or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks - Page 7

post #241 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

12 years ago, when he was chosen to lead Apple as its new CEO, replacing Gil Amelio, Steve Jobs promised to substantially increase the Mac market share. Steve Jobs also acknowledged that the 1986 decision to not license the original Mac OS had been a bad decision, but stressed that he was no longer part of the company when that decision was made.

Newcomers to the Mac platform may not realize how important to Mac loyalists was the commitment from Steve Jobs to increase the Mac market share. Mac loyalists had supported the platform since the early days, joining Mac user clubs and promoting Macs at work or in schools, colleges and universities, despite the higher prices and decreasing market share of Macs, and despite the growing popularity and ever lower price of Windows 95 and Windows 98 computers.

Things changed at Apple the day that Steve Jobs demanded outrageous stock option bonuses for himself and his hand picked Vice Presidents. From that moment on, Apple was turned into a money machine producing ever higher profit margins to reward Steve Jobs and his loyal friends in Apple's higher management to the detriment of average users who had to pay higher prices. Gone were any hope of expanding the Mac market share or adopting a policy of competitive prices and features.

As Apple developped a new OS, the iPhone OS, Steve Jobs repeated the original mistake which caused the downfall of the Mac through the late 1980's and 1990's, when he opposed the licensing of the iPhone OS and demanded a $400 premium on every iPhone, a profit margin of more than 200%.

As a lame justification for his greed, Steve Jobs developped the arguments quoted above, stressing that Apple was not going after every market, just the high margin opportunities, somehow accepting that Apple was to forever remain a niche player with different and overpriced products carrying a higher profit margin for average quality or outdated components. All was in the name of Apple and the "vision" of Steve Jobs. The Apple stock became a favorite of hedge fund managers who were looking for a quick profit, not a long term investment.

Mac users and Mac loyalists were betrayed by Steve Jobs and, with its high prices and limited choice of models or options, Apple doesn't have a bright future.

A company should listen to its customers and aim to grow its market share, for otherwise, it should cease to exist.



It is a good thing that laws re slander/libel have yet to be applied to the internet. Although, the UK is now considering such.

Your continuing tirade against everything Apple is quite boring and only portrays your level of intelligence, which in my opinion is unmeasurable.
post #242 of 380
So has anyone done any digging about Wedge Partners--who they are, why they would have any more information than any other analyst/research firm? Is anyone else suspect that Wedge announces dates that coincide with two buyers guides Rhythmac and the MacRumors Buyers guide?
post #243 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

http://www.amfiteatar.org/content/view/155/57/lang,en/
User upgradeable parts: RAM, anything else requires completely disassembling the system.
CPU intel core 2 duo mobile
GPU Nvidia 100 series mobile or Radeon mobility 4850 (Apple routinely assigns a desktop name to a mobile chipset thinking that the current batch of Mac users won't do any research and actually look at the chip ID while in windows)
Chipset Nvidia 9400 mobile.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1811?viewlocale=en_US
User upgradable parts: Hard drive, optical drive, RAM, inverter, airport card, upper fans. Easy to take the back off.
CPU: desktop IBM PPC970 or 970FX
GPU desktop GeForce 5200FX
chipset: Apple U3L (also used in single CPU PowerMac G5)

Lets now examine Apple's current systems.

Macbook Pro:
Designed in way that user can easily upgrade hard drive, optical drive, and RAM. Battery too if it wasn't proprietary. Parts situated for easy cooling

Mac Pro: Easy access to hard drives, RAM, optical drives, and CPUs via doors and trays. Parts situated for easy cooling

iMac and Mac Mini: parts crammed haphazardly into tiny spaces. Require major difficultly to access internal components and replacement requires complete disassembly. Do to crammed nature cooling is less than optimal.

Seems to me that the iMac and Mini are not quite up to Apple standards past or present. However changing them, (especially a flatter mini) would require admitting a mistake.



What will it be worth when the teenager don't think its cool anymore and the fanboys have driven away every last user who uses OSX for a living. How many times has this platform been sent back down to square one because of arrogance? Won't happen again right? I'm sure they were saying that in the 80s and after the iMac boom.

I can't speek to the iMac as I haven't taken mine apart yet, but I did take apart my mini this past weekend to upgrade the memory.

A putty knife and a screwdriver are all you need. 4 screws, and 3 springs. It took all of 10 minutes to complete the upgrade from start to finish. I wouldn't consider it difficult at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaHNLR6Aac

I do know the memory is easily accessible on the iMac via a single screw at the bottom, but I haven't had need to do anything else on it. Now you've gotten me curious as to how hard it really is to get to the guts.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #244 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I can't speek to the iMac as I haven't taken mine apart yet, but I did take apart my mini this past weekend to upgrade the memory.

A putty knife and a screwdriver are all you need. 4 screws, and 3 springs. It took all of 10 minutes to complete the upgrade from start to finish. I wouldn't consider it difficult at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KaHNLR6Aac

I do know the memory is easily accessible on the iMac via a single screw at the bottom, but I haven't had need to do anything else on it. Now you've gotten me curious as to how hard it really is to get to the guts.

It's a real pain, having upgraded the HD myself. You have to remove the glass from its magnetic clips using suction cup hooks, you then have about 20 plus torx screws that vary in length to remove around the aluminium frame. When you've finished that, the frame needs to come off and that's a very tight fit. At the same time you need to be careful not to rip out the camera and mic at the top. After that, you need to undo the screen, which is another set of screws. The screen is attached in two places to the logic board - bottom and top left.

I didn't have the guts to remove that completely, so I had my wife gingerly and reluctantly tilt the screen up as far as it would go while I unclipped the hard drive. You also have to be careful not to rip the temperature monitor off the HD too. I can tell you I was sweating at this stage, as you have to work quickly to avoid dust collecting on the screen. Any larger dust particle will upset the LCD as I found out later. Reassembly was also difficult, as the aluminium frame doesn't go back on easily and I was loathe to force it. That's why I hope any new refresh will also give us easy access to the hard drive and also the video card.

post #245 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbok View Post

It's a real pain, having upgraded the HD myself. You have to remove the glass from its magnetic clips using suction cup hooks, you then have about 20 plus torx screws that vary in length to remove around the aluminium frame. When you've finished that, the frame needs to come off and that's a very tight fit. At the same time you need to be careful not to rip out the camera and mic at the top. After that, you need to undo the screen, which is another set of screws. The screen is attached in two places to the logic board - bottom and top left.

I didn't have the guts to remove that completely, so I had my wife gingerly and reluctantly tilt the screen up as far as it would go while I unclipped the hard drive. You also have to be careful not to rip the temperature monitor off the HD too. I can tell you I was sweating at this stage, as you have to work quickly to avoid dust collecting on the screen. Any larger dust particle will upset the LCD as I found out later. Reassembly was also difficult, as the aluminium frame doesn't go back on easily and I was loathe to force it. That's why I hope any new refresh will also give us easy access to the hard drive and also the video card.


I agree..that sounds like it sucks arse Fortunately I bought the fastest available for my iMac. About the only thing I have plans to ever upgrade on this are possibly a bit more memory (I think my iMac 8,1 will take 6 GB..not sure if anyone makes 3 GB sims though (sigh). It has a TB drive though. Plenty of storage to last a few years.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #246 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

The BD files are temporary. Look about 10 posts up and you'll see my reply. I know very well what I'm doing, having written numerous guides on conversions from XviD, DVD, SVCD, Blu-Ray, H.264, Understanding Aspect ratios and resolutions, etc.

http://www.videohelp.com/guides?sear...or+List+Guides

My apologies. And thanks for the links.

But why would you only be insisting for a Blue-ray ROM and not a writer?
post #247 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

My apologies. And thanks for the links.

But why would you only be insisting for a Blue-ray ROM and not a writer?

I have no use for writing to BD-Rom media, and most BD-Roms are already DVD-RW capable with only the BD functionality as Read Only, which suites my purposes. I use NAS storage for backups, and I do very little conversion work these days except for the occasional Blu-Ray to DVD for my remaining DVD players. For anything to be played on my HTPC MediaPC, I simply leave the format as-is until I delete it, or buy the disk retail.

If the next iteration of iMac doesn't include a BD-Rom I wil eventually consider just buying an after market drive. I hate the though of more boxes and wires, but it really is tedious moving 40 GB files from my old laptop with a BD-RW to my Mac which is much newer, with much faster hardware, for processing.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #248 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I have no use for writing to BD-Rom media, and most BD-Roms are already DVD-RW capable with only the BD functionality as Read Only, which suites my purposes. I use NAS storage for backups, and I do very little conversion work these days except for the occasional Blu-Ray to DVD for my remaining DVD players. For anything to be played on my HTPC MediaPC, I simply leave the format as-is until I delete it, or buy the disk retail.

If the next iteration of iMac doesn't include a BD-Rom I wil eventually consider just buying an after market drive. I hate the though of more boxes and wires, but it really is tedious moving 40 GB files from my old laptop with a BD-RW to my Mac which is much newer, with much faster hardware, for processing.

I don't think you will get much support from the majority of internal-Blue-ray drive angst'rs who are demanding the format for backup purposes.

Certainly for just watching Blue-ray movies via a Mac is one hell of an expensive media player.
post #249 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

I don't think you will get much support from the majority of internal-Blue-ray drive angst'rs who are demanding the format for backup purposes.

Certainly for just watching Blue-ray movies via a Mac is one hell of an expensive media player.

See now that's where I'd think they were crazy. Writable BD media is way to expensive per GB at this stage. I'm sure it will get cheaper just as DVD media did, but it has a long way to go.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #250 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I agree..that sounds like it sucks arse Fortunately I bought the fastest available for my iMac. About the only thing I have plans to ever upgrade on this are possibly a bit more memory (I think my iMac 8,1 will take 6 GB..not sure if anyone makes 3 GB sims though (sigh). It has a TB drive though. Plenty of storage to last a few years.

If your Mac can take 6GB you use a 4GB stick and a 2GB stick to give you 6GB of RAM. ... 4GB sticks at the moment are very expensive but like 2GB modules they should come down in price in 2010, especially as the economy recovers. The only thing holding back 4GB and 8GB (two 4GB sticks) becoming the next industry standard is the Windows world where 32bit flavours of Windows are so prevalent, even over the next 2 years, that not many would be interested in 6GB or 8GB RAM until maybe 2011 when 64bit Windows start to become the norm. But then again, things can change and move pretty fast. SSDs and 4GB RAM sticks are half the price of what they were 6 months+ ago (IIRC, very roughly) so...
post #251 of 380
Don't these use Dual Channel? If I use dissimilar sticks, I lose the benefit of dual-channel (assuming these are using dual channel that is)
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #252 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Don't these use Dual Channel? If I use dissimilar sticks, I lose the benefit of dual-channel (assuming these are using dual channel that is)

Yeah you may not get dual-channel but the benefit of 2 extra GB of RAM would still be quite significant... From the benchmarks I've seen (but can't recall exactly)

In my MacBook Alu which supports 6GB for example, instead of the 4GB I have now, if I had 6GB I can have VMWare Fusion allocate 2GB to Windows XP and then cruise on 4GB mainly for the Mac OS side. Should reduce memory swapping especially with a lot of Adobe CS4 apps open, plus browsers, etc. That and an SSD which down the line should be affordable and much faster than my current 7200rpm drive.

Dual-channel is great but I really think the boost is not that "significant" from all the reading I've done. I could be wrong, but it's one of those "nice to have" but "not that crucial".

Maybe in 2010 there could be a flood of 3GB RAM into the market as an affordable intermediary between 2GB and 4GB sticks...?
post #253 of 380
The benefits of dual-channel RAM are measurable but almost never noticeable.
post #254 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The benefits of dual-channel RAM are measurable but almost never noticeable.

A bit off topic, but when will we see a move from trible-channel to four or five-channel RAM?
I know ATI uses ddr5 RAM in some of their graphic cards
post #255 of 380
I don't know if trible-channel RAM will be a good thing.

post #256 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApple21 View Post

A bit off topic, but when will we see a move from trible-channel to four or five-channel RAM? I know ATI uses ddr5 RAM in some of their graphic cards

Seriously though, DDR5 RAM just refers to the speed... It is an interesting question how many channels GPUs use to access the RAM. Anyone?

For motherboard RAM, triple-channel is now in Core i7, Mac Pro and so on but it's still really expensive and not in any portable hardware tech... Not in any mainstream way. So I wonder if triple-channel itself will take some time to get popular.

Maybe in 5 years we will have 8-channel RAM accessing 128GB to 256GB of RAM, 100TB SSDs, etc. You probably still won't be able to play Crysis at Max settings.
post #257 of 380
Yeah,nothing but trouble. I feel guilty for getting the joke nvidia ,even before I registered the picture I was laughing.

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply
post #258 of 380
I think a new iMac should sport an AMD Athlon X4 (620/630) with the 790gx or better chipset. That will be a good low price for great performance and will outshine the current Intel setup with the 9400 class GPU. Put that in the aluminum body and sell it for less.

AMD Athlon X4

If the price point is going to stay the same, the core i5 with the p55 chipset and a GPU with some dedicated VRAM will be good.
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #259 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

I think a new iMac should sport an AMD Athlon X4 (620/630) with the 790gx or better chipset. That will be a good low price for great performance and will outshine the current Intel setup with the 9400 class GPU. Put that in the aluminum body and sell it for less.

AMD Athlon X4

If the price point is going to stay the same, the core i5 with the p55 chipset and a GPU with some dedicated VRAM will be good.





No thanks, at 95 watts, I'll pay an extra $100 for an i5. These new Atlons aren't faster than the Core 2 cpus that the iMac currently uses. See how it compares to the C2D e7500? Those new athlons are nice at the low end (the true low end that Dave thinks is the i5). Great news for eMachines.

I'm still not convinced that the next iMac will use a cpu that is that hot anyway. Time will tell.
post #260 of 380
Dude, I knew someone would do this. You just took one of the first or second page synthetic benchmarks and came to your conclusion.

Look at the 3D, gaming and video encoding benchmarks and you can see the Athlon2 X4 comes in around a Core2 *QUAD* but at a lower price point.

The Anandtech article was quite reasonable in showing where it shines, and where it doesn't. I would suggest you go back and actually read the whole article.

I mean, look at that benchmark you showed, the Core2 Duo does better than the Core2 Quad, which can't be the case all the time when using the computer, right? ...Even the Pentium does better than an Intel Quad in that benchmark.

But I do agree we are talking about desktop parts anyway so they can't even use a 65W (IIRC) Core2 Quad in an iMac, let alone any AMD.

Edit: I don't mean to sound rude, just that I think AMD's value is really misunderstood sometimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post



No thanks, at 95 watts, I'll pay an extra $100 for an i5. These new Atlons aren't faster than the Core 2 cpus that the iMac currently uses. See how it compares to the C2D e7500? Those new athlons are nice at the low end (the true low end that Dave thinks is the i5). Great news for eMachines.

I'm still not convinced that the next iMac will use a cpu that is that hot anyway. Time will tell.
post #261 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApple21 View Post

A bit off topic, but when will we see a move from trible-channel to four or five-channel RAM?
I know ATI uses ddr5 RAM in some of their graphic cards

Intel is building an 8-core processor and AMD is building a 12-core processor, both for next year, that will each have four DDR3 controllers.

It'll probably never come to consumer processors of the sort you use. It only benefits servers. So don't worry about it.

GDDR5 is just high-speed graphics RAM. Its name does not indicate the number of memory channels (the Radeon 4870's GPU has four).
post #262 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post

I think a new iMac should sport an AMD Athlon X4 (620/630) with the 790gx or better chipset. That will be a good low price for great performance and will outshine the current Intel setup with the 9400 class GPU. Put that in the aluminum body and sell it for less.

AMD Athlon X4

If the price point is going to stay the same, the core i5 with the p55 chipset and a GPU with some dedicated VRAM will be good.

I agree that Apple could make some big cost savings by using AMD+ATI for "mainstream desktop". The only thing is the iMac by this stage is so geared towards using laptop parts they have to stick with Intel+Nvidia ... And by stick to it, I mean they're stuck. No great leaps in quadcore laptop CPUs (it is tough to design such CPUs) and Nvidia is really facing problems with getting GPUs down to 40nm and they are still churning out laptop GPUs based on 2007/2008 designs (the 100 series is a rebranded 9 series which was more or less rebranded 8 series)
post #263 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex London View Post

Yeah,nothing but trouble. I feel guilty for getting the joke nvidia ,even before I registered the picture I was laughing.

LOL I actually dislike TOS, I'm a DS9 kind of guy. I haven't watched much TOS in fact, but somehow I did watch the Trible (spelling?) episode and it stuck in my mind.
post #264 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Dude, I knew someone would do this. You just took one of the first or second page synthetic benchmarks and came to your conclusion.

Look at the 3D, gaming and video encoding benchmarks and you can see the Athlon2 X4 comes in around a Core2 *QUAD* but at a lower price point.

The Anandtech article was quite reasonable in showing where it shines, and where it doesn't. I would suggest you go back and actually read the whole article.

I mean, look at that benchmark you showed, the Core2 Duo does better than the Core2 Quad, which can't be the case all the time when using the computer, right? ...Even the Pentium does better than an Intel Quad in that benchmark.

But I do agree we are talking about desktop parts anyway so they can't even use a 65W (IIRC) Core2 Quad in an iMac, let alone any AMD.

Edit: I don't mean to sound rude, just that I think AMD's value is really misunderstood sometimes.

You can't just look at a highly threaded applications, where more cores=better, and draw your conclusion either.

I agree theses chips are very appealing for they market they're after. $400 will soon buy you a very capable windows machine at Best Buy.

But for an extra $100, I'l take the i5, thank you. It's faster in every respect.

But I can see where you, and others, would find the new Athlons appealing.
post #265 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You can't just look at a highly threaded applications, where more cores=better, and draw your conclusion either.

I agree theses chips are very appealing for they market they're after. $400 will soon buy you a very capable windows machine at Best Buy.

But for an extra $100, I'l take the i5, thank you. It's faster in every respect.

But I can see where you, and others, would find the new Athlons appealing.

Fair enough.

So anyways I would go out and buy the Athlon2 X4 today so I can go from dualcore to quadcore while still using my existing AM2+ board.

Then I remember what I do need is to go from my 4830 512MB GPU to something to the level of a 4870 1GB GPU... Because I have a 1920x1080 screen now (well, since 2 months ago) -- they were/are so inexpensive now for a full HD screen... It's a lot of pixels and textures to push around though, for good PC titles to play at max res. Trouble is ATI doesn't have any other good 40nm cards released and shipping en mass besides the 4770... after all these months?
post #266 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Fair enough.

So anyways I would go out and buy the Athlon2 X4 today so I can go from dualcore to quadcore while still using my existing AM2+ board.

Then I remember what I do need is to go from my 4830 512MB GPU to something to the level of a 4870 1GB GPU... Because I have a 1920x1080 screen now (well, since 2 months ago) -- they were/are so inexpensive now for a full HD screen... It's a lot of pixels and textures to push around though, for good PC titles to play at max res. Trouble is ATI doesn't have any other good 40nm cards released and shipping en mass besides the 4770... after all these months?

A year ago I bought my parents an inexpensive Compaq machine with an Athlon x2 cpu. Are the new quad core Athlons socket compatible with the old X2 ones? If so I'll get one and drop it into their machine.

I've already added RAM and a new gpu so my son can play games on their computer when he visits. I actually am beginning to enjoy tinkering with that machine.
post #267 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Fair enough.

So anyways I would go out and buy the Athlon2 X4 today so I can go from dualcore to quadcore while still using my existing AM2+ board.

Then I remember what I do need is to go from my 4830 512MB GPU to something to the level of a 4870 1GB GPU... Because I have a 1920x1080 screen now (well, since 2 months ago) -- they were/are so inexpensive now for a full HD screen... It's a lot of pixels and textures to push around though, for good PC titles to play at max res. Trouble is ATI doesn't have any other good 40nm cards released and shipping en mass besides the 4770... after all these months?

Take heart, yon gamer... ATI's 5000-series cards will be out soon. Starting with the expensive but superfast 5870/5850 by the end of this month, but the 5770 is promised by November. 5770 should have the same specs as the 4870, but with a 40nm GPU and slightly less memory bandwidth. Should lead to good deals on the 4870, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

A year ago I bought my parents an inexpensive Compaq machine with an Athlon x2 cpu. Are the new quad core Athlons socket compatible with the old X2 ones? If so I'll get one and drop it into their machine.

I've already added RAM and a new gpu so my son can play games on their computer when he visits. I actually am beginning to enjoy tinkering with that machine.

They're socket-compatible with AM2/AM2+ but support depends on the BIOS. That's asking a lot of a cheap Compaq. It may very well work, but it also might not.
post #268 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiviaphoto View Post

Who cares about blu-ray, the disks are still too expensive...

Speak for yourself. Some of us would like the option, and the disks are not too expensive if you a) shop around, and b) can't stand the poor quality of DVDs.
post #269 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

Speak for yourself. Some of us would like the option, and the disks are not too expensive if you a) shop around, and b) can't stand the poor quality of DVDs.

It's amazing. In just over 5 years I have grown to totally hate and be disgusted by the quality of DVDs. Damn You HD, Damn You !!!
post #270 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Intel is building an 8-core processor and AMD is building a 12-core processor, both for next year, that will each have four DDR3 controllers.

It'll probably never come to consumer processors of the sort you use. It only benefits servers. So don't worry about it.

GDDR5 is just high-speed graphics RAM. Its name does not indicate the number of memory channels (the Radeon 4870's GPU has four).

Okay now I understand, thank you for clearing that up
post #271 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

Intel is building an 8-core processor and AMD is building a 12-core processor, both for next year, that will each have four DDR3 controllers.

It'll probably never come to consumer processors of the sort you use. It only benefits servers. So don't worry about it.

Macs Pro use server-class processors. :-)
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #272 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow View Post

The benefits of dual-channel RAM are measurable but almost never noticeable.

While the first implementations where questionable I don't believe that is the case any more. Certainly your workload is a factor but with todays apps and vastly improved CPUs I think it is fair to say you would notice going back to Single channel memory.


Dave
post #273 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emvee View Post

..............
I really wonder when the new iMac will be announced, but I guess waiting for it might be worth it.

This is always tough but I'd suggest this, if you don't need it right now don't buy. There is a CHANCE that the iMac might debut with a new chip set soon. If they can't get it out by early November then you will have to wait until some time early next year. This is all my opinion though so take it with a grain of salt.

Normally I'd suggest simply buying when you want it but any sort of i5 or i7 would be a huge improvement. More importantly with the advent of Snow Leopard you really want at least four cores in your CPU. SL is showing impressive results with some software already thus when software is more generally SL enabled, those cores will be very handy.

These comments are based on my SL experience on a early 2008 MBP. In many ways it is very impressive. Yes there are glitches here and there but this is obviously a heavily refactored OS so that is expected to some extent.

Dave
post #274 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

heating problems can occur.

I vote that it doesn't need to be thinner.

heating problems can occur but they don't have to. A thinner cabinet actually has some benefits for thermal design as a thin cabinet gives the designer the ability to manage air flow. As for complaints about hot iMac cases that is the result of having hot parts close to the case. A hot case is only an issue if the chips themselves are operating to hot. Otherwise that is a sign that the case is carrying away heat.

Thinner or not the number one issue with the iMacs case is serviceability. Apple needs to take lessons from the MBP and completely overhaul the case. Thick or thin if I can service the machine myself without special tools Apple has a winner.



Dave
post #275 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbok View Post

I would like Apple to support this in the refresh -

1. New cordless mouse design. The mouse has always been one of Apple's weakest points.

I use a Bluetoth mouse. It really makes sense to cut the cord on the mouse.
Quote:
2. Easy access to the hard drive. I really hated upgrading my hard drive by having to disassemble the screen.

This is huge and I'm really hoping Apple takes the bull by the horns here. They did an excellent job with the MBP overhauls so this should be a snap for them.
Quote:
3. Solid state drive option.

Certainly a good idea. However I'd like them to take a page from their server hardware. In this case a small 128GB flash drive for boot and app storage and the HD setup to store mass data. This gets us by the idea that flash drives are tiny storage capacity wise and adds considerable performance for little money.
Quote:
4. USB 3.0 with x2 extra ports.

Why not make em all USB 3? Whatever they do we still need the Firewire ports, in fact I'd like to have several.
Quote:
5. A display without image persistence, gloss / matte option.

How about a big display. Say 28 to 30".
Quote:
6. Faster DVD drive, maybe a Bluray option

Actually I'm hoping they just delete the drive. Give us an SD slot instead.
Quote:
7. Easy access to the video card.

This is not a big deal for me, in fact whu not integrate it right on the motherboard?
Quote:
Overall I would like to see Apple refresh their lineup with new components more frequently throughout the year, since tech specs go stale very quickly.

Having said all that, I'm still happy with my Macs. I've been a user / customer since 1990.

Yes I'm most impressed with my 2008 MBP. That is my first Mac since the Mac Plus. That change has a lot to do with iTunes and the arrival of Mac OS/X.

Dave
post #276 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

While the first implementations where questionable I don't believe that is the case any more. Certainly your workload is a factor but with todays apps and vastly improved CPUs I think it is fair to say you would notice going back to Single channel memory.


Dave

No, not really. A system using dual-channel RAM is going to be 3-4% faster than a system without according to benchmarks of real-world apps (i.e., not memory benchmarks). Gaming on integrated graphics sees the most improvement, as the IGP uses system memory.
post #277 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

How about a big display. Say 28 to 30".

Which can give additional room for possibly hotter components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage

Putting Mac OS X on a tablet is like putting a steering wheel on a motorcycle.
Reply
post #278 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacmatician View Post

Which can give additional room for possibly hotter components.

The thing here is that the internals in the iMac are a mess. Truely disgusting especially when sitting side by side with the MBP internals. So yeah a bigger machine can help but what is really needed is a new approach. A clean layout of the components, and the PC board could dramatically impact user acceptance too. If people think the new machine is reasonable serviceable I actually think people looking for something XMac like might accept it. That is if another disk bay can be had in the unit.


Dave
post #279 of 380
Honestly I would think that most folks who are interested in upgrading would already do their research and know which units are capable of upgrades and which are not.

I consider the iMac to be much like a laptop in this regard. The only exception is the hard drive, which unfortunately appears to be very complicated to change out on your own.

I think the bulk of buyers simply aren't interested in taking the guts out of their computers. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to see a user serviceable iMac, but I don't think it will be high on Apple's priority list unfortunately.
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 24" Dual Core 3.06 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 4
Reply
post #280 of 380
Yes, most people asking for a fully serviceable iMac are really objecting to the iMac's philosophy.

RAM and Hard Drive upgrades are the only necessity.

For the price point, I think Apple needs to do away with integrated graphics in the iMac entirely.
But the graphics card doesn't need to be accessible.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple predicted to release new iMacs, MacBooks in weeks