I'm in my 14 day return period and the only reason I might change to the new one if they put some good GFX.
I really need it lol!
I really need it lol!
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.
Retail Sources Confirm iMac Refresh
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think there won't be anything very exciting next Tuesday. I will probably wait till next update which I guess will be around January 09. Here is my wish list for that update other than the new platform and processor speeds:
- 30" screen.
- Chinless design. I don't mind if it will have a slightly wider profile. This way, maybe they can use some desktop components instead of expensive laptop parts.
- Multitouch trackpad on keyboard.
- 2 gb standard RAM upgradeable to at least 8 gb. I prefer less standard RAM to save money.
- More adjustable stand.
- Better graphic card options.
- eSATA port.
- Blu ray option.
First, I have had a Matte MB Pro 2.2 for 6 months, then when the product refresh came out last month, I got a 2.4 Glossy from an Apple friend, new for $1500, (used the money I sold from the 2.2, how sweet is that)
First off, you won't see much difference, but the cache is a bit larger in the 2.4 older than the 2.4 newer, won't matter much except maybe motion and not noticeable.
Heat is about the same if you RAMP them both up, full throttle. Benchmarks show a small increase and maybe about 20 minutes more battery. That said, the MACBOOK and its 13" (.3) screen still has the best battery life (does anyone every realize that? Its like 2+ hours more).....
Anyway, in a dark room (studio) you won't see a difference in MATTE VS GLOSSY, yet, contrary to what people believe, in a LIT room, the GLOSSY looks more vivid and you don't normally see reflections and I am around them all day.
Still, am glad I got the 2.4 Glossy with a larger GPU, next refresh, I should get my money back and then some, and get the latest and greatest once again.
This being said, I will bring this up again, (AND AGAIN if need be), Apple is to chicken to put a decent graphic card in a mini for fear the pros would use them. My reply, SO WHAT! WHO CARES! We make up a fraction of the market. Apple needs to get over themself ($600 for RAM that costs $104 at New Egg?), and put in a decent graphic card (all hail to OSX INSANE MAC HACK N TOSH), as until then, I fully support the hacks and the building of a system that costs $500 that competes with a Mac Pro as they (Apple) are still missing the sub market which is huge.
Problem is, they would have to refresh the MAC BOOKS too and if they did that (added good graphics all around), the only thing I could think of that would set the Mac Book Pro apart would be, say a 4 core, 512 Graphic card, which in my opinion, may be worth $1999.00 as I would never pay $2499 for the machine I have. Yet am glad I saved $1000.00 as this machine is powerful and you can throw plug in after plug in into it as well as run UNREAL 3 in WIN XP with NO problems.
Fine OS, 100X better than Windows (and I used to be a mac hater, rather, a truth seeker) as back in the day, a G4 was NOT the MOBILE workstation (AUDIO) that places like SWEETWATER claimed it was as it was trumped by AMD and INTEL. This is no longer the case. Now they "are" the best and hassle free machines and once you get used to the OS, and then stumble onto someones PC, you're sort of like "uggg, why doesn't windows do this (Command Tab, Commad Q), and little things that you miss almost instantly.
Still, Apple needs to release a new MINI and MACBOOK with a decent Graphic card - -
If they (APPLE) did, how do you think they could differentiate themselves with the new macbook pro?
Peace
First, I have had a Matte MB Pro 2.2 for 6 months, then when the product refresh came out last month, I got a 2.4 Glossy from an Apple friend, new for $1500, (used the money I sold from the 2.2, how sweet is that)
First off, you won't see much difference, but the cache is a bit larger in the 2.4 older than the 2.4 newer, won't matter much except maybe motion and not noticeable.
Heat is about the same if you RAMP them both up, full throttle. Benchmarks show a small increase and maybe about 20 minutes more battery. That said, the MACBOOK and its 13" (.3) screen still has the best battery life (does anyone every realize that? Its like 2+ hours more).....
Anyway, in a dark room (studio) you won't see a difference in MATTE VS GLOSSY, yet, contrary to what people believe, in a LIT room, the GLOSSY looks more vivid and you don't normally see reflections and I am around them all day.
Still, am glad I got the 2.4 Glossy with a larger GPU, next refresh, I should get my money back and then some, and get the latest and greatest once again.
This being said, I will bring this up again, (AND AGAIN if need be), Apple is to chicken to put a decent graphic card in a mini for fear the pros would use them. My reply, SO WHAT! WHO CARES! We make up a fraction of the market. Apple needs to get over themself ($600 for RAM that costs $104 at New Egg?), and put in a decent graphic card (all hail to OSX INSANE MAC HACK N TOSH), as until then, I fully support the hacks and the building of a system that costs $500 that competes with a Mac Pro as they (Apple) are still missing the sub market which is huge.
Problem is, they would have to refresh the MAC BOOKS too and if they did that (added good graphics all around), the only thing I could think of that would set the Mac Book Pro apart would be, say a 4 core, 512 Graphic card, which in my opinion, may be worth $1999.00 as I would never pay $2499 for the machine I have. Yet am glad I saved $1000.00 as this machine is powerful and you can throw plug in after plug in into it as well as run UNREAL 3 in WIN XP with NO problems.
Fine OS, 100X better than Windows (and I used to be a mac hater, rather, a truth seeker) as back in the day, a G4 was NOT the MOBILE workstation (AUDIO) that places like SWEETWATER claimed it was as it was trumped by AMD and INTEL. This is no longer the case. Now they "are" the best and hassle free machines and once you get used to the OS, and then stumble onto someones PC, you're sort of like "uggg, why doesn't windows do this (Command Tab, Commad Q), and little things that you miss almost instantly.
Still, Apple needs to release a new MINI and MACBOOK with a decent Graphic card - -
If they (APPLE) did, how do you think they could differentiate themselves with the new macbook pro?
Peace
Can someone explain to me how this can be? If you have the same panel behind two different pieces of glass, then it seems to me the only thing you can do is degrade the saturation, not boost it. Same goes for greyscale-- because of the scatter effect I described above, the matte display will have lower contrast than the gloss. So while it may be that you've gotten used to the desaturated output from a matte display and the glossy display seems more saturated as a result, what you should want in a professional display is maximum saturation and contrast which you would calibrate down to match your output medium.
What is it that people want to upgrade in their machine? It's not like Macs are awash in graphics card options-- most machines have one available, and if you're lucky maybe you can upgrade it once if the bus doesn't change before the next card comes out. Memory is the only thing I can think of and that can be upgraded-- albeit with a putty knife.
What you should want in a professional display more than maximum saturation and contrast is having it not act as a mirror. There's a reason the MacBook Pro is optionally available with matte display while the consumer-grade products MacBook and iMac are not.
It's remarkable how far with the knee-jerk defense some of you will go. It's easy to see that Apple has a display on their hands that is quite unpopular with a significant number of computer users. But let me follow the bouncing ball of your logic.
If it's okay for me, it must be okay with you because all human beings are exactly the same and have the same opinions/needs/desires.
Gotcha.
Think of some food that you absolutely despise or find repulsive: liver, spinach, cabbage, squid, whatever. Somewhere in the world there are people who love those foods. Go buy yourself some and eat it for the next week straight and "stop ur whining." If they like it, you must like it too.
The funny thing is that back in the days of "all-matte" Apple screens, people like you always whined on MacRumors about why Apple laptops did NOT have the "wonderful" TruBrite or XBrite screens of crappy PCs...now they do (at least in option) and it "sucks"...go figure...
Aside from not answering my question, or addressing the contrast/saturation issue I was responding to, if you're a professional you won't do fine color work with a bright light aimed at the display. That's a little like doing an audio mix down with a vacuum cleaner in the room.What you should want in a professional display more than maximum saturation and contrast is having it not act as a mirror. There's a reason the MacBook Pro is optionally available with matte display while the consumer-grade products MacBook and iMac are not.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
This is good news. I hope they do actually do more than just a speed/processor bump. I would like to see better graphics and larger HDs available.
This is good news. I hope they do actually do more than just a speed/processor bump. I would like to see better graphics and larger HDs available.
What you should want in a professional display more than maximum saturation and contrast is having it not act as a mirror. There's a reason the MacBook Pro is optionally available with matte display while the consumer-grade products MacBook and iMac are not.
The macbook pro is optionally available with glossy, not the other way around.
Glossy displays are not colour accurate. Some professional would not accept inaccurate colours coming from a glossy display.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossy_display
Thanks for the wild goose chase. I read the wikipedia article, found where xhambonex plagiarized his post from, tracked the footnoted reference to a ranting blog post on ars-technica, and not only didn't find an explanation of how the glass can magically saturate the image beyond what the panel itself can output, but now can't figure out how that reference was meant to support the wikipedia statement.
Ha ha ha ha, thats a good one.
Im thinking now this iMac updates going to be a bit of a yawner...
The mini is $100 - $200 over priced.
you can't get away with now that they are on X86 it may of been ok in the PPC days.
They may have new Mac Book Pros at WWDC.
also apple should have a $1200 to $2000 desktop like they had back in the PPC days.
I'm pretty sure the current iMacs use desktop graphics cards.
"ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO graphics processor" = Desktop.
Sure why not? MacPros can always add an eSATA card. The iMac is a desktop machine with no upgradeable slots. Also doesn't have the power restrictions or space restrictions of a laptop. Sure. Put eSATA on it, then add it too the MBP later at some point.Do you really believe that eSATA will make its introduction on an iMac before a MacPro or even a MBP.
First, I have had a Matte MB Pro 2.2 for 6 months, then when the product refresh came out last month, I got a 2.4 Glossy from an Apple friend, new for $1500, (used the money I sold from the 2.2, how sweet is that)
First off, you won't see much difference, but the cache is a bit larger in the 2.4 older than the 2.4 newer, won't matter much except maybe motion and not noticeable.
Heat is about the same if you RAMP them both up, full throttle. Benchmarks show a small increase and maybe about 20 minutes more battery. That said, the MACBOOK and its 13" (.3) screen still has the best battery life (does anyone every realize that? Its like 2+ hours more).....
Anyway, in a dark room (studio) you won't see a difference in MATTE VS GLOSSY, yet, contrary to what people believe, in a LIT room, the GLOSSY looks more vivid and you don't normally see reflections and I am around them all day.
Still, am glad I got the 2.4 Glossy with a larger GPU, next refresh, I should get my money back and then some, and get the latest and greatest once again.
This being said, I will bring this up again, (AND AGAIN if need be), Apple is to chicken to put a decent graphic card in a mini for fear the pros would use them. My reply, SO WHAT! WHO CARES! We make up a fraction of the market. Apple needs to get over themself ($600 for RAM that costs $104 at New Egg?), and put in a decent graphic card (all hail to OSX INSANE MAC HACK N TOSH), as until then, I fully support the hacks and the building of a system that costs $500 that competes with a Mac Pro as they (Apple) are still missing the sub market which is huge.
Problem is, they would have to refresh the MAC BOOKS too and if they did that (added good graphics all around), the only thing I could think of that would set the Mac Book Pro apart would be, say a 4 core, 512 Graphic card, which in my opinion, may be worth $1999.00 as I would never pay $2499 for the machine I have. Yet am glad I saved $1000.00 as this machine is powerful and you can throw plug in after plug in into it as well as run UNREAL 3 in WIN XP with NO problems.
Fine OS, 100X better than Windows (and I used to be a mac hater, rather, a truth seeker) as back in the day, a G4 was NOT the MOBILE workstation (AUDIO) that places like SWEETWATER claimed it was as it was trumped by AMD and INTEL. This is no longer the case. Now they "are" the best and hassle free machines and once you get used to the OS, and then stumble onto someones PC, you're sort of like "uggg, why doesn't windows do this (Command Tab, Commad Q), and little things that you miss almost instantly.
Still, Apple needs to release a new MINI and MACBOOK with a decent Graphic card - -
If they (APPLE) did, how do you think they could differentiate themselves with the new macbook pro?
Peace
A MB with a dedicated g-card doesn't make any business sense for apple. They charge double the cost of a MB for 2 inches of LCD and a dedicated graphics card. Why would they put a better card in the MB again?
Also, adding a dedicated g-card on a MB would put the battery life very close to the MBP, thus removing a benefit of the MB. I dunno why ppl start bickering about adding a dedicated vcard on a MB. Is it about price? While we are at it, why don't we ask the MB to have a 15.4 inch screen, illuminating keys and a nvidia 8800GT vcard...for the same price as a base MB.
have you seen the prices on the iMac? or do you mean something like the eMac? or a MacPro like desktop?
Apple needs to incorporate a few products to fit everyones needs
1. A Cheap ultraportable laptop to go under the macbook- a 1.5 Core Solo or core Duo ($100) thing with 60gb of HD ($30) (they could put in all those replacement they got from the seagate poopdrives) somethings like 2gb RAM standard or soldered (1GB chips apple buys for like 10-20 dollars) a 10-12" glossy screen and a macbook white case ... put a combo drive in there or no drive (who cares abour that anyways) ... airport and bluetooth (pennies) 1 usb port a 64mb graphics card (i bet they have a few lying around ($25)
price it at $600-900 and have it compete with all the cheap lenovos and acers and truly their put their fists into the ring to fight the pc prices
2. a Mid Priced desktop starting at 799 and stopping at 1299 - FOR GAMERS, it doesnt have to be aluminum again, just have it with a replaceable Processor (let them PLEASE void their warranties!!!!! they want it , and have been asking for it for a LONG time) PCI slots to let them add graphics cards and all that, and 4 slots of RAM so they can go up to 8gb of RAM (third party of course) that way they can build their own Gaming Macs and they can upgrade them easily, let them put their hard drives in... let them add the ram... let them add their cpus and gpus just give them something to look at other than an Alieware... put a combo drive in there theyll put a blue ray in anyways.... just feed the need apple
3. a Matte Screen option on the iMac, people in the pro business or design business just-dont-like-it and you know apple cant piss them off because they are the main mac buyers and they stayed with apple through the black days... and no, they will not fork out an extra 1500 to get a Mac Pro and a Cinema Display... its a price war Apple ...
4. Down that mini price please, its not such a great machine anyways... its selling point is how CHEAP it is... and its not cheap... do the 399 and 599 mini, but please no more 2x512mb.... 2GB has to become STANDARD! if it goes standard more and more people will run Leopard freely and THEY will bring more and more people to the Mac which is what WE want!
5. Lose AT&T and do the iPhone worldwide.... lets get India into production, we need more Apples in stock... the world is LOOKING YOUR WAY APPLE! supply the needs of ALL the people in the world... Bill talks about all the times he had to 'double' Microsofts size to fill the need.... I think Apple is ready for the first doubling...
6. down with screened iPod prices... the chinese are doing sub 50 dollar replicas that people even look at because its just for a price per gb thing...
just go down 10% bucks on each ipod... it will sell a lot more
and dont go back to colors... at least not a lot of colors... 3 is enough (black/white/silver) the color casings they can get from Speck
and lets get powersupport to do the antiglare for the iMac... ill email them
I thought Vista/XP confirmed that it was the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 2600 XT down-clocked to the PRO specs
like Intel Macs...
if Apple is smart, they'll do these things, I'm an Apple Reseller and Apple Service Provider and an Apple Sales Pro and I'm very in tune with what the customers want, and I get these needs from what people have told me ever since I started my business in 2005.
And I know Apple is very strict but they do listen to peoples needs, they just dont make changes abruptly... but they'll see it if they want to become a standard like they once were. at least if they plan to be that in the next 3-4 years...
And maybe its me being in a 3rd world country where all people want is to spend less on technology, some spend a lot but the vast majority is willing to spend 1000-1500 on a complete desktop or portable solution and when I import the systems the only thing left in that price range is the mac mini, so that cuts my market sales to the midlle to higher class, and its just not right...
It might make a huge difference in the amount of power you use from day to day. Performance might be substantially better too. The thing is one can't say for sure due to Intel not always delivering what the people think they should deliver. Intel does fairly well delivering what they say they will but that is often interpetted to mean something different buy the user community.
Like all things computing if you need it buy it now otherwise wait.
Dave