Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.

Mac Pro was just updated in August. They usually wait at least a year before updating the Pros, usually longer.
 
Sandy Bridge Xeon's are due in November.

I wouldn't be surprised if the iMac and new Mac mini are the replacement for the Mac Pro.

With Thunderbolt, you will be able to connect the new iMac or Mac mini of them to Fibre Channel arrays, have three displays or use external PCI chassis for existing PCIe cards. iMac CPU performance with the desktop Sandy Bridge CPUs will exceed most Mac Pro configurations. The new iMac's ability to use 32GB of RAM matches the Mac Pro too. You can configure the iMac using SSDs for less than the price of the Mac Pro too.

By the time November comes around, Thunderbolt may cause the death of the Mac Pro.

I've been thinking something similar to this since the initial Lightpeak rumors. External is the way to go.

However, that won't solve the problem of lacking workstation class video, processors and things like ECC RAM.
 
Please bring back the 24"! 21" - too small. 27" - too big. 24" - just right!

I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.

I use a 24" Dell monitor alongside my 27" iMac, and physically the 27" is hardly any bigger. The main difference is that the 27" is much higher resolution, but that's a useful for fitting more on the screen.
 
Now I can rid myself of my 27" i7 2009 iMac.

Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:

- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)

Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.
 
I am going to be in the market to replace my 24" 2.8 rev. A aluminum iMac (Aug 2007) when these come out with a new 27". I will be consolidating to an iMac and iPad 2 since I no longer feel the need for a 13" MacBook Pro as well.

Sell the MacBook Pro and iMac to fund the new iMac or close to it. However, I will wait until later in the summer and get a 10.7 Lion pre-loaded machine. No sense in buying that close to a major OS update.
 
Balls! I just bought a new 27in iMac like 3-4 weeks ago! Oh well, I have been wanting replace my PC with a mac for like over a year, and I love it.

I agree! I love my ibeast fully loaded except for only 8 gb of ram. Sandy bridge will blow it out of the water. Sigh...
 
Now I can rid myself of my 27" i7 2009 iMac.

Things that I would see/would like to see on the new iMacs:

- Thunderbolt (2 ports would be nice)
- Target DisplayPort Mode with HDMI + HDMI audio in, without needing to fully power up the entire computer (and a toggle that doesn't require an Apple keyboard)
- USB3 (I know Intel isn't natively putting USB3 on their chipsets until Ivy Bridge, but Apple could do the right thing and add this)
- get rid of the internal speakers as an option for more cooling
- at least a Radeon 6850 or GeForce GTX 560 Ti (preferably the nVidia card for CUDA/HW accelerated stuff) with at least 1 (2 please) GB of GDDR5 (I'm still boggled why they even offered a 256MB 6490 on the MacBook Pro)
- easily accessible 2.5" port for an SSD (doubt it)
- i7-2600 at the high end (Apple won't sell the K version, unless they go nuts and allow overclocking)
- a side mounted USB port or 2 would be nice, hell, more USB ports period (6-8) would be nice
- a second Firewire 800 (or 1600 if Apple is feeling frisky) port
- matte screen option (this, like the 2.5" bay, has a snowballs' chance in hell)
- Blu-Ray (see my note on the matte screen)

Wonder if Apple will allow for the full 32GB support that the Sandy Bridge processors can fully take, and the DDR3-1600 speeds, since they are limiting both on the MacBook Pros at the moment.

Ha ha ha ha! GTX 560 ti! Youre a funny guy! Apple always fails on it's GPU choices. :(
 
Great timing as I'll be itching for an upgrade soon from my 2008 iMac. Thing is, why can't Apple make a model in between the 21" and 27". Maybe a 24". I have a 20" iMac, and I want larger screen for my next one, but 27" is just too big. 24" would be nice.
 
Thanks Captain Obvious.

My cousin's brother's friend's dad's relative who works for Apple said to wait for the updates as well before purchasing. He is very reliable.
 
As for proc choices, I don't see Apple putting in a 2x00(S) processor.

- marketing would suck for it (why only 2.8GHz stock on the 2600S vs 3.4GHz stock on the 2600?)
- Intel charges more for the S models (dunno if that carries over to Apple, but maybe)
- the 27" has carried the i7-860 and i7-870 easily. Those are both 95W TDP processors. 2600S -> 65W TDP and the 2600/2600K -> 95W TDP. So the TDP doesn't increase, but the speed does.
 
Honestly, if it made any sense whatsoever then Apple wouldn't have killed it. Do the math. You're living in the past, kid.

As an ex-kid I take extreme offense to that statement. Besides, are you really going to tell me Apple makes sense all the time? I guarantee Apple made more money off the 24inch iMac than they did the MacPro for that period...now, with the introduction of the 27inch they wanted to diversify the iMac line more so...hence the 21.5.

My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)
 
Hey. A boy can dream, right?

Remember when Apple put the latest and greatest GPUs in their computers? /looks back to the blue and white G3 keynote

Im with you dude...I see NO reason that apple couldnt pony up for a legitimate GPU. Especially since the 27iMac has alot of pixels to push...heck, the base GPU should have a GB of frame buffer at least. Ahhh, base 6850, 150.00 upgrade gets you a 6950 :D
 
As an ex-kid I take extreme offense to that statement. Besides, are you really going to tell me Apple makes sense all the time? I guarantee Apple made more money off the 24inch iMac than they did the MacPro for that period...now, with the introduction of the 27inch they wanted to diversify the iMac line more so...hence the 21.5.

My beef with your original statement stands (as its UBER subjective)...why is a 24inch screen "useless"? What if Apple came out with a 14inch MBP, and I said the 15inch was "useless". Uhhh, thats called an OPINION...look it up grand dad;)

Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.