AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Last minute iMac and Mac mini rumors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Last minute iMac and Mac mini rumors - Page 4

post #121 of 134
8/7/07 at 12:12pm
Looks like Apple Store couldn't keep up with the demand for new iMacs!

Reply
Reply
post #122 of 134
8/7/07 at 12:31pm
The Mini info pages is back and it's still GMA, why the hell no Santa Rosa?

No upgrades for me this year then unless I can force myself into liking that monstrosity of an iMac.
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 134
8/7/07 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The Mini info pages is back and it's still GMA, why the hell no Santa Rosa?

No upgrades for me this year then unless I can force myself into liking that monstrosity of an iMac.

Mac Minis now run Core 2 Duo processors (1.83 GHz and 2.0 GHz), 1.83 has combo drive, 1GB memory, and an 80 GB drive, $599 US, 2.0 has DVD burner, 1 GB memory and 120GB drive, $799.

Minor tech refresh, but it keeps the system in the lineup.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 134
8/7/07 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The Mini info pages is back and it's still GMA, why the hell no Santa Rosa?

No upgrades for me this year then unless I can force myself into liking that monstrosity of an iMac.

Apple had said that the MacBook didn't need it, so why should the Mini?
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 134
8/7/07 at 2:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The Mini info pages is back and it's still GMA, why the hell no Santa Rosa?

No upgrades for me this year then unless I can force myself into liking that monstrosity of an iMac.


Were you able to find info on graphics card (and own memory) or on HDD speed? I thought the price would come down, but alas, it didn't.

No Mini Tower.

The iMac is Still a monstrosity - you're right. I don't want one on my desk. Since Jobs doesn't like the Mini, it's doubtful that it will get any better. Next year may not be any better. I'll buy a Mini in spite of disappointment.

The whole Mac upgrade is a disappointment. I feel cheated/
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #126 of 134
8/7/07 at 3:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Apple had said that the MacBook didn't need it, so why should the Mini?

Apple is wrong, the Macbook and Mini need Santa Rosa more than the others because they don't have better dedicated GPUs so they need the better onboard Intel graphics chip with the new features.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Were you able to find info on graphics card (and own memory) or on HDD speed? I thought the price would come down, but alas, it didn't.

No Mini Tower.

The iMac is Still a monstrosity - you're right. I don't want one on my desk. Since Jobs doesn't like the Mini, it's doubtful that it will get any better. Next year may not be any better. I'll buy a Mini in spite of disappointment.

The whole Mac upgrade is a disappointment. I feel cheated/

I'm very happy about the keyboards though so that may be something I'll upgrade. I won't need a USB hub any more with my current slim PC keyboard that I've had for over a year. I can't believe it's taken this long for them to make a decent keyboard.

I can't say that I'm all that surprised at what happened. Disappointed of course but then I have been at pretty much every event for the last two years at least. I keep wanting to hold out but I might just have to face up to the fact that Apple's products might not be right for me any more. OS X would be hard to give up on, especially with the Leopard improvements but at the end of the day, if Apple don't deliver the hardware, there's not much choice.

Then again, I don't really want a big PC tower either and the PC media centers generally seem overpriced.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 134
8/7/07 at 3:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple had said that the MacBook didn't need it, so why should the Mini?

Apple says lots of things. I really don't think MacBook needs anything more than a Core Solo, but it has more than that.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 134
8/7/07 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Apple is wrong, the Macbook and Mini need Santa Rosa more than the others because they don't have better dedicated GPUs so they need the better onboard Intel graphics chip with the new features.



I'm very happy about the keyboards though so that may be something I'll upgrade. I won't need a USB hub any more with my current slim PC keyboard that I've had for over a year. I can't believe it's taken this long for them to make a decent keyboard.

I can't say that I'm all that surprised at what happened. Disappointed of course but then I have been at pretty much every event for the last two years at least. I keep wanting to hold out but I might just have to face up to the fact that Apple's products might not be right for me any more. OS X would be hard to give up on, especially with the Leopard improvements but at the end of the day, if Apple don't deliver the hardware, there's not much choice.

Then again, I don't really want a big PC tower either and the PC media centers generally seem overpriced.

Sorry to disappoint you, but all the tests done so far by all of the tech sites that do these tests have found that Santa Rosa contributes almost nothing to either performance, or battery life for portables, and, of course, battery life doesn't matter for desktops.

Check out the Macworld reviews of the MBP's vs the older ones. The performance improvements are miniscule, for the most part, and are mostly due to slightly faster processors and the new faster graphics chip.

Why pay more for something that MIGHT add 5% performance?
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 134
8/7/07 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Apple says lots of things. I really don't think MacBook needs anything more than a Core Solo, but it has more than that.

And so do we, most of which is wrong..
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 134
8/7/07 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not touchy, you are. You didn't comment on what I said, I commented on what you said, remember? This is your touchy response to that.

lol, no point arguing over who is 'touchy' or not. the tone of your response certainly felt like you'd got up on the wrong side of the bed or something. anyway... i'm not miffed or anything!

Quote:
And I am simply commenting on YOUR word "crippled" which means what I said. You're accusing all card makers that didn't put 512MB on their card as having crippled them, even though you only seem to want to blame Apple for it.

perhaps my use of the word 'crippled' was overly dramatic, though i used it knowing apple has done that in the past. but i certainly wasn't accusing all card makers! i was just referring to the cards apple alone uses - i really don't know where you got that from at all!

Quote:
I know you said MBP, but you stated that it would be crippled with 256. I didn't say that.

again, my use of the word crippled was perhaps ill-considered, and to be honest i'm not that fussed. and i did admit that the 'crippled' explanation was merely one that had been floated and hadn't heard anything definitive to explain the discrepancy.

Quote:
If you read the various tech sites that do reviews of GPU boards, you will see that only the highest end GPU's benefit from that much RAM, the lower tier processors don't.

And, yes, it won't run Apple's pro apps any better.

thanks, i'll freely admit to being far from savvy when it comes to GPUs!

Quote:
Perhaps Shake might run a small bit better, but, even there, this is NOT the machine to do it with, you need a Mac Pro to run that properly. I have, so I know.

i'm aware of that as well. we use Mac Pros and Quad G5s for editing and motion graphics for broadcast where i work. (a couple of years ago we did use some g5 imacs as a stop gap, they ran AE ok, just were slower on the RAM previews and renders. Motion, of course, on the other hand... hehe). i'm after a solution away from the office for working with HDV - editing and motion graphics. i'm quite prepared to take a performance hit for the benefit of not having to come into work and/or for portability, just wanting to get a set-up that is both adequate for today and will have some longevity.
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #131 of 134
8/7/07 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

lol, no point arguing over who is 'touchy' or not. the tone of your response certainly felt like you'd got up on the wrong side of the bed or something. anyway... i'm not miffed or anything!

Well, you brought it up, usually the one that does is the one who fell out of bed, but, I really don't care, just be careful before you call someone touchy, because they may call you on it.

Quote:
perhaps my use of the word 'crippled' was overly dramatic, though i used it knowing apple has done that in the past. but i certainly wasn't accusing all card makers! i was just referring to the cards apple alone uses - i really don't know where you got that from at all!

You used the word to gain attention, and you got it.

If you accuse Apple of doing what all other manufacturers do, then, whether or not you realize it, you are accusing them all. Maybe you don't see that.

Quote:
again, my use of the word crippled was perhaps ill-considered, and to be honest i'm not that fussed. and i did admit that the 'crippled' explanation was merely one that had been floated and hadn't heard anything definitive to explain the discrepancy.


thanks, i'll freely admit to being far from savvy when it comes to GPUs!


i'm aware of that as well. we use Mac Pros and Quad G5s for editing and motion graphics for broadcast where i work. (a couple of years ago we did use some g5 imacs as a stop gap, they ran AE ok, just were slower on the RAM previews and renders. Motion, of course, on the other hand... hehe). i'm after a solution away from the office for working with HDV - editing and motion graphics. i'm quite prepared to take a performance hit for the benefit of not having to come into work and/or for portability, just wanting to get a set-up that is both adequate for today and will have some longevity.

Actually, now that we see that the 2.8GHz model is available, it would be more than adequate, even if it wouldn't be production ready.

There is no doubt that the top model would do a much better job than even the top MBP.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 134
8/8/07 at 3:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Sorry to disappoint you, but all the tests done so far by all of the tech sites that do these tests have found that Santa Rosa contributes almost nothing to either performance, or battery life for portables, and, of course, battery life doesn't matter for desktops.

Check out the Macworld reviews of the MBP's vs the older ones. The performance improvements are miniscule, for the most part, and are mostly due to slightly faster processors and the new faster graphics chip.

Why pay more for something that MIGHT add 5% performance?

It wouldn't just add 5% graphics performance. The MBP is not a good comparison because it uses the dedicated GPUs. There is no comparison in those benchmarks between the GMA950 and the X3000.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 134
8/8/07 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It wouldn't just add 5% graphics performance. The MBP is not a good comparison because it uses the dedicated GPUs. There is no comparison in those benchmarks between the GMA950 and the X3000.

This has nothing to do with graphics. It has to do with cpu power, and battery savings, both of which were highly touted, and both of which have been very disappointing.

The same thing with the Robson technology that so many here have been slavering over.

That's been shown to be so useless, that most manufacturers have passed on it.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 134
8/8/07 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This has nothing to do with graphics. It has to do with cpu power, and battery savings, both of which were highly touted, and both of which have been very disappointing.

The same thing with the Robson technology that so many here have been slavering over.

That's been shown to be so useless, that most manufacturers have passed on it.

It has EVERYTHING to do with graphics. Folks want a Santa Rosa MacBook and Mini because the GMA X3100 offers h/w T&L, vertex & pixel shaders and the GMA 950 does not.

That's a huge gain that far exceeds 5%. Even without optimized drivers the X3100 scored 476 on the 3DMark06 benchmark. In comparison that ATI X300 scores 200 and the GMA 950 scores 170.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...&sort=3dmark03

No Santa Rosa aka Intel Mobile 965GM means no Intel GMA X3100 which includes HDMI/HDCP support.

Jesus. Marvin clearly spells out GMA950 and X3100 (well X3000 which is the non-mobile version). You can't google Santa Rosa and X3100 and see the connection? Its part of the damn chipset and it sure as hell isn't useless.

Vinea
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Last minute iMac and Mac mini rumors