I know that we will see at least two new intel based products at Macworld, one being the new Powerbook. At this stage I believe the other product has yet to be released.
And yes, as to everyone's questions, the new design is awesome!!!!!
Since the iMac already has a G5, I think it will be slower to go Intel than the G4-based machines. I'd agree with hmurchison - mid 2006, or even late 2006.
If Apple wants to go with a Yonah iMac you could see one next summer. I think they're going to wait for conroe in order not to "downgrade" to 32-bit.
You're forgetting about Sossaman. Clearly the iMac needs a more potent processor than the Mac mini. Thus we'll need to see what extra features Intel adds to Sossaman to see if that's a step up. Although I agree somewhat with the Inquirer.net Sossoman doesn't seem to make sense unless there's something new in it that hasn't been divulged.
You're forgetting about Sossaman. Clearly the iMac needs a more potent processor than the Mac mini. Thus we'll need to see what extra features Intel adds to Sossaman to see if that's a step up. Although I agree somewhat with the Inquirer.net Sossoman doesn't seem to make sense unless there's something new in it that hasn't been divulged.
The iMac does need a 64-bit part.
I don't see a Sossaman iMac, but a Sossaman Xserve looks likely.
So really, if one was to buy one, say now, you wouldn't have to worry about it being replaced (Speed bumps will happen, but I mean no major rehauls) for around a year? That 20 inch G5 is looking very attractive...
Wow, a contrarian, huh. Could you explain your reasoning?
The last iMac was released May 3. Add 9 month product cycle which sets you in February of 2006. Optimum time for Apple's first Intel release.
64 bit or 32 bit is irrelevant when the iMac will only have 2 DIMM slots. DDR2-667 is optimistic, so Apple will probably use the cheaper chipset that only supports DDR2-533. Smaller means it will have a smaller chin. Thinner means that they could shave 0.5" off of the current thickness.
It just seems to me that the iMac doesn't need to go Intel like the G4 machines do. There's plenty of headroom left in the G5 to speed bump the iMac for a while if they want to. I think they'd instead want to focus on the laptops. There's no reason they couldn't do both laptops and iMac of course, but we know there's going to be a relatively lengthy transition, so my bet is that they'll leave the iMac with a G5 for a while. I'd guess they'll give it a new G5 around the time the PowerBook goes Intel, and then put a new Intel chip (not Yonah) in it at its next revision.
It just seems to me that the iMac doesn't need to go Intel like the G4 machines do.
The only G4 Mac that needs to go Intel, actually, that needs a real processor improvement, is the Powerbook G4. The Mac mini, eMac and iBook G4 are low end computers and there is plenty of headroom for them with the 7447B let alone the 7448.
Quote:
There's plenty of headroom left in the G5 to speed bump the iMac for a while if they want to.
Not in the current form factor. They can bump to 2.2 GHz maybe, but it's a pretty tough sell when they could be selling a 2 or 2.2 GHz dual-core Yonah in the same time frame instead.
The only G4 Mac that needs to go Intel, actually, that needs a real processor improvement, is the Powerbook G4. The Mac mini, eMac and iBook G4 are low end computers and there is plenty of headroom for them with the 7447B let alone the 7448.
The only reason for that head room is that they have been very slow to upgrade these computers, and the upgrades that they have recieved have not kept up with the pace of the industry. In reality, to offset the slow growth of the G4, they need a good 400-600 mhz boost now, and though the 7447 does offer that Apple has not used it, probably to keep the PB's as top dogs in the G4 arena. Let's face it though, the 1.25 Ghz chip is very old and does not stand up well when compared to the other chips in offered in the same price range.
I don't know if this has been covered in any other discussions.. but isn't it going to suddenly be very easy for us to upgrade the CPU? If they are (as is being stated by Apple) standard Intel CPUs then aren't we going to able to go out and buy the latest chip that's pin compatible and slap that in? If that is the case then there's going to be a whole new world of modding open to us Mac fans
Comments
And yes, as to everyone's questions, the new design is awesome!!!!!
iMac & PowerBook - July 06
PowerMac & Xserve (& X startion?) January 07
Originally posted by BenRoethig
If Apple wants to go with a Yonah iMac you could see one next summer. I think they're going to wait for conroe in order not to "downgrade" to 32-bit.
32-bit is of no consequence to the consumer space.
Originally posted by vinney57
32-bit is of no consequence to the consumer space.
Except for PR purposes. What consumers will see is a "downgrade" from 64 to 32-bit.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
If Apple wants to go with a Yonah iMac you could see one next summer. I think they're going to wait for conroe in order not to "downgrade" to 32-bit.
You're forgetting about Sossaman. Clearly the iMac needs a more potent processor than the Mac mini. Thus we'll need to see what extra features Intel adds to Sossaman to see if that's a step up. Although I agree somewhat with the Inquirer.net Sossoman doesn't seem to make sense unless there's something new in it that hasn't been divulged.
The iMac does need a 64-bit part.
Originally posted by hmurchison
July 2006
I concur.
Originally posted by hmurchison
You're forgetting about Sossaman. Clearly the iMac needs a more potent processor than the Mac mini. Thus we'll need to see what extra features Intel adds to Sossaman to see if that's a step up. Although I agree somewhat with the Inquirer.net Sossoman doesn't seem to make sense unless there's something new in it that hasn't been divulged.
The iMac does need a 64-bit part.
I don't see a Sossaman iMac, but a Sossaman Xserve looks likely.
iMac with 2.2 GHz dual-core Yonah
2 DDR-667 DIMM slots
Form factor will get smaller and slimmer
Originally posted by THT
Q1 2006
iMac with 2.2 GHz dual-core Yonah
2 DDR-667 DIMM slots
Form factor will get smaller and slimmer
Wow, a contrarian, huh.
Originally posted by BRussell
Wow, a contrarian, huh.
The last iMac was released May 3. Add 9 month product cycle which sets you in February of 2006. Optimum time for Apple's first Intel release.
64 bit or 32 bit is irrelevant when the iMac will only have 2 DIMM slots. DDR2-667 is optimistic, so Apple will probably use the cheaper chipset that only supports DDR2-533. Smaller means it will have a smaller chin. Thinner means that they could shave 0.5" off of the current thickness.
Originally posted by BRussell
It just seems to me that the iMac doesn't need to go Intel like the G4 machines do.
The only G4 Mac that needs to go Intel, actually, that needs a real processor improvement, is the Powerbook G4. The Mac mini, eMac and iBook G4 are low end computers and there is plenty of headroom for them with the 7447B let alone the 7448.
There's plenty of headroom left in the G5 to speed bump the iMac for a while if they want to.
Not in the current form factor. They can bump to 2.2 GHz maybe, but it's a pretty tough sell when they could be selling a 2 or 2.2 GHz dual-core Yonah in the same time frame instead.
Originally posted by THT
The only G4 Mac that needs to go Intel, actually, that needs a real processor improvement, is the Powerbook G4. The Mac mini, eMac and iBook G4 are low end computers and there is plenty of headroom for them with the 7447B let alone the 7448.
The only reason for that head room is that they have been very slow to upgrade these computers, and the upgrades that they have recieved have not kept up with the pace of the industry. In reality, to offset the slow growth of the G4, they need a good 400-600 mhz boost now, and though the 7447 does offer that Apple has not used it, probably to keep the PB's as top dogs in the G4 arena. Let's face it though, the 1.25 Ghz chip is very old and does not stand up well when compared to the other chips in offered in the same price range.