Retail Sources Confirm iMac Refresh

[flopticalcube]

Q9300 is a desktop CPU. iMacs use laptop CPUs.

 

[CWallace]

Q9300 is a desktop CPU. iMacs use laptop CPUs.

And, alas, the QX9300 mobile quad-core won't work in the iMac since it is (evidently) staying with Santa Rosa and that CPU requires Montevina.

So that probably means no quad-core for iMacs until mid to late 2009 and Nehalem.

 

[minik]

Now, I'm really confused with the whole marketing name from Intel.

 

[fuzzielitlpanda]

do you guys think there will be a keynote presentation for the imac refresh?

 

[thunng8]

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.

Did you even read the article? it uses polarization on the glass to saturate the screen. In fact, sometimes too much that it makes the colours innacurate.

 

[uglyjerk]

do you guys think there will be a keynote presentation for the imac refresh?

I don't think that there will be a keynote for this iMac refresh. Just a product launch.

 

[inkswamp]

do you guys think there will be a keynote presentation for the imac refresh?

Only if it would somehow sell more iPhones.

 

[QCassidy352]

without any real gpu upgrade this imac refresh is just a f****** joke, because that's what it really needs. If they don't -> Welcome Hackintosh

Your name is very appropriate.

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.

Thanks for that. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true!

and might i add, i'm soooo over people complaining about glossy screens...

Same. The great majority of the public think these displays look fantastic (yes, even the 20"! Oh the horror!), and the matte option is not coming back on the imac. Get over it, or buy something else.

 

[jashic]

Thought I replied to this, hmmmmmmm.

Apple Macbook 2nd GEN, still crappy gaming but OPEN GL went from 131% to 171% with Leopard upgrade.

So, what does apple do? They cripple the OPEN GL and it now benchmarks at 71%, so, you can't do anything on it except word processing.

They knew you couldn't play games on it but still, they crippled it for FEAR apples pro users who make up less than 1% might use it for motion. Remember when the MB first came out? Barefeats reported you could use motion. So, if you can't play games on it, why kill it? Because Apple is greed and fear driving.

Now, lets say you want GAMING and do AUDIO/VIDEO work.

Okay, you buy a iMAC, its not what you want, as you wanted a laptop, but you suffer and suck it up. But now what happens?

The Mac Pro and MBP both use Texas Instruments for FIREWIRE.
The Macbook and iMAC use a cheaper chip set which causes all kinds of problems, not only for the pro, but mom and pop users and iMovie (do a search at the Apple thread in iMovie for Camcorders).

So apple has essencitally BOXED you in.

You can't use a laptop for games, never could.
You can't use a mini for games.
So you buy a iMac thinking you can at least play games and maybe some audio work. Nope, cra ppy firewire causes problems.
Maybe you buy a Macbook thinking hey, I just need audio, nope, more problems with the firewire.

The only way to ever get good solid performance for audio/video is to buy a mac pro or MBP.

This is unfair business practices and the mom and pops that are buying are the clueless people that don't know the difference between RAM and HD space, it is not the PC gamer or audio/video enthusiast.

They are selling, but the AIR is not, I predicted it would go the way of the cube and all one has to do is look at the numbers reported last week.

Makes me love and hate apple at the same time. Why I have a decent machine (2.4 glossy MBP 256 ram/4MB Cache), I feel for those trying to get in with a machine at a good cost, but if you look closely, you will see that Apple has compromised in one area or the other and the iMac is not the answer.

Its one thing to put in crappy graphics, but its another to add in cheap firewire chipsets for the iMAC and then bringing the MACBOOK from 171% down to 70% in OPEN GL when it never played games anyway, but just to kill off the small .02 % of those that might have used a MAC BOOK for motion.

Terrible business practices.

So if I read this correctly, you want it all in the macbook?

I suggest you go with a windows pc notebook.

 

[thunng8]

The great majority of the public think these displays look fantastic (yes, even the 20"! Oh the horror!), and the matte option is not coming back on the imac. Get over it, or buy something else.

I agree in most cases, it does look better, but if you want accurate colours or are working in an office environment where you cannot change where the light is coming from (ie cannot control the reflections), well, there's no choice in the imac range. If they had an option for an imac matte screen, that would be good.

 

[imac123]

So if this does happen and the refresh occurs on Tuesday... does that mean the items will be in Apple stores for ppl to buy on Tuesday morning? Or is there a delay before they're available?

 

[Analog Kid]

Did you even read the article? it uses polarization on the glass to saturate the screen. In fact, sometimes too much that it makes the colours innacurate.

Did you read my response-- I not only read the article, but read the supporting material (much of which, aside from the decidedly non-technical Ars rant, supports exactly what I'm saying).

Every LCD uses a polarizer-- it's how they work. Polarize the light, twist the crystal. Filter the color. Then put the protective matte or gloss glass in front.

Aside from the unsupported assertion in the wiki article, I haven't seen any technical support for the distortion effects you're describing. In fact all of the references I've seen since you've started me on this express exactly the opposite. The glossy coating gives you access to the full saturation and contrast of the base panel-- if you're a professional, you want this. Too much is always better when you can dial it down, and ColorSync allows you to do just that. What you don't want is too little, because you can't dial it up beyond the physical limits.

nice detective work, i would have just take'n someone's word for it... and might i add, i'm soooo over people complaining about glossy screens...

Thanks, but it wasn't meant to be detective work. I'm just trying to understand what's going on that people are noticing. The Ars link got me excited because they're generally pretty thorough, but it was just an opinion piece.

And when you say Apple isn't awash in graphics card options, maybe you've gotten the cause and effect swapped. You think maybe manufacturers of graphics cards and other upgrade cards might not produce Mac drivers because they assume there isn't enough market there to matter. If Apple doesn't offer a low- to mid-range tower where more Mac users can put those options to use, then of course nobody will produce the cards and drivers for Macs. Simple logic, and something Apple could address by giving upgrade options to more than just their pro users.

You're right there are other things to put in there. eSata cards fit your model well. That's kind of what my question was-- what is it people want to stuff in there other than graphics cards?

No doubt there's a chicken and egg thing going on here, but I don't think Apple will be the first to budge. For one thing, the entire Mac market isn't really big enough for the big players to write drivers for on their own. Apple writes most of the drivers for the existing cards-- which means it's not just the cost of adding the slots, but the cost of dedicating engineering to writing drivers for a bunch of cards you might sell a thousand of.

I'm just not holding my breath. Until we see more use of the slots in the MP, I don't expect Apple to put unused slots in their other hardware.

Non-sense. The mini had a dedicated GPU back in it's G4 days. It was taken out during the switch to intel. I find it retarded that they upped the price of the mini while taking out the GPU.

This is the false promise of Intel. Everybody thought the Intel processors would make Macs cheaper, but they didn't actually look at the price lists or die sizes. Apple's paying much more per processor than they did for the G4/G5. So much so that they got rid of the separate graphics card and still had to raise the price.

 

[Sam Yikin]

Whether or not I purchase a new iMac this week depends on if the graphics card will updated. Don't let me down, Apple.

 

[Darkroom]

Q9300 is a desktop CPU. iMacs use laptop CPUs.

Q9300 is a desktop CPU. iMacs currently use laptop CPUs.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Q9300 is a desktop CPU. iMacs currently use laptop CPUs.

They're not going to switch.

 

[Eidorian]

They're not going to switch.

The QX9300 is another story.

 

[Tallest Skil]

It mentions "desktop replacement laptops" in that article. I guess the iMac is a "laptop replacement desktop"...

 

[Eidorian]

It mentions "desktop replacement laptops" in that article. I guess the iMac is a "laptop replacement desktop"...

Keep in mind the current X7900 falls in at the same TDP.

 

[thunng8]

Aside from the unsupported assertion in the wiki article, I haven't seen any technical support for the distortion effects you're describing. In fact all of the references I've seen since you've started me on this express exactly the opposite. The glossy coating gives you access to the full saturation and contrast of the base panel-- if you're a professional, you want this. Too much is always better when you can dial it down, and ColorSync allows you to do just that. What you don't want is too little, because you can't dial it up beyond the physical limits.

Yeah, right, then how come all professional monitors. I.e. ones that advertise colour accuracy have a matte finish?

 

[AidenShaw]

Time for a reality check, DAve

I don't think we will every see a Mini with a high performance GPU nor will we see such on the Mac Book. Here are some reasons:

1. These products are competing against like configured machines in the PC world.

You should really look at what other Intel vendors are selling.

I looked at today's Best Buy flyer, and they had an HP laptop for $999. That's $100 less than the cheapest Apple laptop, but for the sake of argument let's call them "like" prices.

$999 HP DV6885SE                       $1099 Apple MacBook
-----------------------------------    ----------------------------------------
2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo T8100               2.1 GHz Core 2 Duo
800 MHz bus                            800 MHz bus
3 GiB DDR2 RAM standard                1 GiB standard
Nvidia GeForce 8400M GS - 256 MiB      X3100 integrated graphics, 0 MiB RAM
15.4" 1280x800 screen                  13.3" 1280x800 screen
250 GB 5400 RPM SATA hard drive        120 GB 5400 RPM SATA
Double Layer 8x DVD±RW/CD-RW           Combo - DVD-ROM & CD-RW
Lightscribe                            -no-
Media card reader (SD/MS/xD/MM)        -no-
Altec Lansing speakers                 Stereo speakers
Builtin web cam                        Builtin web cam
10/100 Ethernet                        Builtin GigE
802.11/a/b/g/n WiFi                    802.11/a/b/g/n WiFi
S-video output                         S-video via optional dongle
HDMI output                            HDMI via optional DVI dongle and DVI-HDMI dongle
DVI via optional HDMI->DVI dongle      DVI via optional dongle
VGA output                             VGA via optional dongle
34/54 ExpressCard slot                 -no-
3 USB 2.0 ports                        2 USB 2.0 ports
1 1394a port                           1 1394a port

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/...9501&cc=us&dlc=en&lc=en&jumpid=reg_R1002_USEN
http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

Dedicated graphics with 256 MiB VRAM, triple the standard memory, ExpressCard slot and a dual-layer DVD burner kind of shout that "THESE AREN'T 'LIKE' SPECS".

On the other hand, if you mean "like" specs -- that's a real hard one. The $449 Toshiba at Best Buy is closer to the MacBook $1099 specs (dual core, 1 GiB RAM, 120 GB drive, slower CPU (1.73 GHz)), but it has a dual-layer DVD burner and an ExpressCard slot. I guess it's really hard to find a laptop without a DVD burner....

You should try the same exercise with the Imac. The most expensive desktop in the Best Buy flyer is a quad core 2.66 GHz with 19" LCD and printer, 3 GiB, 750 GB, dual-layer burner and Radeon HD2600 XT 256 MiB graphics. Doesn't make the $1199 Imac look like a bargain...

 

[CWallace]

It is clear computers that are designed to run Windows are cheaper then computers that are designed to run OS X.

But that does not necessarily mean they are a better value.

The HP 2510p that I carry around the world is an amazing piece of kit, about as light as the MacBook Air and far more capable.

But it runs Vista.

 

[HFD Whalers]

I wasn't patient enough to wait for the imac update so about a month and a half ago I got a 24 inch IMAC. But at this point those of you who have had the will power to wait (i don't know how you did it but congrats) might as well wait the extra month and a half to see what apple comes out with in June because its going to be a lot better than this update which will be minor and probably include blu ray. Just a though.

Take it easy all.

 

[M-apple-T]

I wasn't patient enough to wait for the imac update so about a month and a half ago I got a 24 inch IMAC. But at this point those of you who have had the will power to wait (i don't know how you did it but congrats) might as well wait the extra month and a half to see what apple comes out with in June because its going to be a lot better than this update which will be minor and probably include blu ray. Just a though.

Take it easy all.

Well.. If the they are updated tuesday, then the chances of them being updated in a month and a half are very unlikely.

 

[Analog Kid]

Yeah, right, then how come all professional monitors. I.e. ones that advertise colour accuracy have a matte finish?

Now we're back to the question I started with, thank you.

All I can do is tell you what the technical information I'm seeing implies. You made the assertion that the gloss finish was somehow distorting the colors, and I'm asking how that can be. Everything I'm finding implies the opposite but I'm still asking the question because, if the assertion you're making here (that there are no professional gloss finish displays) is better supported than the wiki article you linked to, then I'm seeing a bit of a contradiction that I'd like to understand.

 

[AidenShaw]

It is clear computers that are designed to run Windows are cheaper then computers that are designed to run OS X.

Not really.

It is clear that Intel computers sold by the Cupertino computer company are often much more expensive that similar computers using mostly identical parts sold by the Palo Alto and Round Rock computer companies, as well as many other smaller companies.

Computers are "designed" to execute machine code instructions. Whether those x86/x64 machine code instructions come from Linux, Solaris, Windows or OSX isn't a factor in the design of the computer. Xen, Hyper-V and VMware should make that obvious.

The idea that "it costs more to design a computer to run OSX" is really complete nonsense - dual-boot and hackintoshes show that Windows runs on Apple computers, and OSX runs on other PCs. Apple has to work hard to *break* these other systems, because an Intel computer wants to run Intel machine instructions.

Apple has to work hard to keep you from running OSX on cheaper, more powerful systems.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.

Some Apple computers are good values compared to similar systems from other vendors. Usually, though, these are high end 'loaded' systems. Apple doesn't offer a lesser system for a lower price, so in practice if one doesn't need the top end one can get what one needs much cheaper from HP or Dell. The Mac Pro compared to an HP or Dell dual or quad core single socket mini-tower is the obvious example here. Comparing the top Octo Mac Pro against a top HP or Dell workstation isn't meaningful to the user who simply wants a dual or quad desktop with some expansion.