I doubt blu-ray will be in the mix. Optical media is obsolete. An SD card reader is more likely going into the new iMac and it takes less space, hence a thinner system coupled with the LED monitor.
Maybe the higher end iMac will have a BTO for solid state drives.
You know what would rock? Seemless integration of the up and coming tablet. So, you could simply slide the tablet into the iMac, and presto. You have a home and portable unit too. It would rock.
Somewhere. someone once mocked up a picture of this, although it was with a newer MacBook rather than a tablet.
And yeah, I know... the processor power would stink if it was dependent upon the tablet to run. Le sigh. I can dream, can't I?
I would not give two fucks if the new iMacs came with a blu player because, as other have said, optical media for playing content is obsolete.
What I hope the new iMacs will have as a new feature is a DVD player that instantaneously destroys any DVD sold by Microsoft and spits out the fragments.
You know what would rock? Seemless integration of the up and coming tablet. So, you could simply slide the tablet into the iMac, and presto. You have a home and portable unit too. It would rock.
Somewhere. someone once mocked up a picture of this, although it was with a newer MacBook rather than a tablet.
And yeah, I know... the processor power would stink if it was dependent upon the tablet to run. Le sigh. I can dream, can't I?
It seems you have been watching too many Transformers movies.
I would not give two fucks if the new iMacs came with a blu player because, as other have said, optical media for playing content is obsolete.
What I hope the new iMacs will have as a new feature is a DVD player that instantaneously destroys any DVD sold by Microsoft and spits out the fragments.
You are to the English language what the Stuka was to Krakow!
It seems you have been watching too many Transformers movies.
Nah, I avoided that one at all costs. I just like the idea of an iMac as a dock as well as a desktop. Most folks don't need both a MacBook and a iMac. But an iMac and a tablet? That's almost believable...
There is no point in a RAM speed bump unless they are throwing i5's/i7's in there. The RAM speeds are a moot point right now because the FSB is bottlenecking it. I'm waiting for an i5/i7 before I upgrade, that'll be the most noticeable advance over my ~3 yr. old C2D. Throw in a Blu-Ray drive and I would be ecstatic.
I think we're going to see another lame update that only adds an SD slot and one other minor change like BluRay. With expectations set that low it should be easy for Apple to exceed them.
I'm hoping not. That is I'm really hoping this machine transitions to a new architecture. The last "upgrade" was a bit of a joke that not many fell for. So an upgrade that can really drive sales is in order.
Quote:
If they make the darned iMac case any thinner there's zero chance of getting a quad core processor or user accessible hard drive bay. I can't explain why their own technicians haven't lynched Jonathan Ive for burying the part with the highest failure rate in the bottom of the case and gluing foil to it. I would much rather they move to an LED backlit display and use the space freed up for better cooling and re-arranging the components so the ones that are most likely to need servicing are easy to get to.
Thinnest isn't so much an issues as there really aren't any alternatives to iMac in Apples line up. If they had a midrange machine Apple could make iMac as thin and light as they wanted because my dollars would be going towards a machine with midrange hardware. Of course Apple doesn't have this midrange machine in their line up thus the need to press for better iMac designs.
As to case design yeah the current iMac sucks badly. Frankly it is testament to design burying function and is frankly a joke for business users because of that. As you note access sucks and what is really needed are drive bays <-- note the "S". That is easily accessible drive bays for at least 3 "drives". Where drives could be 1.8" SSD for all I care.
Quote:
Intel has few options for the iMac right now. Both the Penryn and Clarksfield mobile quads are priced way too high for what you get. There's no way Apple is going to pay more for an iMac processor than they currently do for Mac Pro processors.
Well considering one processor is a special order Apple item, I'm not to sure this is a concern for Apple. The price on Clarksfield is really unknown to us as Apple likely buys in lots of tens or hundreds of thousands. Considering Apples use of laptop processors they might actually be Intels volume leader now.
Quote:
However, that brings up a very interesting topic. Intel does have a low power, quad core (8 thread) Nehalem Xeon that draws only 60W. The current high end iMac needs 55W for its CPU and northbridge combo so a 60W CPU with integrated northbridge isn't much of a stretch. In addition the price of the 2.26GHz Xeon is almost identical to the price of the 3.06GHz mobile Penryns in the iMac so it's completely doable.
A lot of people say that a desk top processor is impossible in iMac, but I ten to agree with you it is not impossible. Cooling is a trick though as that heat does have to be removed from one concentrated spot. It is not impossible though as any body that has looked inside a 1U server box can tell you. Given that new heat conduction tech could be thrown at the problem.
Quote:
Convincing people that 8 threads at 2.26GHz with a turbo mode that can clock individual cores much higher is a suitable replacement for a 2 thread processor at 3.06GHz seems like something Apple could pull off.
I'd go for it in heart beat! Really I would. First the XEON ought to be about 20% faster clock for clock. Second Snow Leopard looks like it is going to be really good on such hardware. Plus the general speed up you will get from SL anyways. Such a machine ought to be very impressive for most desktop users and remain that way for a long time.
Quote:
Convincing us that a 4 thread processor running at just 1.73GHz is an improvement would require Steve Jobs to extend his reality distortion field by several orders of magnitude.
Yes this is true but then again he sold people on the G5 even though it sucked up against Intel CPU's of the day. That is for general desktop usage and not canned benchmarks with optimized software. Lets face it Core 2 is a dead technology and is only applicable where the heat can't be tolerated. Core 2 Quad could potentially work well on something like the Mini that is ran at close to the same clock speed but giving users 2 more threads. Even here though some of Intels new tech processor might be a better choice, for the same reason you mentioned above; everything is integrated into the chip thus overall power usage is lower.
It does look like Apple is in a hard place right now with respect to the iMac and a suitable processor but maybe they have something going on with Intel we don't know about. There are persistent rumors that Intel will go straight to 32nm for its new laptop chips for example. Or maybe Apple knocked some heads together at PA Semi and Intel to come up with a custom Intel chip just for Apple. All I know is another round of Core 2 in the iMac is enough to make one gag.
And the last thing we need is an even slimmer desktop. They're pushing thermal limits enough as it is to excuse them from using good mid range desktop-grade hardware.
I think the following would work well for the iMacs, you guys have any feature thoughts?
- Slimmer design
- Blu-Ray drives
- SD Card Slot Reader
- Full LED Displays (currently still LCD+inverter assemblies)
- Backlit keyboard optional
- 2.0MP iSight Camera
- Quad-Core option
Brian
This is a great list. I really don't care that the iMac gets any slimmer - it's already really slim. Love the SD Card Slot -- makes importing photos and videos really easy. Backlit keyboard would be great for those days I work non-stop into the dark... (and not solely on porn...).
I think the iSight camera needs to be kicked WAY up into HD, with the same auto-focus that the new iPhones have. Built-in tuner and DVR would also be great -- especially if you could stream to Apple TV and iPhone.
I am just gonna jump in here without reading any of the posts (aside from the initial one with the original article, natch...) and give my guess at the two 'compelling' features...
An even slimmer design. I guess the likelihood that the iMac will ever get a Quad Core is going down. ......... Further thinning the iMac which will likely further reduce thermal room won't help any.
I agree.
Jobs and team seem infatuated with thinness for its own sake.
My last iMac died because of overheating (they would not cover it in extended warranty as it was a month out... Which I am sure was exacerbated by trying to force it all into a space that did not allow decent cooling (it always felt very hot to me).
For some reason, they think that an improvement to the iMac means just making it thinner (and God help us, probably glossier ).
I would rather have it get better air flow cooling, allowing it to have better processor performance.
Could it possibly be that their design team and whatever marketing research they do always comes back with answer to 'What do you want in new iMac' of: 'Oh, we don't care how hot it is, we don't care if it is no faster than last year, we just want it thin as sliced bread.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokken
I wonder if we are going to see a Mac Mini refresh alongside iMac or have to wait another two years
I would LOVE to see a significant improvement in the Mac Mini - without having to wait 2 years between refreshes. Esp as the last Mini revision mostly just brought it up to Apple par on the graphics card front, and did not push the envelope on processor capability. And for that meager improvement kept the same price - did not see any lowering such as the iMac line got. An especial ouch since both the base and high end Mac Mini have the exact same cpu processor...
Everyone seems to be forgetting that Blu-ray is for more than just movies. I installed Final Cut Studio 3 the other week - it had about 7 DVDs. I had to keep coming back every hour or so just to change the disc.
Large software installations (particularly games which might have large models, textures, cutscenes, etc) are perfect for Blu-ray, and it is also good for providing cheap data backups.
Comments
Blu-Ray.
I wonder what changed?
I doubt blu-ray will be in the mix. Optical media is obsolete. An SD card reader is more likely going into the new iMac and it takes less space, hence a thinner system coupled with the LED monitor.
Maybe the higher end iMac will have a BTO for solid state drives.
Somewhere. someone once mocked up a picture of this, although it was with a newer MacBook rather than a tablet.
And yeah, I know... the processor power would stink if it was dependent upon the tablet to run. Le sigh. I can dream, can't I?
Bluray is a bag of farts.
I would not give two fucks if the new iMacs came with a blu player because, as other have said, optical media for playing content is obsolete.
What I hope the new iMacs will have as a new feature is a DVD player that instantaneously destroys any DVD sold by Microsoft and spits out the fragments.
You know what would rock? Seemless integration of the up and coming tablet. So, you could simply slide the tablet into the iMac, and presto. You have a home and portable unit too. It would rock.
Somewhere. someone once mocked up a picture of this, although it was with a newer MacBook rather than a tablet.
And yeah, I know... the processor power would stink if it was dependent upon the tablet to run. Le sigh. I can dream, can't I?
It seems you have been watching too many Transformers movies.
To paraphrase Steve "blow" Jobs:
Bluray is a bag of farts.
I would not give two fucks if the new iMacs came with a blu player because, as other have said, optical media for playing content is obsolete.
What I hope the new iMacs will have as a new feature is a DVD player that instantaneously destroys any DVD sold by Microsoft and spits out the fragments.
You are to the English language what the Stuka was to Krakow!
It seems you have been watching too many Transformers movies.
Nah, I avoided that one at all costs. I just like the idea of an iMac as a dock as well as a desktop. Most folks don't need both a MacBook and a iMac. But an iMac and a tablet? That's almost believable...
http://gizmodo.com/339918/apple-dock...a+slim-macbook
Wouldn't the upcoming tablet be perfect for this?... If Apple really wants a coup with their new iMacs, I think this would blow everyone away.
Yes. Yes, it would — although I don't think that they would call a tablet/docking station combo an "iMac."
Maybe they would, though! Hell if I know.
1. A long-requested SD card slot for consumers' digital cameras
2. A matte finish on the display for audio/video professionals, instead of the glossy glass
I think we're going to see another lame update that only adds an SD slot and one other minor change like BluRay. With expectations set that low it should be easy for Apple to exceed them.
I'm hoping not. That is I'm really hoping this machine transitions to a new architecture. The last "upgrade" was a bit of a joke that not many fell for. So an upgrade that can really drive sales is in order.
If they make the darned iMac case any thinner there's zero chance of getting a quad core processor or user accessible hard drive bay. I can't explain why their own technicians haven't lynched Jonathan Ive for burying the part with the highest failure rate in the bottom of the case and gluing foil to it. I would much rather they move to an LED backlit display and use the space freed up for better cooling and re-arranging the components so the ones that are most likely to need servicing are easy to get to.
Thinnest isn't so much an issues as there really aren't any alternatives to iMac in Apples line up. If they had a midrange machine Apple could make iMac as thin and light as they wanted because my dollars would be going towards a machine with midrange hardware. Of course Apple doesn't have this midrange machine in their line up thus the need to press for better iMac designs.
As to case design yeah the current iMac sucks badly. Frankly it is testament to design burying function and is frankly a joke for business users because of that. As you note access sucks and what is really needed are drive bays <-- note the "S". That is easily accessible drive bays for at least 3 "drives". Where drives could be 1.8" SSD for all I care.
Intel has few options for the iMac right now. Both the Penryn and Clarksfield mobile quads are priced way too high for what you get. There's no way Apple is going to pay more for an iMac processor than they currently do for Mac Pro processors.
Well considering one processor is a special order Apple item, I'm not to sure this is a concern for Apple. The price on Clarksfield is really unknown to us as Apple likely buys in lots of tens or hundreds of thousands. Considering Apples use of laptop processors they might actually be Intels volume leader now.
However, that brings up a very interesting topic. Intel does have a low power, quad core (8 thread) Nehalem Xeon that draws only 60W. The current high end iMac needs 55W for its CPU and northbridge combo so a 60W CPU with integrated northbridge isn't much of a stretch. In addition the price of the 2.26GHz Xeon is almost identical to the price of the 3.06GHz mobile Penryns in the iMac so it's completely doable.
A lot of people say that a desk top processor is impossible in iMac, but I ten to agree with you it is not impossible. Cooling is a trick though as that heat does have to be removed from one concentrated spot. It is not impossible though as any body that has looked inside a 1U server box can tell you. Given that new heat conduction tech could be thrown at the problem.
Convincing people that 8 threads at 2.26GHz with a turbo mode that can clock individual cores much higher is a suitable replacement for a 2 thread processor at 3.06GHz seems like something Apple could pull off.
I'd go for it in heart beat! Really I would. First the XEON ought to be about 20% faster clock for clock. Second Snow Leopard looks like it is going to be really good on such hardware. Plus the general speed up you will get from SL anyways. Such a machine ought to be very impressive for most desktop users and remain that way for a long time.
Convincing us that a 4 thread processor running at just 1.73GHz is an improvement would require Steve Jobs to extend his reality distortion field by several orders of magnitude.
Yes this is true but then again he sold people on the G5 even though it sucked up against Intel CPU's of the day. That is for general desktop usage and not canned benchmarks with optimized software. Lets face it Core 2 is a dead technology and is only applicable where the heat can't be tolerated. Core 2 Quad could potentially work well on something like the Mini that is ran at close to the same clock speed but giving users 2 more threads. Even here though some of Intels new tech processor might be a better choice, for the same reason you mentioned above; everything is integrated into the chip thus overall power usage is lower.
It does look like Apple is in a hard place right now with respect to the iMac and a suitable processor but maybe they have something going on with Intel we don't know about. There are persistent rumors that Intel will go straight to 32nm for its new laptop chips for example. Or maybe Apple knocked some heads together at PA Semi and Intel to come up with a custom Intel chip just for Apple. All I know is another round of Core 2 in the iMac is enough to make one gag.
Dave
5. Offer up to a 30" display. Yes, a 30" iMac. For added bonus, make the 30" iMac feature an H-IPS display, and of course 2560x1600 resolution.
Would get me to buy.
I would even settle for 28-inch high-res screen.
And the last thing we need is an even slimmer desktop. They're pushing thermal limits enough as it is to excuse them from using good mid range desktop-grade hardware.
I think the following would work well for the iMacs, you guys have any feature thoughts?
- Slimmer design
- Blu-Ray drives
- SD Card Slot Reader
- Full LED Displays (currently still LCD+inverter assemblies)
- Backlit keyboard optional
- 2.0MP iSight Camera
- Quad-Core option
Brian
This is a great list. I really don't care that the iMac gets any slimmer - it's already really slim. Love the SD Card Slot -- makes importing photos and videos really easy. Backlit keyboard would be great for those days I work non-stop into the dark... (and not solely on porn...).
I think the iSight camera needs to be kicked WAY up into HD, with the same auto-focus that the new iPhones have. Built-in tuner and DVR would also be great -- especially if you could stream to Apple TV and iPhone.
In what's long been a hotly contested category, this is the most content-free AI article yet.
1 - One PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
2 - Blu-Ray
;^p
An even slimmer design. I guess the likelihood that the iMac will ever get a Quad Core is going down. ......... Further thinning the iMac which will likely further reduce thermal room won't help any.
I agree.
Jobs and team seem infatuated with thinness for its own sake.
My last iMac died because of overheating (they would not cover it in extended warranty as it was a month out...
For some reason, they think that an improvement to the iMac means just making it thinner (and God help us, probably glossier
I would rather have it get better air flow cooling, allowing it to have better processor performance.
Could it possibly be that their design team and whatever marketing research they do always comes back with answer to 'What do you want in new iMac' of: 'Oh, we don't care how hot it is, we don't care if it is no faster than last year, we just want it thin as sliced bread.'
I wonder if we are going to see a Mac Mini refresh alongside iMac or have to wait another two years
I would LOVE to see a significant improvement in the Mac Mini - without having to wait 2 years between refreshes. Esp as the last Mini revision mostly just brought it up to Apple par on the graphics card front, and did not push the envelope on processor capability. And for that meager improvement kept the same price - did not see any lowering such as the iMac line got. An especial ouch since both the base and high end Mac Mini have the exact same cpu processor...
Large software installations (particularly games which might have large models, textures, cutscenes, etc) are perfect for Blu-ray, and it is also good for providing cheap data backups.
Mac OS X and the 13" MBP. All the rest are nice, but expensive.
When it comes to desktop solutions, Hackintosh is the way.