Apple ads hint at thinner iMacs, lighter MacBooks, cheaper Mac minis - Page 4

Actually, it's more even lighting than my old Macbook Pro that has a matte screen with a CFL. I presume it's just a row of LEDs on the bottom, which is why you get a flood of light coming from the bottom up. As far as comparing LEDs with CFLs, it's not even close. LEDs are clearly better, they are far brighter and they don't have the corner lighting issues that CFLs do. And frankly for those people who are complaining about matte screens not being on the iMac or 13" Macbook Pro, I say the benefits of using a brighter LCD outweighs the glare issue. Matte screens have had their time, but frankly, it's way better than it was with my 2006 Macbook Pro, with a dim screen barely readable at full brightness in sunlight. With the new Macbook Pros, yeah, there's some glare, but the brightness is absolutely outstanding. I've never had a computer until now where I could actually read stuff at half-brightness in direct sunlight. Of course, using a glossy screen will mean that colors won't be accurate compared to printing or displaying the same graphics on other non-glossy displays, but that's what you get for being cheap and not going for the 15" Macbook Pro (truth be told, working w/ graphics is way better on a 15" than 13") w/ matte

windows users watch out!
I just tried "iMac Air" in google and among the first few results there were two - actually about the same site - quite suspicious ones:
http://asaogz.321webs.com/imacair0.html

If you click on those picts or on the video, it starts to download an .exe file.
I'm a mac, so don't really care. But watch out if you search for this iMac Air rumor on Windows.
it's nasty!

There are a couple of different ways to do it. The conventional way is to use an array of LEDs covering the back of the panel. They can use white or an array of RGB LEDs (the best option) to produce light. This type of lighting allows for fancy stuff like local dimming for deep blacks.

Here's a picture of the LED array behind Sharp's LE700 series of TVs:

The second way is to have LEDs mounted around the edges of the display. Because the LEDs are not directly behind the display, local dimming isn't possible. However, because there isn't that extra layer behind the panel, they can be made super slim (like the Samsung TVs).

just registered to post this. some bored person posted a sketch up?

http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehou...t=120&hl=en-GB

Rather neat looking if it were true.

Brighter screens are fine for playing games and watching movies, the very last thing you want for editing photographs though is a bright screen - which is why there is the demand from that community for matte and lower brightness. A 'pro' line of iMacs with less stupidly bright screens and a matte option would be a great step forward for many of us or even a headless mac between the mini and the pro.

Would matte on a MBP be too dull for Diablo III or games in general (let's use Crysis as another example)? I'm pretty sure my old Gateway desktop monitor was matte and it seemed fine and that was in 2003 so the MBP screen (be it 15" or 17") would have to be an improvement, no?

The Matte on a MBP is as good as any laptop display for gaming. The difference in actual image quality between matte and glossy is small. As with everything else, it simply comes down to whether you want to see reflections clearly, or want them diffused.

Yes, it's a relic, in terms of price, performance, and expandability. And sorry to burst your little anti-PC bubble, but my machine, sadly, isn't covered in neon lights or in a giant box. It's a tiny Shuttle XPC, which is very pretty and took me about an hour to put together (at most).

But that's by the by, I could put together a machine on the Dell website right now for the same price as an iMac with performance many times greater. And Blu-Ray, eSATA, 8gb RAM etc.

My point, which you completely missed, was that using gimped laptop parts in a desktop is spectacularly idiotic. What does it matter if a desktop machine is a few cm thicker? I will be in the market for a new PC soon, and as I have a lot of other Apple gear (including a Macbook) I would like to get an iMac. But... the current model, as I said, is a joke, there's no way I'm paying so much for such a dated bit of hardware. If that means my next PC is another Windows box, then so be it, but I know when I'm being taken for a ride, and an iMac is a giant con.

So you do understand that Apple is using the more expensive notebook components for their AIO, yet you still wish to compare it to a desktop you put together from Dell. That doesn’t strike you as disingenuous in the least bit? And if using notebook components that lack excessive upgradability means that a machine is a relic than nearly every notebook out there is a relic. Have you checked out Dell’s AIO. Talk about a relic, they are matching the old Mac Mini with time between updates on that XPS One.

What you “idiotic” is a model that is working for Apple. Just because it doesn’t fit your particular needs doesn’t mean that it’s a bad model. I have no need for the iMac, but I can see how it can appeal to others. I also have no need for a huge tower, whether built by a major vendor or myself, but I can see how it can appeal to others.

You are confusing what you want Apple to do to suit your specific needs with what you think they ought to be doing to best serve their needs as a business. You don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it. For example, i wish Apple would produce a home server running OS X, but they don’t, so I have a HP MediaSmart running Windows Home Server. It even allows for Time Machine backups. Not ideal, since my home is otherwise all Macs, but I don’t think Apple is idiotic, stupid or wrong for not making a specific product simply because I want it.

What's the chances they'll just toss these out on tuesday, or think they'll make us wait a few weeks for an event

I wasn't aware Dell made an all in one, but I had a quick look and this is what I found.

Dell XPS One - Core 2 Quad 2.3ghz, blu-ray ROM/DVDR drive, 2gb RAM, digital TV tuner, 802.11n, 500gb HD, GeForce 9600M GT, 24" 1080p screen, wireless mouse and keyboard. UK price = £1500

Apple iMac - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz, DVDR drive, 4gb RAM, 640gb HD, GeForce GT 120, 24" 1080p screen, 802.11n, wired mouse and keyboard.
UK price = £1500

Which of these is the better value machine? Granted both are pretty crappy and over priced, but I know which one seems like a more modern PC.

Or alternatively, Dell also offer this choice:

Dell Studio XPS - i7 Quad 3.06ghz, blu-ray RW, drive, 8gb RAM, 2tb HD, GeForce GTS 240, 19 in 1 media card reader, 802.11n, 23" 1080p screen, wired keyboard and mouse.
UK price = £1550.

You defend Apple for not producing a consumer desktop tower, but given how laptops dominate Apple's sales perhaps they should reconsider. The value for money the Dell tower gives is light years ahead of the all in ones, particularly the iMac.

Looking at these specs and prices has actually been pretty interesting, as I didn't realise it was possible to get such a ridiculously fast new PC for a decent price. Looks like my next PC purchase is confirmed, as there's no way the new iMac will come anywhere close.

Here are my mockups from last year. Thinner, sexier, going to Glass + Aluminium with LED backlighting.

Actually I think the back will be aluminium, like my mockup, but the front will retain the aluminium chin, *unlike* my mockup.

Of course I could have posted these somehow as "OMFG leaked" images but anyways, here they are again:

They are better, but that's not why. LEDs (especially RGB LEDs, though those are very rare) allow the display to show the full color gamut, something that CCFL backlights don't allow. They allow the display to be either thinner (side lit) or have insanely high contrast ratios (local dimming), all while using less power and having longer lifespans. They can also strobe to produce a moving image with less blurring.

Those Dells are rubbish. I'd rather build my own PC or choose individual parts from a reliable beige-box supplier and let them build it. Core i5, 4GB RAM, ATI 4870 1GB, 802.11n, Samsung 24" 1080p screen, wireless keyboard and mouse, 1TB HD (who needs 2TB?), 550W branded power supply ~ this should come in under £1,000 easily.

So, thin sexy iMac 24" for £1,200 with way underpowered graphics and dualcore CPU but with Mac OS X Snow Leopard goodness, or reliable beige-box supplier for great value for money. Dell is a no go. Neither here nor there.

Clarksfield is 65W TDP right? Way too hot for thinner iMacs. No Clarksfield, I think. Just bumped Core2Duo specs.

You do know you can buy PC laptops with i7s in them, don't you?

Sorry didn´t mean for my post to appear that big

I already have an external optical drive attached to my Mini on account of the Mini doesn't burn DVDs and so I bought a DVD external burner. As long as the thing is working properly, I can hook it up to whatever computer I want. And if Apple gets around to supporting Blu-Ray, when the price of Blu-Ray hardware becomes reasonable - probably not far off - I don't have to get rid of a perfectly good computer to go the Blu-Ray route.

Granted, I have more spaghetti in my work area than an Italian restaurant but I'm not that stressed by it. Out of sight out of mind. I have three external hard drives, including a terrabyte unit I just bought to handle more than seven hours of HD footage and an external DVD burner. I could replace it all with a Mac Pro tower, eliminating all that spaghetti, but the cost of doing that is rather high. Here in Canada it's $3379 Cdn before taxes to order up a base Pro with 2T worth of hard drive. The Mini, as it is configured now even with the CPU upgrade and a jump up to 4G of RAM, runs $1,089 Cdn. before taxes. Now imagine pulling the optical drive but lowering the cost by say $150, to bring it down to $939. Now to up the hard drive count order up a 2T hard drive from Apple for $400 and a "superdrive", i.e. an external DVD burner for maybe $150, a keyboard and mouse for $108 bringing the total cost to $1,597. Of course there is a huge performance difference but our sales tax in the area I live is 13 per cent, meaning the Mini, spaghetti and all, would check at about $1,805, whereas the tiower would come in at $3,818. That's a difference of $2,013.

If I'm running a business, it's a no-brainer to opt for the Pro's speed and less cluttered appearance. But as a hobbyist, the Mini package, including the DVD burner and hard drive, is the obvious choice.

More to the point, it would not matter in the slightest that the Mini didn't come with an optical drive. I already have the burner, so it would save me, in particular, money if the device were configured that way. If one were a beginner, i.e. starting off with no legacy equipment and not sure what my plans were for the computer, would there be a problem with bringing hiome a Mini that had the OS and iLife suite preinstalled, plugging the thing in and starting to tinker around. Adding optical capability would not require much tech savvy. Go to store, buy burner, bring burner home, plug in via USB (or firewire), done.

The original idea behind the Mini was bring-your-own-keyboard-mouse-monitor. So why not take it one step further by making it bring-your-own-keyboard-mouse-monitor-optical drive? Some folks might never need to add the drive and others like me, already have one. Don't know how many external DVD burners are out there but I'm betting it numbers in the millions. Everybody sells them. Worst case the cost is about the same and it's an additional minute or two to plug the external in. The Mini by it's very nature requires a ton of externals to be expanded for anything more than casual use so I guess my point is, what's one more?

Gruber's reporting that Blu-Ray is once again not happening. What's this, the third year in a row that it's been rumored for inclusion in Macs, since every other computer manufacturer has offered it for that long of time?

Well, let's hope Apple will shove them i5/i7 CPUs in them "super thin" iMacs... and figure out how to cool it all including dedicated GPUs. I'm not crossing my fingers though... ... Just something profit-wise that Apple will not want to "invest" in... Apple will try to get away with fast Core2Duos... Again, I'm not crossing my fingers. In any case, we'll see soon enough.

I'm not surprised if there is no BluRay. No BluRay, no Corei5, no better GPU... seems weak but well, it's the iMac. Where form and style beats all... supposedly. But we could all be wrong and see 28", Radeon 4870, BluRay, Corei7 on the top end. Wouldn't that be nice.

I don't see how Apple can avoid using the Clarksfield i7 CPUs... the iMac will be a laughingstock if it goes another revision with Core 2.

(Not that the iMac is taken seriously now by anyone except Apple fans)

Yeah, instead of keeping up with the PC desktop market they'll just keep making them into laptops strapped to the back of nice monitors. Lame.

Hi Everyone,

I have been wanting to get a Imac for a year now and i've been putting it off till they made a change to the current model. Since all the rumors have been out i have been keeping up with them. Patiently waiting for the new Imac arrivals. Which hopefully will be this week.

So i throughly check this site and the apple store website and since thursday this past week there are times when i try and go on and the site is loading with errors or not loading at all. I've done this at home and work so i dont think its my computer. But i get this feeling that there working on the site in the mist of the New Imac Arrivals!!!

1) Check out the 20” XPS One specs. (edit: looks like they finally dropped the aging 20” from the lineup and updated the 24”)

2) I defend ANY company’s choice to make or not to make a computer for a certain market segment. I also defend MS’ right to make an OS that requires them to use legacy code as their business model requires it, it just doesn’t fit my needs.

3) You keep calling things over priced and a rip off when you compare it to machines that are using desktop-grade components. As I stated, that makes every notebook a ripoff in your eyes. Some people want AIO for the reason that there are less wires, less setup, less hassle and it that it takes up less space. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me. I know people that even go a step farther and have a notebook on their desk that they never travel with. Their money; their choice. Not everyone needs to measure their dick my the size of their PC tower.

4) Stop making business personal and you’ll be happier.

PS: Try trying looking at more than the number of cores in a processor. The E8200 used in the cheapest XPS One is a worse performer than the cheapest iMac, which is still $100 cheaper than the XPS One after the rebate. There is L2, FSB, the other aspects to CPUs that make more or less viable outside of the superficial counting of cycle or cores.

solipsism,
I admire your desire to educate the unwashed masses (change that to unlearned masses), but I believe you're talking to a brick wall. They have received your message many times, but they wear blinders - "none are so blind as those who will not see." Remember, there are people who believe what they hear on Fox. Why waste your time?

OK, maybe your post is a reminder to the rest of us who buy Macs and can't understand why some users buy PC's.

Apple is already using the fastest Core 2 Duo made. How are they going to bump it?

Clarksfield draws 45W for the 1.6 and 1.73GHz and 55W for the insanely expensive 2.0GHz model.

That's exactly the same as the 35W Core 2 Duo that requires a separate 10W memory controller chip.

The low power Nehalem Xeon draws the same 45W, runs at 1.83GHz and costs significantly less than the 1.6GHz Clarksfield.

For higher performance they can go with the 2.26GHz Xeon that draws 60W, but costs only half as much as the 55W 2.0GHz Clarksfield.

I know it seems strange to be promoting a "server" chip in the iMac, but they're faster per watt and significantly faster per dollar.

Speaking of the blind. Yeah. People need educating why they need to spend 3 times as much for a laptop on a stick...with an ageing duo and sub-par low end gpu. Yup. Spirals in eyes*

'I want an core duo in my iMac...because it performs ok...yes...I want it thinner...because...it will be thinner...I want to pay more for my iMac...because it offers more value that way...'

Lemon Bon Bon.

Clarksfield well outperforms those Core 2 Duos. You're focusing on one clock speed and not the other- the very aggressive Turbo Boost speed that the new processors can overclock one or two cores to.

naive question here, I am following the apple 'scene' for a long time, and I cant remember a product redesign that appeared on the market without an event. Every single ipod, iphone and mac design update or product introduction had some kind of an event, but it does not seem like an event is happening, doesn't apple usually notify long before?

I know they haven't all had an event, but I can't say for sure which ones did not. I believe though that when the iBook transitioned to the white plastic MacBook, there was no event. The "lighter" new Macbook and "thinner" iMac will probably look very similar to todays offerings anyhow.

I do not understand the cannibalize the iMac sales argument. So what if it does? An actual desktop made from desktop parts would be cheaper to produce than an iMac (laptop parts are always more expensive) and that is with a monitor. Remove the monitor and keep the iMac price point and you have something that makes Apple even more money......... So if its not profit it must be something else.

___________ 4 cores _ 3 cores _ 2 cores _ 1 core _ list price

Xeon L3426 2.13GHz_2.13GHz_3.06GHz_3.20GHz $284

Ci7-720QM 1.73GHz_1.73GHz_2.40GHz_2.80GHz $364

C2D E8435____________________3.06GHz__________ less than $530 (price of the more expensive T9900)

Ci7-820QM 2.00GHz_2.00GHz_2.80GHz_3.06GHz $546

Ci7-920XM 2.26GHz_2.26GHz_3.06GHz_3.20GHz $1,054

So according to Intel's numbers, while the Ci7-820QM is capable of running 2 threads as fast as the E8435, it will not be running like that all the time, it's also more expensive than the E8435.

Truly faster processors than the E8435 are the Xeon L3426 and the Ci7-920XM (but the latter costs at least 2x the price of the E8435, and that means that a 24" based on this cpu will probably cost about $2799).

I don't see any incentive to move to Clarksfield for the iMac. With it's lower price and very good performances, the Xeon L3426 is such a better fit for the iMac, and according to what Intel is doing with L55xx Xeons, this cpu could easily scale up to 2.40/2.53GHz within a 60W TDP envelop, at much more affordable prices than Clarksfield.

It's a well known fact that Intel has made rebranded, slightly modified versions of their chips to suit Apple's needs. I would not be surprised to see chips like the Xeon L34XX series, marketed under the regular Core i7 name so as not to create confusion in the marketplace.

I've got absolutly no problem with that, since the Xeon L34xx has all the features of any other Core i7 cpu + ECC memory support.

With hyperthreading, it's actually capable of running four threads at that speed. And there are a number of minor architectural improvements which make an i7 processor faster than Core 2 clock-for-clock, plus that on-die memory controller. But I digress.

Yeah, that's one of those designs where you see it for the first time and think to yourself 'why hasn't that been around before now?'

Instant classic, and far more elegant that what Mr. Ive was able to come up with for the alu iMac. Its clean and minimal, and it makes the current iMac look really dated.

I hope you're right I'd love to see Apple producing an iMac like this!

The Apple logo is offensively bright in that design. I don't mind seeing one but it has to be subtle, your one is far too distracting.