or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple ready and waiting with redesigned iMac line
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple ready and waiting with redesigned iMac line - Page 3

post #81 of 486
No quad core = no buysies...

Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!

Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.
Sent from my iPod Shuffle
Reply
Sent from my iPod Shuffle
Reply
post #82 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Marsh View Post

No kids...

In my case, no kids still in the house - and no more alimony!
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #83 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurai1999 View Post

Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.

I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)

I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.

Well then we'll have to assume that PC buyers also find the available desktop offerings "pretty weak", because laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales in that market as well, a trend that appears to be accelerating.

Basically what we're doing here is backing into the great X-Mac outcry, which I guess is overdue: Apple should make an expandable, midrange machine with desktop parts. A headless iMac. A cheap Mac Pro. Whatever. I would welcome such a machine, I might even buy one.

But they won't, and they won't because desktops are a shrinking market and "expandability" is hugely overrated by the tech savvy as a necessary feature. Dirt cheap external drives and lots of internal memory mean the vast majority of users will never, ever crack open the case of their machines.

And given that the vast majority of their users will never really tax the laptop hardware they're getting in their iMacs, what is Apple's actual incentive to make the fabled X-Mac?

The theory amongst fans of the idea is that there are all these customers that need exactly that and that Apple could increase their market share, perhaps by quite a bit, if they offered such machines, but is that true? You have to assume that Apple has at least sort of looked into this; they're not entirely adverse to increasing market share as long as it involves their general premium market segment.

My suspicion is that while they would certainly sell a certain number of less expensive, more powerful, expandable desktop machines, the numbers aren't what enthusiasts believe, and certainly not sufficient for Apple to risk cannibalizing the sales of high margin iMacs or Mac Pros.

Like I say, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just how Apple operates and it seems to be working out pretty well. For those specific folks who need or want a machine that Apple doesn't sell it sucks.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #84 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by CdnBook View Post

No quad core = no buysies...

Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!

Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.

I think we'll get it. Wasn't the iMac first to get the Core2Duo?
I don't think Apple's clueless like certain folk on here think because Apple's giving iPhone users MMS tomorrow which they think nobody needs or wants.
post #85 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

They don't need Lynnfield. If they're going to move up to Nehalem soon, then this is what they'll move to.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3647&p=1

If they wait until early next year, then they'll likely go with Arrandale.

I'm assuming you mean Clarksfield ;-) Arrandale is going to be a low power two-core chip.

Where Clarksfield runs at a 55 watts TDP, Apple is going to need to do some significant cooling engineering to get it to work in any of their systems - notebooks or iMacs, so your probably looking at mid-2010 at the earliest before you see them in notebooks or iMacs. The top current Core 2 Duo runs at 35 watts TDP as a comparison.
post #86 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I doubt you could find one person these days that does as you describe above. None of those concerns are as important as knowing your money was well spent on a machine that will remain viable for the long haul.

When it comes to most consumers, you are off base. They aren't looking underneath the hood here.

Including for most PC buyers, the cpu is unimportant, the video card is unimportant. They have no idea what amount of RAM to get, and rarely get more than is in the machine. Same thing is true for HDD's.

They look at initial cost, looks, whether it will play their music and videos, etc.

If you want to talk about the much smaller techie crowd, then it's different.

But even here, Mac users almost always are interested in how much faster the new Mac is when compared to their OLD Mac, not to a PC.

If people buy a computer because a Windows machine is a bit faster or slower than a Mac, then that's a bad reason.

I've used Macs for so long because of the OS firstly, and the machines secondly. I've found PCs to be screwy, to say the least, and even if one is faster, that wouldn't be a good reason to switch.
post #87 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I think we'll get it. Wasn't the iMac first to get the Core2Duo?
I don't think Apple's clueless like certain folk on here think because Apple's giving iPhone users MMS tomorrow which they think nobody needs or wants.

Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.

Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #88 of 486
I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.

The only purpose I can see to build thinner iMacs is to save on aluminum. A couple of ounces saved on each iMac means a few dollars saved for every thousand iMacs that roll off the assembly line. For every thousand iMacs' aluminum shavings scraped from the floor and collected, they can be melted down to build one free MacBook unibody case. Now that's what I call efficiency.

I don't care what they put in their computers as long as they get people to buy them in quantity and make plenty of profit from every sale. Go Apple.
post #89 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.

The only purpose I can see to build thinner iMacs is to save on aluminum. A couple of ounces saved on each iMac means a few dollars saved for every thousand iMacs that roll off the assembly line. For every thousand iMacs' aluminum shavings scraped from the floor and collected, they can be melted down to build one free MacBook unibody case. Now that's what I call efficiency.

I don't care what they put in their computers as long as they get people to buy them in quantity and make plenty of profit from every sale. Go Apple.

The iMacs must be thinner because Steve has a crippling case of hardware anorexia.

He looks at the current iMac and says "Oh God, it's so fat. It's disgusting. STOP LOOKING AT IT!"

Then he makes all his engineers throw up.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #90 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.

Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.

Apple enabled MMS with iPhone OS 3.0 in June 2009. WHat does that have to do with AT&T? It's Apple who decided it would be a feature not AT&T. You're talking about something else entirely.
post #91 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

If that is true, than the Mac market has done a complete 180 from where it was even just a couple of years ago. Mac users have always been more computer literate, pursuing bleeding-edge technology since the early days of desktop publishing. Most of the Mac users I know and have supported always went out and bought the latest stuff as soon as it came out - that is how Apple earned its brand loyalty. The advent of consumer use of Macs is a recent trend that is small and growing, the majority of Mac users are still professionals that need the most out of their hardware. This article from Government Computer News illustrates my point:

http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2009/02/...se.aspx?Page=1

Business, government, and scientific use of Macs is going to skew the numbers of what kind of performance is needed in their computers. You can be sure they know what they are buying.

The article you cite disproves your point. If the iMac is sufficiently powerful to meet general computing needs then it doesn't matter what kind of parts it's got inside. Your argument that "consumer use of Macs is a recent trend" is confusing. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but (speaking as a Mac user of 25 years) it certainly doesn't seem to be true.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #92 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The iMacs must be thinner because Steve has a crippling case of hardware anorexia.

He looks at the current iMac and says "Oh God, it's so fat. It's disgusting. STOP LOOKING AT IT!"

Then he makes all his engineers throw up.

Isn't that commonly know as Macorexia?
post #93 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdyates View Post

I dunno... as far as a desktop screen that you sit 1 1/2 feet from I think anything bigger than 24" starts to demand you sit further away from the screen, which starts to negate the whole desktop idea and starts to look like a TV. I use 2 monitors for the extra screen real-estate, but neither is bigger than 24".

Anyone currently using a 27" or 30" monitor as their main display? How is it sitting that close to such a big screen?

I use 30'' screen and sit to it very close (about a foot from it). 30'' Apple cinema display wiht its 2560x1600 resolution is 107 DPI, or the same as 24'' screens with 1920x1200 resolution, so the resolution is the same, you just have more surface area (i.e. more space to put application windows around). So, you can view these large screens from the same distance as the smaller screens.

Incidently, 17'' Macbook Pro's with 1920x1200 resolution are 133 DPI, so significantly higher than your typical LCD at any size.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #94 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac. It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.

This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.

And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.

I use an iMac professionally and it does exactly what I need it to do. The current iMacs are more than capable of handling most "pro" uses. Graphic designers, software/web developers, photographers, etc. I don't see a need to try to shoehorn the latest intel processors into a form factor that can't handle the heat and power consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWiz67 View Post

I dearly hope most of you are wrong...

And Apple manage to get i5 in there because the "semi-professional audio/video crowd" surely need more than a lame dual core with a crippled video card?

Someone I know is constantly fighting malware in windows, because he can't afford a Mac Pro. iMac is so under spec he would have to upgrade in about a year. He wants a solid mid-range machine that runs Logic pro properly.

aW

I am however one of the people that would buy a more "mid-range" box from Apple. Not sure if it should be a cube type form factor or what, but surely there are a few of us out there that would like to have a mac with much better graphics hardware combined with the otherwise adequate performance of the iMacs, without having spring for a mac pro. In a little bigger enclosure, and without the monitor, Apple could put together something that is still elegant and quiet.

I guess Apple doesn't see this market as big enough to go there., but right now, in this segment, if you want to run OSX you are out of luck. You are stuck with windows or Linux.
post #95 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by CdnBook View Post

No quad core = no buysies...

Too many desktop computers out there with i7's selling for less. There's no excuse for not putting in the new MOBILE Clarksfield i7 quad core!

Unless of course, Apple wants to continue selling Core 2 Duo's to the masses it assumes aren't clever enough to notice the difference.

It has nothing to do with being clever,after all, most PC users aren't exactly clever.

Most computer users simply don't care. Modern machines are fast enough for most people already.

If Apple isn't making a machine fast enough for those who want a faster consumer machine, then they'll buy a PC. That's fine too. Apple isn't trying to get everyone to buy Macs. They have their limits as to what they are interested in doing. People have to understand that.

But you also have to understand that Apple will move to new chips, and if they can get 4 core chips at the price they think is good for them, they will do it. There is no doubt that Apple wants to move to 4 core anf beyond, when they think the time is right for them.

Everyone doesn't have to agree.

And a lot of iMacs are used by pros now.
post #96 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It has nothing to do with being clever,after all, most PC users aren't exactly clever.
Most computer users simply don't care. Modern machines are fast enough for most people already.

Everyone doesn't have to agree.

And a lot of iMacs are used by pros now.

Put down the bottle pleez. So "Pros" only use iMacs now and not PCs?????
Quote:
PC users aren't clever??

Stop embarrassing yourself.
post #97 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I'm assuming you mean Clarksfield ;-) Arrandale is going to be a low power two-core chip.

Where Clarksfield runs at a 55 watts TDP, Apple is going to need to do some significant cooling engineering to get it to work in any of their systems - notebooks or iMacs, so your probably looking at mid-2010 at the earliest before you see them in notebooks or iMacs. The top current Core 2 Duo runs at 35 watts TDP as a comparison.

That's why I linked to the article, and mentioned Arrandale afterwards.

We may be seeing new Macbooks a bit later, so if that's true, I wonder what we'll see in them.

With Apple supposedly moving to even thinner enclosures for iMacs, I wonder how they could squeeze a 55 watt chip inside. But if you read the article, you would see that the TCPis just that, the max rating. With the new chips moving up so many bins in speed when needed, its just possible that average power may fall low enough for Apple to manage it. Just a guess.

At any rate, the iMacs using the mobile chips usually, because of the desktop buss and drives, eck out more performance than a laptop does with the same chips.
post #98 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

The article you cite disproves your point. If the iMac is sufficiently powerful to meet general computing needs then it doesn't matter what kind of parts it's got inside. Your argument that "consumer use of Macs is a recent trend" is confusing. I don't know what you are trying to say here, but (speaking as a Mac user of 25 years) it certainly doesn't seem to be true.

By that statement I know you didn't even bother to read the article... the article went into detail on how those organizations use Macs for applications requiring performance. Mostly they were talking about Mac Pros, but there was a couple of examples of iMac use.

Hello, greater than 90% of the computer market is Windows based PCs - where do you think the greatest concentration of consumer use of computers are then? So yes, consumer use of Macs is a recent trend. Macs are still mostly (until I see numbers to the contrary) used by people who made them popular in the first place - graphics professionals, movie makers, desktop publishers, and scientists - all people that are more demanding of their equipment than your average web browsing, Microsoft Word processing user (who for the most part are using Windows PCs). Plus the consumer side of the computer market is a very small percentage of the overall computer market which is dominated by business use of computers - and business users are more demanding of their computers than the average home user.
post #99 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Except of course that would be AT&T who has been dragging their heels because of anticipated bandwidth problems.

Also, Google the "Post Hoc" fallacy.

Can the both of you leave MMS out of this discussion, please?
post #100 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

A lot of photo and graphics pros buy the 24" iMac.

I have a friend that got a 24" model about two months ago. She is happy with it but if she would have asked I would of suggested holding off on the purchase.
Quote:
It's a fine machine for that purpose, and the programs as yet don't take advantage of more than two cores, at least, not in a very usable way.

This could result in a very long discussion but I will just say that Snow Leopard changes that a bit. There appears to be a subset of programs that already benefit greatly from Snow Leopard. Apparently Apple refactored NSOperation facilities to leverage GCD so some programs fair well under SL.

The reality is though that many programs use older threading models that assume things about the machine they run on and thus don't benefit hugely from SL.

In otherwords Threaded apps under SL are a mixed bag today. Optimized software is a ways off.
Quote:

This is why the 3.0.6 GHz iMacs my daughter and wife have, have tested higher than a mid range Mac Pro in these apps.

I have to wonder if such testing would be valid today under SL?
Quote:

And while the screen may not be quite as good as a top (several thousand dollar) pro graphics monitor, they're pretty good, better than most, and can be calibrated very well.

I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.

With Turbo Boost and the other processor enhancements an i7 based CPU ought to be able to out perform the current iMacs on poorly threaded code and at the same time do well with the newer GCD code. Maybe it is to good to be true but it would be very nice if i7 turns out to be the ideal transitional processor.


Dave
post #101 of 486
From the original article:
Quote:
precisely unclear when

Huh?

Perhaps you meant, "it's unclear precisely when"?
post #102 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Put down the bottle pleez. So "Pros" only use iMacs now and not PCs?????
Stop embarrassing yourself.

Stop being a wiseass, you must of read the post I was responding to, it wasn't your business.
post #103 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.

THAT causes a potential MacPro buyer to get a Dell for much less money. All fair and good that many think Apple has hit a winner with making iMac useless for anything above using Firefox.

Giant & obese Mac Pro

---- big gap ---- <<Dell, HP, Acer, etc

Weedy skinny iMac
post #104 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

I used to hate laptop computers in my PC years and vowed to never ever buy a laptop. I bought my first iMac in 2006 and I loved it. Last year I needed a laptop and was really hesitate to replace my iMac with a laptop (MBP). Well, almost a year with my MBP and I couldn't be happier. The only thing I miss is the big 20" screen and for that I will get the 24" LED Cinema Display in the near future (along with the quad core MBP when they come out)

Yep...I know exactly where you are coming from! I used to agonize over the comfort of a desktop vs. the mobility of the laptop (with all it's limitations).

So I resigned myself to both! Problem solved! I had to give my intel original macbook to my daughter for medical school, so as soon as the MBA is updated with the same trackpad as the MacBook Pro's.

A 30" iMac, an updated MBA, a 2gig Time Capsule, SL, iLife & iWork suite, an iPhone 3GS and I will be set...Oh don't forget the new Tablet. Got's to have one of those too.

Again, I have just resigned myself to the overlap of the above mentioned products rather than debating (with myself) the pro's and con's of each! :

Best Regards!
post #105 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's why I linked to the article, and mentioned Arrandale afterwards.

We may be seeing new Macbooks a bit later, so if that's true, I wonder what we'll see in them.

With Apple supposedly moving to even thinner enclosures for iMacs, I wonder how they could squeeze a 55 watt chip inside. But if you read the article, you would see that the TCPis just that, the max rating. With the new chips moving up so many bins in speed when needed, its just possible that average power may fall low enough for Apple to manage it. Just a guess.

At any rate, the iMacs using the mobile chips usually, because of the desktop buss and drives, eck out more performance than a laptop does with the same chips.

I don't know about you, but when I engineer something, I engineer it to the maximum possible condition. Designing a computer to the average thermal rating would be just asking for heat related problems. I would guess the iMac uses mobile chips because Steve wants a thin enclosure and doesn't want a huge power brick. The design choice has nothing to do with performance.
post #106 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Isn't that commonly know as Macorexia?


Funny! Allergies must be better!

You know what they say, 'you can never be too rich or too thin!'

I'm one case of the stomach flu from my ideal weight! Come on Winter and Flu season!
post #107 of 486
What's with this obsession with thin with a Desktop? I don't care what parts it has in it. It's not a mobile laptop. You hook it up, set it on your desk, and never look at the back again.

I have to agree. I'll be disappointed if they don't leverage any of the newer processor technology like i5 or i7. With the turbo technology from these newer series processors, and with the hinted LED display, the heat generated should be less compared to the ambient heat from the existing back light.

My iMac is only a year old so I'll be skipping this generation regardless unless something unforeseen happens, but IMO Apple needs to stop being so single minded about thin factor on an iMac. They don't need to be thin as they aren't portable, and it adds no benefit when you're looking at the screen. You can't tell how thick they are looking at the screen in any case.

I can't imagine the end users are wanting even more 'thinness' over better CPU and graphics options at this point.
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 #108 of 486
That would be awesome! Something that is not an iMac but not a Mac pro but much more than a Mac Mini.
I would but that in a heartbeat!!!
And as long as I am asking...the ability to upgrade the CPU as well!
Hey I can dream can't I!!! :-)


Quote:
Originally Posted by nonimus View Post

I hope there will be an Intel i5 750 or (preferably) an i7 860.

It would be nice to see USB 3.0 or a faster version of FireWire.

I'd like to know who's been talking to Apple about the need for a thinner enclosure. I really can't imagine that the numbers asking for that aren't a slim fraction of the numbers wanting a DESKTOP quad processor and better video card. Some other rumors suggest a 25.5" or 26" screen. Rather have a better processor/video card.

Why not just make a Mac Pro Mini - with a mini aluminum enclosure with the opportunity for owners to make some hardware upgrades instead of being sealed off like most Apple products.

My Windows computer died from hardware failure and I was hoping for a quad core iMac. I may have to get a cheap Windows 7 laptop and wait until next Spring. I hope not....

You'd think Apple would want to exploit Snow Leopard's Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL with new, capable hardware -- at the consumer level.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #109 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I have a friend that got a 24" model about two months ago. She is happy with it but if she would have asked I would of suggested holding off on the purchase.

This could result in a very long discussion but I will just say that Snow Leopard changes that a bit. There appears to be a subset of programs that already benefit greatly from Snow Leopard. Apparently Apple refactored NSOperation facilities to leverage GCD so some programs fair well under SL.

The reality is though that many programs use older threading models that assume things about the machine they run on and thus don't benefit hugely from SL.

In otherwords Threaded apps under SL are a mixed bag today. Optimized software is a ways off.

I have to wonder if such testing would be valid today under SL?

I'll give it until sometime mid 2010 before Open CL and Grand Central make a difference for enough people, for it to begin to matter.

I'll give it until the end of 2010 before enough people see a difference in more than a small set of mostly programs by third party developers that are other than minor.

I'll give it until mid 2011 before most people will see significant improvements in their average daily computer usage from those advancements.

In other words, 4 cores aren't useful for most people for most programs now, and won't be for some time.

Better graphic card usage will come sooner, but not for most apps.

Quote:
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.

The people who have stated these concerns here loudly, are just going by what they think are useful specs. The differences between high end pro graphics monitors and the 24" iMac are not that great for most purposes. so if someone is doing high end color work in a tight commercial setting, then there are better monitors to choose. but for most graphics pros, this monitor is plenty good enough.

Considering that we've got to spec spot colors with Pantone numbers (or others in other places) anyway, no matter what monitor we're using, the ultimate monitor isn't meaningful for most work.

And I'm one of the pickiest people around.

Quote:
With Turbo Boost and the other processor enhancements an i7 based CPU ought to be able to out perform the current iMacs on poorly threaded code and at the same time do well with the newer GCD code. Maybe it is to good to be true but it would be very nice if i7 turns out to be the ideal transitional processor.


Dave

There's no doubt that Apple will b going to new cpu's with these still rumored machines. a four core Clarksdale is $1,000 bin price. That's a lot. maybe, just maybe, if Apple can manage the cooling, they would have than in the top model, just as the top models have the current 3.0.6.

After all, where can Apple go for chips? Either it will be a slightly upgraded Core 2 version, or the new Clarksdale.

Those are the only two realistic choices right now.
post #110 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleWiz67 View Post

THAT causes a potential MacPro buyer to get a Dell for much less money. All fair and good that many think Apple has hit a winner with making iMac useless for anything above using Firefox.

Giant & obese Mac Pro

---- big gap ---- <<Dell, HP, Acer, etc

Weedy skinny iMac

That shows you don't know anything about Apple's machines, or the people who buy them.
post #111 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I hope the 20" comes with VESA mounting capability. I want to put one on the kitchen counter but it needs to fit under the upper cabinet. Right now my white 20" with no VESA adapter does not fit where I want it because it is a little too tall. the 24" mount is VESA compatible but it is way too big for my purpose.

http://www.imacmount.com/
post #112 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Marsh View Post

No kids...

Ah! I've heard of that financial plan before. Some days it looks appealing.
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
Go Linux, Choose a Flavor!
"I aim to misbehave"
Reply
post #113 of 486
I personally like Apple's preoccupation with elegance (thinness) and less cables for that matter.

I used to think the white intel iMac was the 'bee's knees' until I got accustomed to the aluminum iteration. Now the white looks somewhat dated.

I find the HP's and Dells creaky and 'vomit worthy' compared to the Macs.

However, I do take your point about thinness at the expense of performance. But knowing Apple I will eventually get both.
post #114 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Stop being a wiseass, you must of read the post I was responding to, it wasn't your business.

"Wise" and "techstud" are two words that should never be used in the same sentence.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #115 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

"Wise" and "techstud" are two words that should never be used in the same sentence.

Now, now. Be nice. Techstud has allergies!
post #116 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well then we'll have to assume that PC buyers also find the available desktop offerings "pretty weak", because laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales in that market as well, a trend that appears to be accelerating.

Basically what we're doing here is backing into the great X-Mac outcry, which I guess is overdue: Apple should make an expandable, midrange machine with desktop parts. A headless iMac. A cheap Mac Pro. Whatever. I would welcome such a machine, I might even buy one.

But they won't, and they won't because desktops are a shrinking market and "expandability" is hugely overrated by the tech savvy as a necessary feature. Dirt cheap external drives and lots of internal memory mean the vast majority of users will never, ever crack open the case of their machines.

And given that the vast majority of their users will never really tax the laptop hardware they're getting in their iMacs, what is Apple's actual incentive to make the fabled X-Mac?

The theory amongst fans of the idea is that there are all these customers that need exactly that and that Apple could increase their market share, perhaps by quite a bit, if they offered such machines, but is that true? You have to assume that Apple has at least sort of looked into this; they're not entirely adverse to increasing market share as long as it involves their general premium market segment.

My suspicion is that while they would certainly sell a certain number of less expensive, more powerful, expandable desktop machines, the numbers aren't what enthusiasts believe, and certainly not sufficient for Apple to risk cannibalizing the sales of high margin iMacs or Mac Pros.

Like I say, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just how Apple operates and it seems to be working out pretty well. For those specific folks who need or want a machine that Apple doesn't sell it sucks.

Very true. It is an "enthusiasts" market for the "X-Mac". I don't think it would increase their market share or have any significant impact on their bottom line at all. For me, at least, its not as much about expandability as it is about having a couple more ram slots and a desktop class graphics card.

It's just enthusiasts' wishful thinking.
post #117 of 486
I yearn for the Power PC days.

At least then Apple used the best cpus Motorola and IBM could produce.
post #118 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

I agree with Steve, Blu Ray is expensive and kinda useless on a computer.

Expensive? Blu-ray drives are selling for as low as $60 at retail. Apple should be able to get them for a lot less than $50.

Quote:
First off, most programs still fit nicely on a DVD.

Second you would need a much larger then 24' display for blu ray to be useful, and for that you would need a TV, not an iMac.

Why do you need more than a 24" display for blu-ray to be useful? If you are sitting in front of a 24" monitor that can display 1080p at native resolution, it is quite easy to see the difference between upscaled 480p vs 1080p video.

Quote:
Third making iMacs more expensive right now is not a very good move, the economy is not good enough to support a price increase right now.

Therefore if blu ray does come about it would have to be an option for the most expensive iMac in the family. Just my prediction.
post #119 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.

Dave

Glare is an issue. WHy do you think they still use the old cinema display in Apple class on Fifth Avenue? So everyone can see it. You can't see it from every angle with all that glare. YOu have to constantly move it .
I'll take my white matte iMac screen anyday over the current screen.
Why do you think matte is back on the Pros?
The larger the screen the more the glare.
post #120 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden View Post

I don't know about you, but when I engineer something, I engineer it to the maximum possible condition. Designing a computer to the average thermal rating would be just asking for heat related problems. I would guess the iMac uses mobile chips because Steve wants a thin enclosure and doesn't want a huge power brick. The design choice has nothing to do with performance.

Not really. I designed plenty of electronics myself. I understand thermal design.

There's a difference between using a chip that will dissipate an average amount of heat that's acceptable for long term conditions, while allowing for shorter term higher dissipation rates, and designing a machine that must allow the higher rates 100% of the time.

That's why, for example, fans have variable speeds.

There are two factors that have to be considered.

One is the obvious factor of the chip's cooling needs. The other is the capacity of the machine itself for absorbing and dissipating more heat.

Modern machines have cooling systems that are far more sophisticated than they once were. A design can be made smaller while still removing the same amount of heat.

In the old days, all the cooling was done by heatsinks and fans. That required a lot of room. But now it's much better.

I think the question here is not whether Apple could cool the chip properly, but what effect that would have on the rest of the machine. All manufacturers do studies on how the machines are stressed in actual use.

The entire machine is realistically part of the cooling system as it absorbs heat quickly and gives it off more slowly.

The question is whether Apple has decided that their design can absorb enough heat quickly but give it off properly so that the normal temp of the machine stays below design limits.

That doesn't mean that the machine as a whole must withstand 100% output all of the time. I don't know many consumer machines, PC or Mac that are designed today that can.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple ready and waiting with redesigned iMac line