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 8

post #281 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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.

Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea how the components are laid out internally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

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.

Agreed, except for the "unfortunately" bit. I would not want Macs to be physically like PeeCees. The MacBook Air has exactly the level of user-serviceability that I want: zero.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #282 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea* how the components are laid out internally.

*Or care, for that matter.

The internals are laid out to maximize cooling, not serviceability. Not great for the consumer when they want to upgrade the inside, but great for the consumer when it comes to having a cool machine (this equals longer component life).
post #283 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling View Post

Dramatically??? I find it difficult to believe that even 1/10 of 1% of iMac owners have any idea how the components are laid out internally.


Agreed, except for the "unfortunately" bit. I would not want Macs to be physically like PeeCees. The MacBook Air has exactly the level of user-serviceability that I want: zero.

I think at a minimum it should have at least the same user upgrade options that a laptop has (memory, and hard drive, and possibly optical drive as some laptops do). This is easily done in a lapotp, there should be no reason not to work towards that goal on an iMac.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #284 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

I think at a minimum it should have at least the same user upgrade options that a laptop has (memory, and hard drive, and possibly optical drive as some laptops do). This is easily done in a lapotp, there should be no reason not to work towards that goal on an iMac.

To say they should work toward that goal I agree with as Im all for accessibility, but if you are suggesting that because its easy to do on a Mac laptop now means that it should as easy on an iMac then I have to disagree with you. A notebook lays flat and very little pressure on the bottom panel screws when in use, while the iMac is suspended by a single articulating arm in the back. This means that more pressure is being applied to the back panel in certain areas than with Mac notebooks. Going back to the G5 iMacs real panel entry would be nice for us, but from a cost perspective compared to the number of iMac consumers that ever actually venture into the components of their iMac it may be worthy of Apples attention. Maybe they found this to be a problem so they changed it or they found they could save a lot money buy using this less than friendly front panel access.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #285 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

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.

What is the iMac's philosophy? It seems to change quite often. Its gone from an affordable machine (at times even under $1000) to a one size fits all machine that tops out over two grand that replaces all but the most high end PowerMacs as well. Its gone upmarket in what it does but has lost features since this form factor debuted with G5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

To say they should work toward that goal I agree with as I’m all for accessibility, but if you are suggesting that because it’s easy to do on a Mac laptop now means that it should as easy on an iMac then I have to disagree with you. A notebook lays flat and very little pressure on the bottom panel screws when in use, while the iMac is suspended by a single articulating arm in the back. This means that more pressure is being applied to the back panel in certain areas than with Mac notebooks. Going back to the G5 iMac’s real panel entry would be nice for us, but from a cost perspective compared to the number of iMac consumers that ever actually venture into the components of their iMac it may be worthy of Apple’s attention. Maybe they found this to be a problem so they changed it or they found they could save a lot money buy using this less than friendly front panel access.

In other words since the majority of the newer Mac users are very low end and because Jobs and Ive hate towers, everybody with more than ordinary requirements much suffer. What a role reversal for the platform.
post #286 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

What is the iMac's philosophy? It seems to change quite often. Its gone from an affordable machine (at times even under $1000) to a one size fits all machine that tops out over two grand that replaces all but the most high end PowerMacs as well. Its gone upmarket in what it does but has lost features since this form factor debuted with G5.



In other words since the majority of the newer Mac users are very low end and because Jobs and Ive hate towers, everybody with more than ordinary requirements much suffer. What a role reversal for the platform.

People with requirements that exceed the normal usage will always have additional obstacles to face, but I think saying that they are suffering is an exaggeration. As much as I love my 13 MBP and iPhone I could rattle off hundreds of things that I wish Apple would change about the device to suit my specific needs and wants, but I dont expect them to do so simply because I want them to. Some things Ive written to Apple about because I feel it would benefit the majority o users.

Other things, like a double capacity battery that makes the phone millimeters thicker and several ounces heavier is something I dont mind having but something that many iPhone users wouldnt like and would likely hurt Apples sales and vision of a slim iPhone. MY solution was to buy the Mophie Juice Pack Air. I can keep it on while charging and syncing and get more than a full day or excessive internet use on 3G out of my iPhone. The only caveat is that Apple only licenses the male end of their 30-pin connector so a female mini-USB port is used on the Mophie. Those are just a bitch to connect. Another thing Id like to have seen done away with years ago is the optical drive in notebooks. I havent used it in years, and while I am certain this will happen eventually I think the majority of people still need or want one at this point.

Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apples PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #287 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Agreed.

This thread looks like something you'd see at Winsupersite.

C'mon people, shape up.

The desktop market is DYING. It's in the basement. You honestly think shoving quad cores and big GPUs into iMacs will change anything? You honestly think shoving big specs in the consumer's face will do anything? It's hard enough for the generic box-makers to sell them at lower prices.

Desktops have got to get smaller, thinner, and even more portable. The future is in form and design. The whole "tower" paradigm is getting old, and it shows.

Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).

For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price as well. You may say the average consumer doesn't need that speed... well the average consumer could probably get by with a Celeron or a G4, or even less, but once you've used a C2D, you would not go back to a Celeron. With some applications and general workflow (especially running VMs) I can't begin to tell you how much better an i7 is against a C2D... and BTW, the i5, is almost as good, no reason why that should not be in the iMac.

I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple should really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face, because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #288 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

Sorry, but this is just so backward (as in the wrong way around, I didn't mean retarded).

For desktops to thrive, they need to differentiate themselves further from notebooks, not make themselves indistinguishable. Most people probably think their Core 2 Duos are quite fast in their MBPs, or even their iMacs, but unless you've actually used an i7 or even a fairly modest Quad Core (say an Athlon II x4) coupled with a real GPU and RAID 0/RAID 5 drives, you're not really in a position to judge whether or not saving another 3mm is really worth it. Believe me, it's not - when you can convert say 30 mins of HD video from your kids birthday party and upload it to YouTube in 6 minutes (rather than 5 times that long) you'll get it... for the same price!

I love Macs as much as anyone here, and I'd sacrifice a little bit of performance to have a machine that isn't the size of an RV... but Apple you really stand in a corner and punch themselves in the face because we haven't seen a Quadcore in a machine costing less than $2,500. What's even more galling is the fact that OS X is far better suited to take advantage of more cores than Vista.

Actually the Core 2 Duo (3.06 GHz) in the iMac stacks up decently against the CPU bench scores of a Quad Core Mac Pro. Given the huge price difference, the iMac is a good bang for the buck.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1395...acpro2009.html (scroll to the bottom to see the benchmark scores)

There comes a point where you get diminishing returns for the extra cash. The iMac seems to be in a good sweet spot between high cost and decent CPU performance.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #289 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Actually the Core 2 Duo (3.06 GHz) in the iMac stacks up decently against the CPU bench scores of a Quad Core Mac Pro. Given the huge price difference, the iMac is a good bang for the buck.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1395...acpro2009.html (scroll to the bottom to see the benchmark scores)

There comes a point where you get diminishing returns for the extra cash. The iMac seems to be in a good sweet spot between high cost and decent CPU performance.

I think you need to look beyond Speedmark and a 5 year old version of Photoshop, with all due respect. An i7 is around 3x faster than even an E8600 C2D (3.33ghz, which you cannot get in an iMac) for Video encoding (usually important to Pro users)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4

And twice to three times as fast on Cinebench, and 4 - 5 times faster on POV Ray - even the Quad Core scales almost 100%

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4

Again, this is pure CPU grunt... a decent GPU only makes the gap bigger and RAID HDs should be standard in any desktop. I think you're drinking the Cool Aid a little.

The only place where there is barely any performance gain is in gaming, not that Mac users should care about that. With Grand Central coming, the gap will only widen.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #290 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

I think you need to look beyond Speedmark and a 5 year old version of Photoshop, with all due respect. An i7 is around 3x faster than even an E8600 C2D (3.33ghz, which you cannot get in an iMac) for Video encoding (usually important to Pro users)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4

And twice to three times as fast on Cinebench, and 4 - 5 times faster on POV Ray - even the Quad Core scales almost 100%

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3641&p=4

Again, this is pure CPU grunt... a decent GPU only makes the gap bigger and RAID HDs should be standard in any desktop. I think you're drinking the Cool Aid a little.

The only place where there is barely any performance gain is in gaming, not that Mac users should care about that. With Grand Central coming, the gap will only widen.

You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price. The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price. I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #291 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price. The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price. I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.

Well I read the page you sent me, which demonstrated the 3ghz D2 outperforming the 2.6ghz Quad, probably because the applications it used did not scale well, I didn't intend for you to infer any implication. And you're quite right, the C2D offers fine performance, in a 2007 kind of way, but many apps now are scaling in an almost linear fashion with more CPUs/Cores and I think that people who have used these, might find an iMac lacking in performance.

It's only Mac users who have to jump from $1,100 to $2,500 to do from 2 cores, to 4 cores... no one else. I think now is the time to introduce 4 cores to the iMac range.

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply

Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others.
15" Matte MacBook Pro: 2.66Ghz i7, 8GB RAM, GT330m 512MB, 512GB SSD

iPhone 5 Black 32GB

iPad 3rd Generation, 32GB

Mac Mini Core2Duo 2.26ghz,...

Reply
post #292 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

You seem to think I implied that the iMac is outperforming the Mac Pro. I only indicated that it was good performance for the price.

But it isn't and this should be clear to anybody spending a dew minutes on the net or in a local computer store. At this point, for a desk top, iMacs performance is crap. Further it isn't a platform for running SL to it's full potential. Buying an iMac right now is a poor choice if you expect to leverage any of the improvements to SL or the improved apps for SL.
Quote:
The vast majority of users won't need that kind of horsepower, which is why Apple even offers a Mac Pro at a substantially higher price.

I can't make sense of the above statement!! What does the Mac Pros price have to do with the iMacs performance? Nothing that I can see.

In any event thanks for your overbearing attitude and arrogance in defining what an individual user needs performance wise. What next, are you going to tell me what type of vehicle I need to drive or where I should drive that vehicle to?
Quote:
I do a lot of H.264 encoding on a 3.06 iMac. I find it's performance very acceptable.

Hey great for you, but have you considered that the rest of the world doesn't support your point of view. Frankly I just don't understand this regressive attitude, it is like saying my gas mileage I get on my truck is good enough when clearly it isn't. If the whole country had this attitude we would be in a world of hurt. Which is sort of like a bag of hurt, except there is a wider impact.


Dave
post #293 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yes, most people asking for a fully serviceable iMac are really objecting to the iMac's philosophy.

The iMac is pretty nifty and powerfully but I didn't hear about it becoming self aware and developing it's own philosophy.

Seriously what do you think Apples philosophy is with the iMac? Moreso why should we accept it without comment?
[/quote]

RAM and Hard Drive upgrades are the only necessity.
[/quote]
The arguement is wider than just upgrades, serviceability is a huge consideration also. In fact I suspect more iMacs get rejected for that reason in the corporate world than anything else.
Quote:

For the price point, I think Apple needs to do away with integrated graphics in the iMac entirely.

Actually Intel is screwing the GPU makers. So the world of integrated graphics may go away, at least in the sense that we use to know it. In the near future the common choices may be Intel integrated graphics or PCI-E connected cards. I suspect that Intel had a serious fear of the integrated chipset makers and decided to play dirty pool.
Quote:
But the graphics card doesn't need to be accessible.

Probably not but we have a whole new generation of GPUs coming. These will offer higher performance at a lower power point. More importantly they provide fine OpenCL support. For some people an upgradable GPU can be very important. In many ways it provides for a way to massively increase a codes performance in a way that could never happen with an upgradeable CPU.


Dave
post #294 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apples PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.

Apple should be remembering that they have to pay technicians to repair them and it costs Apple a lot less if it's a 1 labor unit job rather than a 2 labor unit job. A better layout would reduce basic labor costs and make it far less likely that something will get damaged in the process.

I worked in a service department a few years ago. We all hated the 12" Powerbook because they were a nightmare to work on. The technicians considered them punishment because jobs always took longer than Apple was willing to pay for. When something cuts into your pay check you get grumpy about it. I guarantee there were celebrations all over the world when the last AppleCare policy expired on that model.

I'm not saying the iMac is anywhere near that bad, but anything that's a royal pain to work on earns Apple no friends in the service department.
post #295 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

*Or care, for that matter.

Or completely missing the point of the comment. The comment wasn't directed at the user community. Rather it reflects on the idea that if Apple can take the MBP from a mess to the fine example of engineering we have today then they can do the same for iMac.
Quote:

The internals are laid out to maximize cooling, not serviceability.

It doesn't matter what you think the layout is for as the two goals are not exclusive of each other. The new MBP pretty much proves this point.
Quote:
Not great for the consumer when they want to upgrade the inside, but great for the consumer when it comes to having a cool machine (this equals longer component life).

That is starting to sound like making excuses. Really it does.


Dave
post #296 of 380
Whoever said the iMac is a good performer for most customers is right, but people don't just buy what they need today, they buy something that will last them for a number of years.

Let's say an iMac will last 5 years before it's too slow for the original purchaser.

So when would a desktop Core i7 based Mac reach the same point of obsolescence? I think it's pretty fair to say 5 years after Apple introduces an iMac with equivalent performance since iMacs last 5 years.

So the question is when will the iMac equal today's desktop? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013?
Using the current design philosophy and the improvements made in the last few years I'd say it'll be 2012 when the iMac matches today's desktop.

So while an iMac lasts 5 years, the desktop would last the three years from now until 2012 and then 5 more for a total of 8 years.

That's impressive value for consumers, but terrible for Apple. They used to make long lasting computers and it nearly drove them into bankruptcy.

Apple collectively and Steve Jobs personally hates people who hang onto old equipment even when it's still useable. The new Apple is structured around rapid replacement and upgrade. If you can't or won't replace your Mac every 3-4 years and your iPod/iPhone every 2 years, then they really don't want you as a customer.
post #297 of 380
"While new hardware should come as no surprise, AppleInsider has previously heard word of new iMacs and MacBooks. Last month rumors surfaced that the new Imacs would have compelling new features, one of which was said to have long been on Mac users' wish lists, and another that would appeal to the semi-professional audio/video crowd."


MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!! MATTE SCREEN OPTION!!!
---gooddog

/
: * ] AAAAaaaRRRrrrFFFFff !!!
\
Reply
---gooddog

/
: * ] AAAAaaaRRRrrrFFFFff !!!
\
Reply
post #298 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

...So when would a desktop Core i7 based Mac reach the same point of obsolescence? I think it's pretty fair to say 5 years after Apple introduces an iMac with equivalent performance since iMacs last 5 years...

You could have a Core i7 iMac launched tomorrow which supports up to 8GB and that can last a good 5 years... Except... The hard disk will start to be too slow (you would need to be able to put in an SSD) by the 3rd year. If it is a 9400 GPU then by the 2nd year OpenCL / games/ CoreImage-driven stuff will start to get bogged down.

It's tough to say which will play a greater role... CPU? Graphics? RAM? Hard Disk speed? ... as a computer gets older and new apps/ operating systems come out over the next 3 to 5 years.
post #299 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

But it isn't and this should be clear to anybody spending a dew minutes on the net or in a local computer store. At this point, for a desk top, iMacs performance is crap. Further it isn't a platform for running SL to it's full potential. Buying an iMac right now is a poor choice if you expect to leverage any of the improvements to SL or the improved apps for SL.

I can't make sense of the above statement!! What does the Mac Pros price have to do with the iMacs performance? Nothing that I can see.

In any event thanks for your overbearing attitude and arrogance in defining what an individual user needs performance wise. What next, are you going to tell me what type of vehicle I need to drive or where I should drive that vehicle to?


Hey great for you, but have you considered that the rest of the world doesn't support your point of view. Frankly I just don't understand this regressive attitude, it is like saying my gas mileage I get on my truck is good enough when clearly it isn't. If the whole country had this attitude we would be in a world of hurt. Which is sort of like a bag of hurt, except there is a wider impact.


Dave

Overbearing attitude and arrogance? Can you point me to the post that particular post? I never claimed to represent 'the rest of the word'. This is a forum, where people are allowed to express their own opinions and ideas. Kind of the point, no? Try to relax a little and grow up. Personal attacks gain you nothing and frankly make you look your trolling. Your comments are unnecessarily inflammatory and acidic.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #300 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

People with requirements that exceed the normal usage will always have additional obstacles to face, but I think saying that they are suffering is an exaggeration. As much as I love my 13” MBP and iPhone I could rattle off hundreds of things that I wish Apple would change about the device to suit my specific needs and wants, but I don’t expect them to do so simply because I want them to. Some things I’ve written to Apple about because I feel it would benefit the majority o users.

Other things, like a double capacity battery that makes the phone millimeters thicker and several ounces heavier is something I don’t mind having but something that many iPhone users wouldn’t like and would likely hurt Apple’s sales and vision of a slim iPhone. MY solution was to buy the Mophie Juice Pack Air. I can keep it on while charging and syncing and get more than a full day or excessive internet use on 3G out of my iPhone. The only caveat is that Apple only licenses the male end of their 30-pin connector so a female mini-USB port is used on the Mophie. Those are just a bitch to connect. Another thing I’d like to have seen done away with years ago is the optical drive in notebooks. I haven’t used it in years, and while I am certain this will happen eventually I think the majority of people still need or want one at this point.

Again, accessibility is great and I hope the next iMacs go back to an easily removed back panel for those that want it, but we do have to keep in mind Apple’s PoV on this matter and not get caught up in our own desires and reasons.

The iPhone didn't move up market to replace the low end Macbook like the iMac did with the PowerMac. The first couple versions are excellent for what they are, great consumer machines. However, the game changes after that $1799 model and you're dealing with a set of users with different requirements. If you're going to make it the only option, you can't push a low to median end machine on high end users. Either the higher end iMac need to suit the higher end users that have been herded to them (easy access, two more DIMM slots, twin hard drives, quad core CPUs) or Apple needs an affordable PowerMac (Mac Pro) again.

As for the optical drive, you are in the minority. If people bought a Macbook and found out you couldn't install software or import a CD or watch a DVD, they might not buy another one. You'd have to either pay $100 to lug another thing around or be completely reliant on Apple. They might just decide that Win7 is good enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

Apple should be remembering that they have to pay technicians to repair them and it costs Apple a lot less if it's a 1 labor unit job rather than a 2 labor unit job. A better layout would reduce basic labor costs and make it far less likely that something will get damaged in the process.

I worked in a service department a few years ago. We all hated the 12" Powerbook because they were a nightmare to work on. The technicians considered them punishment because jobs always took longer than Apple was willing to pay for. When something cuts into your pay check you get grumpy about it. I guarantee there were celebrations all over the world when the last AppleCare policy expired on that model.

I'm not saying the iMac is anywhere near that bad, but anything that's a royal pain to work on earns Apple no friends in the service department.

When I had my hard drive replaced a couple of weeks ago, they pretty much admitted that while they had the part in store, mine would be on the back burner because iMac maintenance was so time consuming.
post #301 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It doesn't matter what you think the layout is for as the two goals are not exclusive of each other. The new MBP pretty much proves this point.

That is starting to sound like making excuses. Really it does.

Dave

They can be mutually exclusive adding into account the Apple imposed constraint of designing internal layouts in a thin desktop.

It's not excuses, it's acknowledging a compromise. I know, I agonized over my decision to purchase an iMac this year because of it's lack of easy expandability. I took into account my choices (a mini, a Mac Pro, a PC, a laptop) and ruled them out (not powerful or expandable enough, to expensive and big, ran Windows, wanted a larger screen) and was left with the iMac.
post #302 of 380
It seems that several people are concerned about the possibility of a Quad-core chip skipping the new iMac release, and they are comparing the iMac to some randomly beefed-up Windows PCs.

When Apple creates the hardware and software, and, as put in other posts, the "user experience" as well, it creates a harmonious, synergistic machine that is not only accelerated by the speed of your chip.

If anyone's forgotten, Snow Leopard is (as I think I remember reading) something like up to 2.5x faster than Leopard when performing certain tasks, which clues in to the importance of a powerful operating system. It doesn't matter if you had a 5 GHZ Windows machine; if the software bites and the components do not work well together like in a Mac, than your extra specs are virtually worthless.

Aside, Apple has always sought to shave thickness from all of its products, and so I don't see this as an exception. It would also be nice if an anti-glare option similar to that on the MBP was available in the next iMac for those of us who need accurate color and less eye strain.
post #303 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperscribble View Post

If anyone's forgotten, Snow Leopard is (as I think I remember reading) something like up to 2.5x faster than Leopard when performing certain tasks, which clues in to the importance of a powerful operating system.

Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.

SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.

If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.
post #304 of 380
Bregalad:

I see what you mean about the longetivity of Apples, because apparently some people still use G4 computers! Obviously Apple drops support for a machine after so many years. Whether you buy a new machine or not, new features and improved design are also no doubt a tool used to attract new users as well as existing customers. Budget may be a concern for many people, but chances are that if one can buy a machine this year, you can buy one the year after next too; and let's face it: how can one resist a fresh Apple? Though expensive, it's a difficult entity to deny!
post #305 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperscribble View Post

I see what you mean about the longetivity of Apples, because apparently some people still use G4 computers! Obviously Apple drops support for a machine after so many years. Whether you buy a new machine or not, new features and improved design are also no doubt a tool used to attract new users as well as existing customers. Budget may be a concern for many people, but chances are that if one can buy a machine this year, you can buy one the year after next too; and let's face it: how can one resist a fresh Apple? Though expensive, it's a difficult entity to deny!

You can resist one if it can't do what you want it to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.

SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.

If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.

And that's the irony Snow Leopard, of all its advancements the only machine in Apple's lineup that can take real advantage of it is the Mac Pro. Dual core machines with lower end graphics and two SO-DIMM slots with real world maximum of 4GB of RAM (nobody is going to pay $650 for 8GB) are not going to take advantages of OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, or the 64-bit kernel.
post #306 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Put the cool aide down. You've had too much.

SL is faster than Leopard, but 2.5x faster at what? I've had both (SL and Leopard) and SL feels slightly faster than SL during everyday use. Its not like I got a new machine. And I've installed it on two Macs that had Leopard so I don't think my experience is unusual.

If Apple are looking to improve performance, they're going to need multicore (more than one and preferably more than two) processors. That''s how SL is designed to work faster.

I'm not exactly sure what the "Cool Aide" thing refers to.

That aside, you'll notice that I posted that Snow Leopard is up to 2.5x faster while performing certain tasks. Make that 2.4x actually.

Quicktime X (a component of Snow Leopard I'd say) is up to 2.4x faster because of the OSs 64-bit performance, among other things. Safari 4 is up to 50% faster only when using Snow Leopard. When third party developers begin to write 64-bit Snow Leopard compatible software, significant performance boosts will be seen all around. Adobe AfterEffects CS4, for example, is supposed have a 250% performance gain on a 64-bit machine, which is extreme!

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/

So, there you have it. Software-based performance boosts (providing that there is a processor that supports 64-bits, which there is on all current Macs). Not to say that a pumped machine isn't important, but synergy among computer components and software is a massive factor, and it seems that Apple has introduced 64-bit performance and a Cocoa base into their OS shortly before the newly anticipated iMac release, not to mention the massive amounts of ram that Snow Leopard can now address (up to 16 billion GB, theoretically, that reads in the link above) which directly affects performance.
post #307 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperscribble View Post

I'm not exactly sure what the "Cool Aide" thing refers to.

That aside, you'll notice that I posted that Snow Leopard is up to 2.5x faster while performing certain tasks. Make that 2.4x actually.

Quicktime X (a component of Snow Leopard I'd say) is up to 2.4x faster because of the OSs 64-bit performance, among other things. Safari 4 is up to 50% faster only when using Snow Leopard. When third party developers begin to write 64-bit Snow Leopard compatible software, significant performance boosts will be seen all around. Adobe AfterEffects CS4, for example, is supposed have a 250% performance gain on a 64-bit machine, which is extreme!

http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/

So, there you have it. Software-based performance boosts (providing that there is a processor that supports 64-bits, which there is on all current Macs). Not to say that a pumped machine isn't important, but synergy among computer components and software is a massive factor, and it seems that Apple has introduced 64-bit performance and a Cocoa base into their OS shortly before the newly anticipated iMac release, not to mention the massive amounts of ram that Snow Leopard can now address (up to 16 billion GB, theoretically, that reads in the link above) which directly affects performance.

Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.

Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.

And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.

I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?
post #308 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

You can resist one if it can't do what you want it to do.



And that's the irony Snow Leopard, of all its advancements the only machine in Apple's lineup that can take real advantage of it is the Mac Pro. Dual core machines with lower end graphics and two SO-DIMM slots with real world maximum of 4GB of RAM (nobody is going to pay $650 for 8GB) are not going to take advantages of OpenCL, Grand Central Dispatch, or the 64-bit kernel.

Every Mac takes maybe 10 minutes to upgrade the ram with cheap after market memory. $100 bucks and your done, even on the iMac and the Mini.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #309 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.

Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.

And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.

I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?

You do realize that many of the advancements in SL won't be realized until the applications are written to take advantage of it. That said there are immediate differences in speed (yes some even 2.5 times faster than under leopard). The difference is very noticeable.

That said, a faster processor in any Mac is always a welcome sight
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #310 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Thew 'cool aid' refers to the Apple propaganda. We all drink it around here, but it helps sometimes to have a friend tell you to put it down.

Look I don't deny that SL is faster than Leopard. But every upgrade of OSX has been faster than the previous one. Apple have chosen to trump this feature as they had little user facing changes to discuss.

And OSX has been able to run 64 bit apps since at least Tiger. SL has made the kernel 64 bit and available to some existing machines, but not all with 64 bit cpus.

I'm not ragging on SL. I have it on both my Macs and I like it. But the cpus is important when it comes to general performance and I still see the beach ball so I'd really like to see a higher performance in my Macs. That's only going to come from quad core and better cpu Macs. Why do you think they developed Grand Central Dispatch?

Haha yeah, I guess you're right. That is the purpose of Grand Central Dispatch. I mean, it's true that a Quad core configuration in a new iMac is the most obvious forward step left to be taken in terms of any major performance boosting. That would be very nice.
post #311 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

You do realize that many of the advancements in SL won't be realized until the applications are written to take advantage of it.

Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

That said there are immediate differences in speed (yes some even 2.5 times faster than under leopard). The difference is very noticeable.

I don't know where you guys are getting this. Are you only working in QuickTime X? And let's be honest. QuickTime X was rewritten from the ground up. It should be faster than the old QT which was an app that's been around with a few changes here and there for over a decade. Which apps haven't changed and run better under SL than they did under Leopard? Safari is the only one I've come across personally. It is much faster. SL is faster but it feels a lot like the difference in going from Tiger to Leopard IMO. Maybe a bit more, but no substantially different. Heck, CoD 4 actually has performed worse under SL than it did under Leopard for me.
post #312 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Sure I do. But my whole point is that SL is no panacea for performance improvements. Some would have you believe or at least imply that dual core on SL is better than 4 core machines on windows, or Leopard. I don't believe that to be true. The benefit of SL is its ability to utilize more than 2 core cpus. You know the kind only found on Mac Pros. Without multicore cpus, all the benefits of SL will never be realized.

I don't know where you guys are getting this. Are you only working in QuickTime X? And let's be honest. QuickTime X was rewritten from the ground up. It should be faster than the old QT which was an app that's been around with a few changes here and there for over a decade. Which apps haven't changed and run better under SL than they did under Leopard? Safari is the only one I've come across personally. It is much faster. SL is faster but it feels a lot like the difference in going from Tiger to Leopard IMO. Maybe a bit more, but no substantially different. Heck, CoD 4 actually has performed worse under SL than it did under Leopard for me.

Third party benchmarks can be had all over the net:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...S&NewsID=27015
http://gizmodo.com/5345354/snow-leop...electedImage=1
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/s...ost-video-enc/

No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.

I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #313 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Third party benchmarks can be had all over the net:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/i...S&NewsID=27015
http://gizmodo.com/5345354/snow-leop...electedImage=1
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/17/s...ost-video-enc/

No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.

I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.

I’m with you. The idea that more cores equals better performance is not so cut and dry. Sure MAc OS X, especially SL, is designed to take advantage of extra cores more effectively, but when you find a quad-core that has the same TDP as a dual-core CPU you then have each core running more slowly. Depending on the type of processing going on one or the other can be more beneficial.

For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. Apple would have to do some serious reworking of the iMac to make that work, but it would boost the performance quite bit while also being cheaper. However, that does not account for the fact that Apple uses the same CPUs for the iMac as they do for their notebooks so economics from bulk purchasing could be affected negatively, though I doubt that is really an issue.

For notebooks, it looks like dual-core is the way to go for the time being. The mobile i5s and i7s that are Quad-core are still at such low clock speeds. There will be some apps that can benefit from that but I think that most people will benefit from the faster dual-cores. There is also the marketing aspect of trying to sell a new Mac notebook with a clock speed at nearly half of what it was before and trying to get the average layperson to understand that it’s actually an improvement.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #314 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

No one is saying (or I should say I'm not saying as i haven't read all of the replies..lol) that SL is noticeably faster.

Man I should drink more coffee before posting. I meant to say that SL is noticeably faster, but that doesn't it would overpower a quad core in Windows as a result.

Apparently I shouldn't try to multi-task this early in the morning either
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #315 of 380

The MW UK link really validates what I am saying. SL shows a marked improvement in three benches, Time Machine, Java script and shut down. In the other tests they were pretty even. Time machine is a background process. I'm glad its faster but I don't notice it much because it works in the background. The JS improvement explains the Safari improvements and you can feel it in every day use. The improvement in Shutdown doesn't really affect my overall use. Sure it makes a difference when I turn my machine off, but I leave my iMac on and in sleep mode and my MBP usually only gets shut down once or twice a day. Overall SL has some areas that improve performance a lot but in every day use it doesn't feel *OMG* faster and the benches show why.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

...
I'm genuinely curious where this information is that SL will only really benefit quad core? This is the first I'm reading of it. Could you post a link I'd be interested in reading the technical details. From what I've ready, any multi-core processor will benefit, not just quad-core or an 8-core.

When I say multicore, I mean anything four core or MORE.
post #316 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Im with you. The idea that more cores equals better performance is not so cut and dry. Sure MAc OS X, especially SL, is designed to take advantage of extra cores more effectively, but when you find a quad-core that has the same TDP as a dual-core CPU you then have each core running more slowly. Depending on the type of processing going on one or the other can be more beneficial.

For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. ....

That's why many of us are fired up about Nehalem. When cores aren't being use the cores that are in use can run at a higher clock speed. That's the benefit of Turbo Boost, there isn't a compromise in having many cores. Cores turn on and off depending on use requirements and clock speed is maximized.

The low voltage desk top cpus are nice but at this point I think the Nehalems are a better choice.
post #317 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

That's why many of us are fired up about Nehalem. When cores aren't being use the cores that are in use can run at a higher clock speed. That's the benefit of Turbo Boost, there isn't a compromise in having many cores. Cores turn on and off depending on use requirements and clock speed is maximized.

The low voltage desk top cpus are nice but at this point I think the Nehalems are a better choice.

Then I approve, but is the TDP low enough to be a good fit for Apples current line up? There was a patent awhile back regarding a special cooling unit, but the simplest answer seems that Apple will use chips in the iMacs that are about equal to the current wattage they use now. You know Apples obsession with thinness.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #318 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Then I approve, but is the TDP low enough to be a good fit for Apples current line up? There was a patent awhile back regarding a special cooling unit, but the simplest answer seems that Apple will use chips in the iMacs that are about equal to the current wattage they use now. You know Apples obsession with thinness.

No TDP is an issue.

I have an iMac and while the thinness is nice, I'd easily take an extra inch of thickness to accommodate an i5 cpu. I hope Apple agrees with me but I'm not holding my breath.
post #319 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


For the iMac, there is now the new low voltage desktop CPUs that Intel designed specifically for AIOs, which to means specifically designed with the iMac in mind. They run at 65W while the current iMac CPUs run at 44W. Apple would have to do some serious reworking of the iMac to make that work, but it would boost the performance quite bit while also being cheaper. However, that does not account for the fact that Apple uses the same CPUs for the iMac as they do for their notebooks so economics from bulk purchasing could be affected negatively, though I doubt that is really an issue.

The problem is whether Apple would be willing to redesign it for hotter CPUs. Making it thicker I don't think is an option for the current design team. The form to them is more important than the function.

Quote:
For notebooks, it looks like dual-core is the way to go for the time being. The mobile i5s and i7s that are Quad-core are still at such low clock speeds. There will be some apps that can benefit from that but I think that most people will benefit from the faster dual-cores. There is also the marketing aspect of trying to sell a new Mac notebook with a clock speed at nearly half of what it was before and trying to get the average layperson to understand that it’s actually an improvement.

All arrandale and Clarksfield CPUs have turboboost. Just list booth the single thread and dual thread speeds. The people who want a dual core are going to know about the chip and most of the rest just take Apple's word without question anyway.
post #320 of 380
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The MW UK link really validates what I am saying. SL shows a marked improvement in three benches, Time Machine, Java script and shut down. In the other tests they were pretty even. Time machine is a background process. I'm glad its faster but I don't notice it much because it works in the background. The JS improvement explains the Safari improvements and you can feel it in every day use. The improvement in Shutdown doesn't really affect my overall use. Sure it makes a difference when I turn my machine off, but I leave my iMac on and in sleep mode and my MBP usually only gets shut down once or twice a day. Overall SL has some areas that improve performance a lot but in every day use it doesn't feel *OMG* faster and the benches show why.




When I say multicore, I mean anything four core or MORE.

Can you provide a link that has information where four cores will benefit more than any multi-core processor?
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
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