to go down in clock speed from generation to generation. The drop from a 3.06 c2d to a 2.66 xeon will be a hard sell to many Apple customers and apple know it.

 

[lazyrighteye]

Don't think that is going to happen. It would defeat the concept of the iMac.

Re: not happening - Unless one could remove the thin display (tablet?) and take that with. Tho I suppose that would require a much larger media event than it appears we'll see. Was just a fun and unoriginal prediction.

Re: defeat the concept of the iMac - Huh? If the concept of a iMac is "all-in-one," then my prediction stays true (with a twist).

Regardless, newsflash - thin is in (hello over priced and poorly spec'd Samsung LED TVs or iPod touch or...). When it comes to electronics, current consumer spending trends seem to suggest they care more about the thinness of their devices than performance. Which should fit perfectly in the iMac target demo's wheelhouse. This demo surfs, email, chat, Word, iLife, iTunes, etc. And these user habits are easily met with a laptop-grade processor. Thus, I fully expect thinner iMacs.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

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

It's apparently the same in the UK. I get a UK Mac magazine called "MacFormat" which often complains about Apple and Adobe simply swapping the dollar symbol for a pound sterling symbol ... I wish they'd do the same here in New Zealand where the cheapest iMac is about NZ$2500.

 

[Buzz Bumble]

I don't care about quad core, mainly because I don't know what it does.

It means nothing - most software doesn't even use the two dual cores or 64bit properly. To really take advatage of these the software needs to be properly updated by the companies ... and the companies won't bother while most people don't have them (catch 22).

 

[Buzz Bumble]

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

Nope. Apple was looking at replacing the hard drive with 5.25" floppies, but has now decided to go with 8" floppy disks instead (Snow Leopard will come on about 7,000 disks).

 

[hiimamac]

There's even some all-in-one competition at $1,000 and under but the sales don't seem to going well compared to the iMac.

true but with most IT firms saying they will upgrade to win 7 with a lot if touch interfaces, plus everyone on XP upgrading to Win 7, I think this may put apple in a bind if the new iMacs are still under powered.
Unless if course, this is Apple way of milking the consumer until Win 7 comes out, then release the machines everyone here seems to want.

Wouldn't be the first time Apple did this. Guess that's why the do so well, so my advice, wait until win 7 comes out and see what refresh Apple has just in time for January.

Peace.

 

[krzyglue]

I, or rather my wife has a dell laptop with specs that put it ahead of my white macbook by a large margin - processor, ram, hard drive, video card... it's nowhere near as fast in real life usage. Startup, wake from sleep, connecting to wireless networks, playing back video, multitasking, not to mention all the software I can run that she can't... I do love the hdmi output though... ANYway - specs don't tell the whole story.

-Matt

I certainly hope that "playing back video" isn't faster. Do the people sound like chipmunks?

 

[frosse]

I firmly believe that the Mac Mini needs to be jet black with a backlit white Apple logo.

Too tacky. And not gonna happen with their all-aluminum product base.

It's apparently the same in the UK. I get a UK Mac magazine called "MacFormat" which often complains about Apple and Adobe simply swapping the dollar symbol for a pound sterling symbol ... I wish they'd do the same here in New Zealand where the cheapest iMac is about NZ$2500.

Same discussion has been going on here in Sweden, Apple simply swaps the USD for a SEK.

 

[Hj12345]

But skip the event, instead add a number of movies which show the news Imac/Macbook closely. It goes much faster, better, and we do not have any undue fuss and waiting for events to start.

A launch tomorrow, it would not be entirely wrong.

Please. I can not wait longer.

 

[elberggreno]

Too tacky. And not gonna happen with their all-aluminum product base.


Same discussion has been going on here in Sweden, Apple simply swaps the USD for a SEK.

Ouh, that would give us some sweet prices on mac's no?

 

[Heilage]

Too tacky. And not gonna happen with their all-aluminum product base.


Same discussion has been going on here in Sweden, Apple simply swaps the USD for a SEK.

I believe an *10 has to be added as well, or else I would have three Mac Pros here.

 

[shoesclothes01]

I hope they really do give it some 'muscle' and an appealing (read lower) price

 

[sushiman]

But skip the event, instead add a number of movies which show the news Imac/Macbook closely. It goes much faster, better, and we do not have any undue fuss and waiting for events to start.

A launch tomorrow, it would not be entirely wrong.

Please. I can not wait longer.

Have to admit I am getting impatient too after reading all the rumors
and everybody's reactions / thoughts / projections / etc...And I'm still on the fence with re: to sticking witn Windows ( 7 ) or going Apple . Seriously considering an iMac as I have no need for a laptop , but waiting to see what's coming before making the final decision .

 

[frosse]

I believe an *10 has to be added as well, or else I would have three Mac Pros here.

Haha my mistake.

 

[johnrs]

Have to admit I am getting impatient too after reading all the rumors
and everybody's reactions / thoughts / projections / etc...And I'm still on the fence with re: to sticking witn Windows ( 7 ) or going Apple . Seriously considering an iMac as I have no need for a laptop , but waiting to see what's coming before making the final decision .

Have to agree.. I sold my MBP 3 weeks back and was ready to get an iMac the following day until I read the stories on this site about a possible new iMac so I decided to hold off. It would have been nice to get some solid info on what this new iMac might hold. With the weekends stuff about googles add sense stuff I am hoping for tomorrow too

I am interested in what GFX update might be there

 

[duck apple]

Why do so many people criticize great minimalist products like the Mac mini or ...?
What it has now is plenty fast, and with 4 GB of ram in there, I think it'll do just fine on performance.

The Mac mini is simple and perfect, almost like the NeXTcube or G4 cube reincarnated. For those who hate it so much, try to understand why it appeals to people like me. There is no need for nasty comments.

Agree!

The 2009 Mini is a super quiet and fast runner, even with the baseline 2.0GHz CPU. Gamers should not look here or any all-in-one box since your game will outgrow whatever GPU in nor more than 6 months.

But, it would be even better if we could jam in 8 GB of DRAM. You know, iPhoto + one or two VMs consume a lot of memory.

 

[ajzman]

Come on now Apple, who cares about an "even more slimmer design"? I mean, it's not like I'm going to mount my new iMac to the wall, like an "ultra slim LED-TV", now is it...? Nope, please give my a faster processor, GPU and Blu-ray instead, then you might get my attention...