Sidebar Sidebar
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?

Uncle Pinny said:
2. Some have questions whether there will be i7 Mobile chips in the new iMac. I firmly believe there will be as there doesn't appear to be any C2D to move up to for a spec bump. Other manufacturers are using them in laptops soon to ship, and if they can, Apple can.
Click to expand...
They could use custom Penryns at 3.2/3.33 GHz like what happened last year.

Uncle Pinny said:
Not sure about these people quoting retail prices as evidence that the i7 Mobile is too expensive - since when would Apple pay retail for tens if not hundreds of thousands of processors?
Click to expand...
The Penryn CPUs that have the same clock speeds as the ones in the iMac are similar in price to the bottom two Clarksfields, but Apple is using custom CPUs that we don't know the prices of.

Uncle Pinny said:
3. Re-design. I for one don't think there will be 'much' in the way of a redesign. Yes, we've seen the thinner google ads but a few less mm here and there would seem logical if the (likely) move to LED screens happens. Thinner yes, full re-design, who knows. I know that from looking at the 24" cinema display next to a current iMac there is very little difference (apart from the chin and colour of the back). So slight redesign, maybe, but let's face it, it's not going to be as drastic as the jump from white plastic to aluminium.
Click to expand...
I think it will be similar (at least externally) to the move from the original iMac G5 to the iSight iMac G5.

So it looks like the update will be in between a normal update and a redesign. Not a minor update.
 
I see lots of talk about people wont buy unless quad core but I fail to see why they need the quad core. Surely the current top imac is well capable of running adobe products, HD video editing and any thing else you care to through at it. Hell I can do all that on my MacBook Pro. I HD edit and design graphics and web sites.

The only reason I can see you need more power if for games. I to have a high end PC, but to be honest the power is used for gaming. I went Mac for the slick, straight forward systems it runs, the good designs, the family atmosphere and because after 35 years of using PC's I just wanna use the equipment, not spend hours tweaking and getting things to work.

At the moment I am ready to upgrade to the top 15" Macbook pro but waiting to see if there are price cuts on the iMAc. I just might go a 3Gig HD4850 yet. Either machine I can see will give me at least 2 years and surely will do all you need it to

Am I missing something..
 
CarloUK said:
I see lots of talk about people wont buy unless quad core but I fail to see why they need the quad core. Surely the current top imac is well capable of running adobe products, HD video editing and any thing else you care to through at it. Hell I can do all that on my MacBook Pro. I HD edit and design graphics and web sites.

The only reason I can see you need more power if for games. I to have a high end PC, but to be honest the power is used for gaming. I went Mac for the slick, straight forward systems it runs, the good designs, the family atmosphere and because after 35 years of using PC's I just wanna use the equipment, not spend hours tweaking and getting things to work.

At the moment I am ready to upgrade to the top 15" Macbook pro but waiting to see if there are price cuts on the iMAc. I just might go a 3Gig HD4850 yet. Either machine I can see will give me at least 2 years and surely will do all you need it to

Am I missing something..
Click to expand...
You can get a quad core Micro ATX tower for $500-600 elsewhere. Budget quad core processors have been out for 2 years now. It is what passes for midrange right now.

If you're one a sub-$500 budget I can understand why you'd only be looking at dual cores.
 
CarloUK said:
I see lots of talk about people wont buy unless quad core but I fail to see why they need the quad core. Surely the current top imac is well capable of running adobe products, HD video editing and any thing else you care to through at it. Hell I can do all that on my MacBook Pro. I HD edit and design graphics and web sites.

The only reason I can see you need more power if for games. I to have a high end PC, but to be honest the power is used for gaming. I went Mac for the slick, straight forward systems it runs, the good designs, the family atmosphere and because after 35 years of using PC's I just wanna use the equipment, not spend hours tweaking and getting things to work.

At the moment I am ready to upgrade to the top 15" Macbook pro but waiting to see if there are price cuts on the iMAc. I just might go a 3Gig HD4850 yet. Either machine I can see will give me at least 2 years and surely will do all you need it to

Am I missing something..
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're missing the fact that everything can benefit from 2 more cores; video rendering, music, photos, etc if the app can handle 4 cores, then there's a good reason to use it.
 
Why "No Invites", maybe...

If Apple refreshes/bumps/updates next week, I doubt they would have a media event. It would be a waste of money to try to hold a press event when most of the press has plans to attend W7 release events. I think they would more likely funnel money into an ad campaign where they would reach a lot more potential customers.

So, if they do it next week, this could explain why "no invites".
 
CarloUK said:
I see lots of talk about people wont buy unless quad core but I fail to see why they need the quad core. Surely the current top imac is well capable of running adobe products, HD video editing and any thing else you care to through at it. Hell I can do all that on my MacBook Pro. I HD edit and design graphics and web sites.

The only reason I can see you need more power if for games. I to have a high end PC, but to be honest the power is used for gaming. I went Mac for the slick, straight forward systems it runs, the good designs, the family atmosphere and because after 35 years of using PC's I just wanna use the equipment, not spend hours tweaking and getting things to work.

At the moment I am ready to upgrade to the top 15" Macbook pro but waiting to see if there are price cuts on the iMAc. I just might go a 3Gig HD4850 yet. Either machine I can see will give me at least 2 years and surely will do all you need it to

Am I missing something..
Click to expand...

Simple: FCS - you will really, really, really benefit from quad chips. I need that, but at the same time I have neither the budget nor the space for a MP which starts at $2500 plus a great deal more if you spring for an ACD. With the iMac, I can get away with spending under $2K total. Besides, SL is optimized for multicore computing, and it seems silly to waste that on ancient hardware that cannot take advantage of it. It is ridiculous that Apple controls the whole hardware-software stack, and cannot manage to have everything working on all cylinders... I mean, OK, the Mini is a budget system, so if it can't run at 64-bit and take full advantage of SL, I can understand, sort of. But not to have anything except possibly the high end of MP do it? Wow. Just wow. It seems their hardware - WHICH THEY CONTROL 100% - has fallen way behind their software. Not impressed.
 
I'm dying for some new plastic MacBooks... I liked aluminum before but the black trim isn't my favorite. I want some thinner white MacBooks!!!
 
CarloUK said:
Am I missing something..
Click to expand...

What you are missing is that when someone buys an iMac the second the cha-ching of the cash register leaves the air, that MB+CPU+Gfx is starting to slide.

I personally do not want a Dual Core processor in 3 years when GCD is pervasive in the OS, and even the low end models are assumed to be running 8+ threads at time as just a matter of fact.

I also do not want to shell out for a 7 month old model, when I am also looking at PC's that are using lynnfield's and newer discrete graphics.
 
Latest Scoop.

I found a talkative Apple Store manager. All the managers are going to Cupertino next week, but it's for thier annual meeting. Even the Apple Store staff have heard all the rumors and are waiting. But they don't know anything, just like us. They also have product in inventory. I also talked to my local Best Buy guy and they have iMacs in stock, they have less than normal, but they have some.

Don't know this puts us on this thread, but who knows.
 
CarloUK said:
I see lots of talk about people wont buy unless quad core but I fail to see why they need the quad core. Surely the current top imac is well capable of running adobe products, HD video editing and any thing else you care to through at it. Hell I can do all that on my MacBook Pro. I HD edit and design graphics and web sites.

<snip>

Am I missing something..
Click to expand...

Yep. You're missing the fact that most people are incredibly stupid and greedy ... just like Home Improvement's Tim 'the toolman' Taylor, they want "more power" {insert monkey grunting sound} without actually needing it or knowing why they want it. :rolleyes:

Most software doesn't even use 2 cores, let alone 4, 8, etc. There are of course professional companies with expensive software where faster computers means less time, but for the average user the PowerPC G3 was more than adequate for typing in Word, web browsing and email - it's only because of new twiddly (and largely unnecessary) Internet toys that people believe they need more.
 
Buzz Bumble said:
Yep. You're missing the fact that most people are incredibly stupid and greedy ... just like Home Improvement's Tim 'the toolman' Taylor, they want "more power" {insert monkey grunting sound} without actually needing it or knowing why they want it. :rolleyes:

Most software doesn't even use 2 cores, let alone 4, 8, etc. There are of course professional companies with expensive software where faster computers means less time, but for the average user the PowerPC G3 was more than adequate for typing in Word, web browsing and email - it's only because of new twiddly (and largely unnecessary) Internet toys that people believe they need more.
Click to expand...

Final Cut, Compressor, Handbrake, and EyeTV make use 4 and 8 cores. I imagine iMovie does as well.

The Clarksfield chips, because of Turbo Boost, will benefit everyone. Those apps on single and dual core threads will have the same level of performance (or better) as the current dual core chips, while any quad core apps will get a nice performance boost.

Before Turbo Boost, I agree that for most consumers a higher clocked dual core chip was better than a low clocked quad. That is not the same debate anymore since Nehalem.

Add this to Grand Central Terminal, and it makes sense for Apple to move toward more cores.
 
WOW
I AM WAITING
I really can't wait to get a new iMac, but I don't wanna buy one now, might as well wait it out.
can someone please tell me if it'll be cheaper or more expensive than it is now?
 
supinternet said:
WOW
I AM WAITING
I really can't wait to get a new iMac, but I don't wanna buy one now, might as well wait it out.
can someone please tell me if it'll be cheaper or more expensive than it is now?
Click to expand...

Considering the consumer behavior going forward, I'd expect them to be the same price or slightly cheaper, it's hard to imagine they'd make 'em more expensive.
 
gunraidan said:
Both of these are hilarious quotes.
Click to expand...

Comedians always say the truth is the funniest. :cool:

AMD has had good priced Quadcore for yonks. They just broke another entry barrier with the Athlon II X4. Quadcore is making its way into the entry market and its name is AMD.

Apple could make their macs run with Semprons/Celerons and people would still buy them. This might be a bit fanboyish of me but if Apple used AMD/ATi in their macs I'd dip into my University fund and buy one ASAP.
 
gunraidan said:
I could buy a cheap Quad-Core in 2007? I couldn't even find a cheap one in 2008.




Do you even know what "budget" means?
Click to expand...

maybe you should try using the rest of the Internet instead of apple.com

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103706

that one is $99 TODAY, now 2 years ago quad cores started at ~$266 for a Q6600 when the 45nm cores were released 65nm's pricing went into the ground as it became out of date/budget equipment.

$266 is pretty cheap, the cost of a mid tower with that cpu would only be around $850 with a deticated 512MB video card
 
gunraidan said:
I could buy a cheap Quad-Core in 2007? I couldn't even find a cheap one in 2008.
Do you even know what "budget" means?
Click to expand...

Peoples definition of "cheap" and "budget" changes in their environment.
I consider Phenom 2s to be cheap because i7 processors can rank up prices up to and including $2k.

Most expensive Phenom 2:
http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentview.asp?partid=10165

The only i7 that outperforms it by a justifiable amount:
http://www.computerlounge.co.nz/components/componentview.asp?partid=9204

Now tell me that AMD doesnt make decent cheap quad cores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back