Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst - Page 2

The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.

So any guesses when the Mac Pro will get updated? I know it's waiting on the next generation of chips from intel, when is that supposed to be? I have been waiting for months and not having a new machine is killing me.


As someone who runs software that uses all eight cores, I can't disagree strongly enough.

Sure, software that uses all eight cores isn't *common*, but it does exist. And it tends to be the software that people buy high end hardware for.


Is it so hard to google "iphone light leak"? I did that and I saw people reporting the problem, so it sure looks like there is such thing.


And oddly enough...musicians.

After reading the article, I thik that it doesn't tell us anything.

It says... "maybe".. "maybe"... Nothing clear.

So, being optimist... Would be possible to see new iMacs Tomorrow? It's the day when apple announces iLife09 include with all macs.. and it's the lastest tuesday of January... And there there have been reports of new iMacs for January for months... why not?

Thinking new iMacs in Late March is hopeless, because I wanna get one since December... What should I Do? If tomorrow nothing happens, maybe I'll buy the iMac... March/April isn't near...

When was the last iMac refresh? I know the last redesign was in late 2007.

April 28th, 2008 was the last iMac update....

Granted, but my point remains.

The only computer they sell that's "upgradeable" in any serious fashion is the Mac Pro and a lot of people buy it for that reason. However in recent years, there have been few if any upgrade options for the device. I can max out my memory and buy new hard drives once in a while but that's almost the entirety of it so far.

I guess what I'm saying is that if Apple doesn't come out with a video card upgrade path so we can use the new displays as well as a drop in processor upgrade or two at some point, there will be a lot of angry Mac Pro users out there. It also flies in the face of any kind of reasonable action on Apple's side to advertise an upgradeable computer that is rarely if ever actually upgradeable.

One doesn't expect to spend premium prices for a computer that less than a year later cannot use the latest screens provided by the same company for instance. We will have to wait and see what Apple does in this regard, but so far all indications are bad.

Apple is generally a good company, but I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they came out with a new form factor for the Mac Pro next week, that rules out anything other than third party or grey market upgrades for the current Mac Pro, making the whole "upgradeable" notion a kind of bad joke. They have done things like this before because they think of their products as "one-offs" for the most part.

Since they're standard Intel Xeon processors you could just buy some processors and stick them in yes? Of course as long as the new CPUs use the same pin layout architecture. And I don't think its up to Apple to develop video cards. You can blame that on ATI and NVIDIA.

My general impression of why people bought MacPros has been different. Hasn't it been more the ability to have up to four HDDs, or multiple optical drives, or multiple video cards, or can be bought with Mac OS X Server pre-loaded, or can hold up to 8GB RAM? And, quite importantly, it can be configured with FibreChannel. None of those possible features are available on an iMac. Now I suppose if you don't need any of them then there probably isn't much point to buying a MacPro.

When the new Mac Pro comes out it will have a new video card to support Apple's new standard, the DisplayPort. This will be an off the shelf part that can be plugged into you current Intel Mac Pro (not sure if the G5's and before have the same PCI architecture, if they do then ok for them too).

Unless they get ATI (AMD) or NVIDIA to produce a card that has dual DisplayPort and DVI ports they will delay this upgrade until the 30" Cinema Display is migrated to DisplayPort to time the upgrades to all happen at the same time.

So my current Mac Pro has 2 quad core 3Ghz processors 5GB ram, Dual GeForce 7300 GT's driving dual 30" Cinema Displays. I also have 4 Drive bays full. Two HDD's in Raid 1 drives as main boot, 1 large bootable drive Carbon Copied daily and 1 large backup drive for TimeMachine.

For my purposes at the moment it is rare that I run out of ram which is probably the only thing I'd want to upgrade at the moment. Aside from doing serious graphics rendering, which I don't do anyway, what it there to upgrade on my machine. The 2 Quad cores will have enough computational power for my needs for years to come.

If I really need to be more productive on my MacPro I should have shorter breaks, spend less time talking shit to workmates or the number 1 best thing to increase productivity on a computer, go on a touch typing course. (developers can also save a hell of a lot of time by double checking their code for stupid syntax errors or silly mistakes before every time they have to spend time compiling and testing software that falls over with avoidable mistakes).

There IS a drop-in processor upgrade for the original Mac Pros. See Mac Pro processor upgrade

Really? Do you think they're aware that many users (including me) are so pissed off waiting for the mac mini update that they're seriously considering building a hackintosh? Jobs once said it's better to cannibalize your own product line than have customers buy elsewhere, but I really don't think they've learned that lesson yet.

---------------------------------------------------------------

APOSTROPHE: he's/she's/you're/it's
NO APOSTROPHE: his/hers/yours/its

Is this really so difficult?

Patience

Haven't looked at INTC lately, but I don't think there is a cutting edge chip coming and since the i7 is out, you have to wonder if Apple will release the Mac Pro now with i7 (now as in a few months) or wait until SNOW LEOPARD.

On the flip side, if Snow addresses the hyperthreading that many app's on the PC can't use yet (especially audio/video, but will soon, = 2X, 3X performance), then we would see a huge increase with Snow if Apple has the hyperthreading ready and able.

Let's hope they do as this will mean each thread will be seen as running on a separate core and it really does make a difference. Hyperthreading has been gone for quite some time.

Let's hope it rocks. Windows 7 receiving a lot of hype too - should be an interesting year.

Um, who cares. I'm still waiting for that Mac mini update everyone thought was happening weeks ago. Now they're posting rumors about an iMac that apparently isn't designed yet, because they don't even know which chips are going into it?

So the engineers are sitting around drinking starbucks discussing the merits of quad please give me a break. Apple doesn't flip a coin on when it will release a product it will be carefully planned. Also I would say maybe there will be a CTO for a quad core on the top end but the rest will be dual maybe a price drop??

Wu must be on crack. Quad Cores are available in $600 PC. The iMac is not cannibalizing the Mac Pro where it really counts and that's in high end configuration where people need PCI-Express cards.

I'm really stunned by how analysts like Wu probably are paid six figure salaries and deliver no useful information that I can see.

Mac mini '09 - Core 2 Duo
iMac '09 - Quad Core
Mac Pro '09- Core i7 Xeon.

Jeebus do they really have to make it more difficult than it really is?

When it was rumored that Apple migh switch from PowerPC to Intel processors, Shaw Wu weighed in.:

<p>Wu believed a switch to Intel could backfire and alienate some of Apple's most loyal customers, turning the Mac into a less differentiated and more commoditized platform. He said an often overlooked reason behind consumers choosing the Mac was its high-performance provided by PowerPC processors.

<p>Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._unlikely.html

Well I think this point is already almost beaten to death, but ...

• That's the only processor upgrade I have heard about (I knew about it already).
• It's "provided" by a third party (it's actually more of a surprise than a supported feature)
• I don't have that machine I have the newer model

My point is not about how I can get x, y, or z for my Mac Pro. It's the more general point that Apple sells this machine as an "upgradeable computer" and crows about it to some extent whenever people hit them for their sealed-box type computers (the rest of the product line).

It is *technically* upgradeable, but Apple does not plan for it, does not suggest it, does not point the user to any manufacturers or upgrades, nor does it provide any "branded" or approved solutions for upgrading.

The perfect example of this is the link you yourself provided. that processor *should* work when it's fitted to the first MacPro. The web site in question reports that it does. Apple however is silent on the issue. Any other computer company would at least publish a bulletin saying something to the effect of: "<processor x> can be bought from <company y> and dropped in as a replacement CPU." But apple is silent on the issue. They should also offer to upgrade it for you for a price just like any other computer place IMO.

I'm not really pissed off or anything, I am happy with the machine as it is right now.

I am a bit trepidatious however as to what will happen in the near future though as it seems from the rumour mill that Apple might (again!) be leaving this very capable and normally very upgradeable computer in yet another technological backwater.

Those make sense, but I think the low end 20" iMac will probably come with a Core 2 Duo and then the higher-end models getting the 3 Core 2 Quad chips.

Many people online threaten to get hackintoshes but I doubt the number is high enough that it is even noticeable in Apple's sales numbers.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but apple has never advertised their machines as having upgradable processors. Not any machine.

You can upgrade the memory, hard drives, and optical drives, and you can add cards. It seems a bit silly to say the machine is not upgradable just because apple doesn't sell a processor upgrade. Have they ever offered one for any of their machines? I thought they were always third party options.

Amen. Now Apple just has to ship any one of them. Please.

Then I'd assume the 20" iMac would be going to $999 and even then it's a stretch to call it value.

Dell Q8200 Quad system

Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO

And since Apple has preemptively disclosed what's shipping tomorrow, I guess Feb. 3 becomes the new favourite.

I don't mean to be confrontational, but I sincerely hope you aren't serious with that last post. Do yourself a favor. Go to dell.com, hp.com, acer.com or any of the major PC manufacturers and find me a single link to where any of them tell you how to upgrade your processor after purchase. Back when I used to have to use dell PCs for work I would upgrade my own computers. Upon removing the processor on EVERY occasion, I had to break a seal that said "Warranty void if damaged." Dell wouldn't even look at the computer after that. In some cases, the same even went for hard drive upgrades. The instruction book for my 8x3.0GHz Mac Pro tells me how to upgrade the memory, graphics, hard drive and optical drives. What more do you want? Of course, they could tell me how to upgrade the CPUs, but a quick google search reveals that two of the same processors I have now would run about $1800 total. Hardly a very practical upgrade for a $3000 computer. Beyond that, (with the exception of expansion cards, several of which are in fact recommended by apple) I don't even know what I could upgrade. It's not from lack of knowledge either, I still build PCs.

I'm really not sure what you are asking for. Do you want to go to the online apple store and find apple branded graphics and sound card or CPU upgrades? Should they begin manufacturing more of their own proprietary hardware? Does the PC market provide services like this?

I'm hardly about to defend apple to the grave either. It annoys me to no end that I cannot pick up any random ATi Radeon to upgrade my dual 7300s, but in general I have found it very easy to upgrade my basic Mac Pro (now has SSD, three hard drives in RAID, dual graphics, eSATA, dual optical drives...)

EDIT: oh, and yes, those were rhetorical questions...I think this point has now been comprehensively beaten to death

I don't see how that release precludes the possibility of a hardware release on the same day. I'm not saying a hardware release tomorrow is likely, I'm just saying I don't think the software release is an indicator either way.

+++

Solipism's scenario is reasonable as well.

I said in another thread that I thought Apple would just wait until March and have a special event where they update all the desktop machines at one time. That prediction is looking more and more likely.

There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.

This is the classic Apple quandry:

'How do we maximise the profit margin on each sale?'

In the past, this has meant important sought-after features appearing exclusively in the high-end, with the low-end simultaneously being crippled.

The rationale, is that the penny pinching buyers actually end up paying over the odds for the crippled kit, whilst the value-for-money buyers end up paying more than they had intended to in order to secure the best investment. Either way, Apple wins.

I suspect that Apple doesn't really care whether or not a quad-core iMac will cannibalize Mac Pro sales. What they are interested in, is whether they can sell a quad-core iMac and still retain the profit margin associated with a Mac Pro sale.

One way of doing this, would be to introduce a new über-iMac, which featured the quad-core processor, but which also forced you to purchase the integrated 28" LED backlit display, 8GB of RAM, 1.5TB drive, graphics card upgrade and wireless keyboard & mouse.

Back when I worked all day with Windows I bought myself a new PC almost every year. I also upgraded my Macs every year with RAM, HD, video cards, processors, etc. The Macs got upgrades because it was easy, affordable and buying a whole new Mac cost way too much. I could have upgraded the PCs too, but upgrading the processor usually meant a new motherboard and RAM and sometimes a new power supply. It made more sense to simply buy a whole new PC.

I've since stopped buying PCs, but I have kids now so my disposable income is much lower than it was. Apple killed the upgrade market so all I could do to keep my Macs useful was add RAM and put in larger, faster hard drives. Both Macs are many years old and in need of replacement.

Given that Apple will probably never offer an expandable desktop under $2000, even for the home server market, my hopes rest on the next generation iMac.

Unfortunately the iMac is a crippled design. Only the processor is reasonably modern and only if you don't compare it with PC desktops.

In order to sell me an iMac Apple will need to provide the following:
- Quad core processor (Core2Quad or Corei7)
- OpenCL compatible graphics (preferably current generation, but nVidia 9800 would be acceptable)
- FireWire 800 - otherwise I have to replace all my external storage
- An easy way to replace the internal hard drive
- LED backlit IPS display

The Cube was that model.

I don't feel any confidence in Shaw Wu's original report. The statement that iMac can cannibalize Mac Pro sales sound ridiculous. Also, I do not trust his supply sources.

However, I do agree that Apple may have some reasons to hesitate:

• Considering the current economic situation, a new model will help the sales, especially qurter over quarter percent growth, but the actual numbers will be lower than they could be under normal conditions. It might make sence to swallow the lower sales for now, but set up a stage for a bigger jump alongside Snow Leopard release. (Introducing a new model, no matter 2-core or 4-core, will help the sales anyway)
• Leopard can handle 4 cores just fine but you would hardly notice the difference when running a couple of average Joe applications, say, a web brouser and a word processor. The benchmarks (both internal and those usually published by third parties soon after a product release) will give better results for 2-core chips with higher clock speed and larger cache than for a 4-core chip. And this is what the web will discuss, including these forums.
• If they release 4-core hardware now and Snow Leopard later, the benchmarks could be much more confusing, especially if they are intentionally used to downplay HW or SL performance. For example, one could compare both systems under 10.5 Leopard - "to make the comparison on equal basis" - and then Leopard and SL on the same harware. If they release 4-core iMac alongside SL, it will simply not run Leopard. A direct comparison with the old model running Leopard would look more natural and will give better results and might help marketing a lot. You need to consider that, besides Grand Central and OpenCL, SL will come with new, presumably faster, WebKit and QuickTime X (more efficient media decoding/playback). If Apple decides to take this route, they will trumpet the performance jump to advertise both the new iMac AND the new OS version.

Or, to put it in different perspective:
Even if the new hardware is more impressive, it might not be enough to convince people to buy it now (those who really need will buy whatever is available, and those who are just waiting for a new model to be introduced, will buy whatever new model is introduced). When the people get ready to buy, it will be old news.

I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?

And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.

I'll start by pointing out to hmurchison that 20" displays with TN panels retail for $179 these days. I'll then agree with solipsism on the hardware comparison, but I have to wonder what he's saying about the value of an AIO compared with separate components.

Separate display and tower is much better value than an AIO.

The display is going to last two or three times as long as the computer so packaging them together makes no sense at all.
The tower allows easy upgrades of every component and has PCIe slots for adding new technology. These things extend the useful life of the tower at low cost. The iMac only allows easy RAM upgrades. Getting to all the other components is a nightmare.

But that isn't how value is defined. In a cost-per-performance or your cost-per-use comparison there is no AIO is can have a lower total cost of ownership than the desktop equivalent. But being cheaper or having a lower TCO does not define its value. If it did, than there would be no notebook that is ever a better value over a desktop, but that is not the case. I travel 100% of the time so having a desktop of any sort is of zero value to me.

It shouldn't be difficult if a few rumors come to pass.

The cooling system needs to happen. The new iMacs need to dissipate 65 Watt TDP
procs.

Then you shoehorn in these procs.

• Q8200S: 65 W TDP, 2.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 4 MB L2 cache, $245
• Q9400S: 65 W TDP, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB L2 cache, $320
• Q9550S: 65 W TDP, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 cache, $369

Again if they want to go Core 2 Duo that's fine but it needs to be $999 or less.

Why do people see the word "upgrade" and automatically prepend "processor"? Upgrade is a broad word that encompasses things like video cards and optical drives too.

For what it's worth, the death of the processor upgrade market was driven by Apple. After the Quicksilver G4 they made changes to their computer architecture that made it difficult for 3rd parties to design reasonably priced upgrades and they also put pressure on their suppliers to restrict access to the parts.

Since the Intel transition bare processor upgrades have been possible, but to get a significant boost it's almost always necessary to get a newer design that's not pin-compatible with the previous generation. PC people can buy a new motherboard to support a new processor, but that's not possible on the Mac side.

Back to my broader point. You can't buy a modern Mac compatible video card because the only machine that even accepts video cards is $2800 and thus ships in such low volumes that Mac driver development is uneconomical.

Apple has made it somewhat easy to upgrade the hard drive in the MacBook and MBP, but it's still a nightmare on a Mac mini or iMac. Even getting to the RAM is a nightmare in the Mac mini.

When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.

A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.[/QUOTE]

Oh, they know and its very much intentional. Apple wants you buying all in ones whether you actually want one or not. Why do you think they raised the PowerMac/Mac Pro starting price $900 from what it was four years? Partly due to their preference for the aesthetics of the design and partly because a sealed all in one is going to have a shorter lifespan and they can get more money out of you than they would a comparable tower.


So far he's been right. Apple's been moving all its efforts towards the switcher/iPod crowd and alienating its formerly very loyal middle to high end customers along the way.


If they go core 2, I'm going to have a very hard time staying on this platform. Coolness and good looks don't make up for increasingly lost capability. So far, they're falling further behind competing desktops using mobile chips than they were using PowerPCs.

As I think someone may have commented, it wouldn't be surprising if the iMac has models using both duo and quad core processors. Perhaps quad core on a 24" model? Just one possibility but all of this is purely speculative which makes me wonder why me (or anyone) has spent the time typing this out.

Yes, they did offer processor upgrades. And I'm not talking about 3rd party ones either.

They made a Mac 128K and 512K upgrade to the Plus that involved replacing the whole motherboard. Part# M2518

They made a similar upgrade for the SE to SE/30. M1102LL/A

Same for the II or IIx to IIfx (M0375LL/B), the IIci to Quadra 700 (M5950LL/A), and IIvx or Centris 650 to PowerMac 7100/66 (M2474LL/A).

The LC could be upgraded to the LCIII.

More recently, 604 upgrades to upgrade the PowerMac 8500 and 9500 to a 233MHz 604e (M6223LL/A) and other 604 upgrades.

then they stopped with the G3 and let 3rd parties deal with upgrades.

I stand corrected, but those were a LONG time ago. At this point, it has been more than ten years, and current macs barely resemble the ones from back then, hardware and software. It seems odd to still be complaining about that now, particularly when Apple has switched to standard PC chips meaning in most models they don't have to offer anything for users to upgrade.