Apple ready and waiting with redesigned iMac line

1121315171825

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 486
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    I think you are venturing into your own post hoc fallacy here. Based on the publicly available information, I don't think we can safely conclude anything about whether glossy has fueled sales, or whether matte would have sold more.



    It could be that the majority of buyers are completely indifferent to the issue but just want a Mac and that Apple's marketing and image have made it an increasingly compelling choice irrespective of the type of display. It could be that people are attracted to the glossy screens but, then, annoyed by them after living with them for a while. It could be that most people actually love the glossy screen and aren't bothered by it at all.



    About the most we can safely conclude is that, for those who bought a glossy Mac, is that the glossy screen was not a deal breaker for them at the time of purchase -- i.e., they bought it with a glossy screen.



    Um, if you'll reread the post I was quoting, I was just paraphrasing that, which was making a completely incoherent assertion that we could account for rising sales after Apple went glossy by noting that that's all they offered-- conflating the ideas of "sold more glossy screens" with "sold more computers."



    I then dismissed out of hand an anticipated rebuttal (which was promptly made) that Apple could have sold even more computers over all, had but they offered a matte option, by noting that assertions like that are impossible to prove one way or the other and thus meaningless.



    I don't think glossy screens account for rising Apple sales and I don't think a matte option would have increased those sales, if you got that impression. I don't think it's possible to know, which is what I said.
  • Reply 282 of 486
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by talksense101 View Post


    One thing that really needs to happen is the death of the integrated graphics with shared memory. That is a piece of shit technology that refuses to go away.



    I wonder though if direct memory access is actually an advantage for OpenCL processing.

    Quote:



    On a note, glossy screens suffer from glare, but looking at a matte finish screen after getting used to glossy is horrible. The picture quality in terms of contrast, brightness, etc. is just bad on the matte. Matte might be fine for road warriors. YMMV.



    Screens are very personal but I have to agree with you that Matte screens are terrible for contrast, brightness and overall image quality.







    Dave
  • Reply 283 of 486
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    Right now and for some time to come, the impact will be minimal for most users, no doubt about it. But if Apple is serious about pushing the new SL optimization technologies to exploit the hardware potential at its maximum, then it absolutely needs to introduce quad core computers for the masses (the Mac Pro is for really few people). Otherwise the developers will have little interest to invest in the new technologies.



    And that, in fact, is a good point-- although my understanding is that GCD will improve dual core performance as well.



    But as you say, when your OS has tech that very publicly touts multi-core performance and offloading tasks onto the GPU as strategic advantages, and these advantages require a bit of developer participation to come to fruition then, yes, it behooves you to start getting machines into customers hands that can make the most of such enhancements.
  • Reply 284 of 486
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CdnBook View Post


    Geez. It's these kinds of perceptions that would allow Apple to get away with using Core 2 Duo Again.



    Bregalad, the MID-RANGE i7 Clarksfield quad-core (which has 8 threads with hyperthreading) sells for about the same price as the current Core 2 Duo's being put into the iMac (around $550).



    Now you might say that the current Core 2 Duo's have way higher clock speeds, well... the new MID-RANGE i7 Clarksfield quad-cores have turbo boost, which can ramp the clock speeds of 1-2 of its cores up to 3+ GHz. Not to mention those two cores in the Clarksfield are hyperthreaded, and far more efficient/ powerful than the same clock speed in a Core 2 Duo.



    Hmmm... I think I do want a better processor at the same price.



    Hey, if HP can do it... http://www.hp.com/united-states/camp...nvy/index.html ...at well under $2K, why can't Apple?



    Wow, Intel has really improved their Turbo mode in the Clarksfield. That makes it a legitimate choice for the iMac.



    But that wasn't my point at all. I said DESKTOP i7s have better performance per dollar than MOBILE i7s.



    The Clarksfield mobile chips are the 1.6GHz 720QM and 1.73 GHz 820QM. They cost $364 and $546.



    The Lynnfield desktop chips are the 2.8GHz 860 and 2.93GHz 870. They cost $284 and $562.



    So Apple's obsession with energy consumption and 'thin' means we still get to pay more for less.
  • Reply 285 of 486
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Screens are very personal but I have to agree with you that Matte screens are terrible for contrast, brightness and overall image quality.



    I just want something I can calibrate to CYMK printing. My 30" matte Cinema doesn't really work out so well in that respect. Colors are still too saturated and contrasty. But I guess I should just spring for the Ezio instead of complaining, although I'm not sure they all that accurate either.
  • Reply 286 of 486
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    There's only $300 dollars between the top of the line iMac and the bottom of the line Mac Pro (which, admittedly, does not include a display), so it's not like there's a whole lot of room there, price-wise. How much would you expect to pay for this machine?



    You are correct. The price difference is only 300 bewtween the top of the line iMac with a

    C2D 3 ghtz proc and the low end MacPro with a Quad 2.66 Xeon processor

    My observation/complaint is that the iMac is a desktop with laptop parts. The MacPro is more along the lines of a server/workstation.

    My ideal Mac Desktop solution would be a smaller MacPro with a quad C2D 2.66 or 3.06 processor.

    I have a home built system with a quad C2D 2.4 with 4g ram and 3 internal hard drives and tripple boot Win Xp, OSX and Ubuntu Linux an OS for each hard drive.

    The hardware is all the same. Apple stands out because of the balance of design and Mac OSX operating system.



    It is just a "wish" if you will of mine to have that apple desktop that is somewhere between the MacPro and the iMac......my sweet spot for a price range would be 1200 to 1700 dollars.... But again this is just my dream APple desktop thats all....
  • Reply 287 of 486
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post


    I just want something I can calibrate to CYMK printing. My 30" matte Cinema doesn't really work out so well in that respect. Colors are still too saturated and contrasty. But I guess I should just spring for the Ezio instead of complaining, although I'm not sure they all that accurate either.



    They are better, and the prices for the Eizos have come down considerably.
  • Reply 288 of 486
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    It is just a "wish" if you will of mine to have that apple desktop that is somewhere between the MacPro and the iMac......my sweet spot for a price range would be 1200 to 1700 dollars.... But again this is just my dream APple desktop thats all....



    Well, that's basically the same price range as the iMac line (byom) so it's hard to see how they could justify 2 lines in essentially the same price range. This is why I don't think it's reasonable to think that Apple's ever going to do this, one would cannibalize sales of the other, making both less profitable than the one, but effectively doubling development costs, and probably increasing production costs at least somewhat.



    The only thing they could possibly do is produce a Mac Mini tower, but I doubt that anyone would be happy with the performance that would likely have.
  • Reply 289 of 486
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Um, if you'll reread the post I was quoting, I was just paraphrasing that, which was making a completely incoherent assertion that we could account for rising sales after Apple went glossy by noting that that's all they offered-- conflating the ideas of "sold more glossy screens" with "sold more computers."



    My apologies sir. In that case, I quite agree with you. I hope there will be no need for your seconds to call on me.
  • Reply 290 of 486
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    Well, that's basically the same price range as the iMac line (byom) so it's hard to see how they could justify 2 lines in essentially the same price range. This is why I don't think it's reasonable to think that Apple's ever going to do this, one would cannibalize sales of the other, making both less profitable than the one, but effectively doubling development costs, and probably increasing production costs at least somewhat.



    The only thing they could possibly do is produce a Mac Mini tower, but I doubt that anyone would be happy with the performance that would likely have.



    Saddly Anonymouse....you are correct in your assumptions. I don't think they will make the mid tower desktop I was describing. I would not buy a Mac Mini tower. The performance would not justify the purchase. But I would like to be able to change the video card once every year or so and not have to buy a whole new machine to accomplish that.....
  • Reply 291 of 486
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    My apologies sir. In that case, I quite agree with you. I hope there will be no need for your seconds to call on me.



    Eh, my seconds are a bunch of layabouts and ne'er-do-wells. I sent them forth to extract my terrible retribution and they wind up drinking with my victims.



    Note to self: acquire better seconds.
  • Reply 292 of 486
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Eh, my seconds are a bunch of layabouts and ne'er-do-wells. I sent them forth to extract my terrible retribution and they wind up drinking with my victims.



    Well, in that case, I look forward to meeting them. They may find me at The Goat.
  • Reply 293 of 486
  • Reply 294 of 486
    sipsip Posts: 210member




    Here's a good idea:



    Why don't we all just petition Apple to sell us an unpopulated motherboard, then all we need to do is add RAM, a graphics card, HD and find a decent-looking case.



    We could even ask Apple to sell us enclosures for self-assembly. Problem solved.
  • Reply 295 of 486
    Quote:

    Here's a good idea:



    Why don't we all just petition Apple to sell us an unpopulated motherboard, then all we need to do is add RAM, a graphics card, HD and find a decent-looking case.



    We could even ask Apple to sell us enclosures for self-assembly. Problem solved.



    Amen. They would make with brisk business.



    Quote:

    Geez. It's these kinds of perceptions that would allow Apple to get away with using Core 2 Duo Again.



    Bregalad, the MID-RANGE i7 Clarksfield quad-core (which has 8 threads with hyperthreading) sells for about the same price as the current Core 2 Duo's being put into the iMac (around $550).



    Now you might say that the current Core 2 Duo's have way higher clock speeds, well... the new MID-RANGE i7 Clarksfield quad-cores have turbo boost, which can ramp the clock speeds of 1-2 of its cores up to 3+ GHz. Not to mention those two cores in the Clarksfield are hyperthreaded, and far more efficient/ powerful than the same clock speed in a Core 2 Duo.



    Hmmm... I think I do want a better processor at the same price.



    Hey, if HP can do it... http://www.hp.com/united-states/camp...nvy/index.html ...at well under $2K, why can't Apple?

    Wow, Intel has really improved their Turbo mode in the Clarksfield. That makes it a legitimate choice for the iMac.



    But that wasn't my point at all. I said DESKTOP i7s have better performance per dollar than MOBILE i7s.



    The Clarksfield mobile chips are the 1.6GHz 720QM and 1.73 GHz 820QM. They cost $364 and $546.



    The Lynnfield desktop chips are the 2.8GHz 860 and 2.93GHz 870. They cost $284 and $562.



    So Apple's obsession with energy consumption and 'thin' means we still get to pay more for less.



    You know. Only people beyond redemption to the Apple 'cause' could lay claim that another side grade of core-duo with low end gpu to go would be acceptable because no one else knows what 'Apple buyers want' (like they, themselves are an expert on the matter...) It's beyond kool-aid.



    There are quad-core i7 class options available now. Both in terms of desktop and laptop. It's simply not acceptable to be paying more, twice as much more for twice less the performance on the PC side. YEesh. Going intel was supposed to stop that PPC 'cpu lag' crap. Now we're getting it from Apple themselves. They seem to paint themselves into a corner. Offering an expensive laptop class cpu in a desktop machine when there are cheaper, more powerful options out there.



    Saying duos are ok because aunty alice is ignorant or incapable of using quad cores...is beyond patronising. There are programs that use quad core cpus. Games will become more quad core aware, consumer programs are using more cpu power all the time...more ram...more gpu power...there's never enough 'power'.



    Would people argue for 1 gig of ram instead of 2? 250 gig harddrive instead of a 500 gig one? saying dual-core is acceptable? Man. Stockholm syndrome. No wonder Mac users get bad press...(here's your white coat sir...take him away boys.)



    Apple haven't shipped a decent iMac upgrade in quite a while. I'd argue...since we went 'flat' screen design...we got 'flat line' performance. Side grade, side grade...bump, blip.



    Now's the time to give the iMac a design shake and put this crap behind us. Apple have had time to consolidate on the Intel platform. Time to make with the choice, make with the performance and make with the power and performance and price cut that the Intel line of cpus afford.



    Apple like to boast about alot of things, OS, iPhone, marketshare...cheaper prices on the iPod, iPhone and OS side. About time to give the mainstream Mac some love. Done with the 'lick of paint' upgrades already.



    In short? It's about bloody time for quad cores! At a cheaper, fairer price.



    Lemon Bon Bon.
  • Reply 296 of 486
    winterwinter Posts: 1,238member
    If this forum had rep enabled, I'd give +1 to backtomac's post.



    Edit: On another note, Lemon Bon Bon makes a good point however what they could even do is slowly offer Quad-core onto the the market. Drop the prices of the exisiting C2D iMacs and add two or more C2Q. Could that work?
  • Reply 297 of 486
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,664member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    Amen. They would make with brisk business.







    You know. Only people beyond redemption to the Apple 'cause' could lay claim that another side grade of core-duo with low end gpu to go would be acceptable because no one else knows what 'Apple buyers want' (like they, themselves are an expert on the matter...) It's beyond kool-aid.



    There are quad-core i7 class options available now. Both in terms of desktop and laptop. It's simply not acceptable to be paying more, twice as much more for twice less the performance on the PC side. YEesh. Going intel was supposed to stop that PPC 'cpu lag' crap. Now we're getting it from Apple themselves. They seem to paint themselves into a corner. Offering an expensive laptop class cpu in a desktop machine when there are cheaper, more powerful options out there.



    Saying duos are ok because aunty alice is ignorant or incapable of using quad cores...is beyond patronising. There are programs that use quad core cpus. Games will become more quad core aware, consumer programs are using more cpu power all the time...more ram...more gpu power...there's never enough 'power'.



    Would people argue for 1 gig of ram instead of 2? 250 gig harddrive instead of a 500 gig one? saying dual-core is acceptable? Man. Stockholm syndrome. No wonder Mac users get bad press...(here's your white coat sir...take him away boys.)



    Apple haven't shipped a decent iMac upgrade in quite a while. I'd argue...since we went 'flat' screen design...we got 'flat line' performance. Side grade, side grade...bump, blip.



    Now's the time to give the iMac a design shake and put this crap behind us. Apple have had time to consolidate on the Intel platform. Time to make with the choice, make with the performance and make with the power and performance and price cut that the Intel line of cpus afford.



    Apple like to boast about alot of things, OS, iPhone, marketshare...cheaper prices on the iPod, iPhone and OS side. About time to give the mainstream Mac some love. Done with the 'lick of paint' upgrades already.



    In short? It's about bloody time for quad cores! At a cheaper, fairer price.



    Lemon Bon Bon.



    First of all, "quad core equal twice the performance of dual core" simply isn't true. It's not true in absolute terms, and it certainly isn't true once you start comparing specific chip sets and graphics options.



    Secondly, what you're saying is that there are a lot of current generation iMac users that are sitting in front of their machines saying "Damn! This thing is too slow. Apple needs to make a much faster machine!"



    It doesn't require any koolaid to notice that processor capacity is advancing faster than software can take advantage of it. Yes, I like bigger drives and more ram because those things actually make a bigger difference in perceived performance, much more so than always having to have the latest and greatest CPU.



    Bigger discs because people keep accumulating more crap on their computers, and more ram because discs are still slow compared to ram. You'll notice neither of those things have any bearing on the intensity of the applications being run; improvements there do exactly what they would have done two or three years ago.



    I think it's striking that for all the fulminating about Apple robbing its customers, no one is really citing instances where a quad core chip would actually enhance their day to day computing. Yes, if I'm doing batch video transcoding, I will welcome the additional power, and for 3D modeling, and few other edge cases.



    It's not about grandma not being sophisticated enough, it's about what for what we can most likely assume the vast majority of people are using their computers.



    I would welcome more powerful chips in the new iMacs; I think its inevitable that they will include such. I'm not going to get terribly excited about some perceived inadequacy compared to my PC using friends, if my computer seems to be doing what their computer is doing at pretty much the same speed.



    Now, if my PC using friends can show me noticeable improvements in day to day tasks, or if I intend to use my computer in such a way that I can bog down whatever CPU its using, then, sure, bring on the new hotness. I just don't care about abstract comparisons.
  • Reply 298 of 486
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I think it's striking that for all the fulminating about Apple robbing its customers, no one is really citing instances where a quad core chip would actually enhance their day to day computing. Yes, if I'm doing batch video transcoding, I will welcome the additional power, and for 3D modeling, and few other edge cases.



    It's not about grandma not being sophisticated enough, it's about what for what we can most likely assume the vast majority of people are using their computers.



    I would welcome more powerful chips in the new iMacs; I think its inevitable that they will include such. I'm not going to get terribly excited about some perceived inadequacy compared to my PC using friends, if my computer seems to be doing what their computer is doing at pretty much the same speed.



    Now, if my PC using friends can show me noticeable improvements in day to day tasks, or if I intend to use my computer in such a way that I can bog down whatever CPU its using, then, sure, bring on the new hotness. I just don't care about abstract comparisons.



    While we could argue about the effectiveness of low-clocked quad cores versus high-clocked dual cores, the real boost provided by hyperthreading and turbo mode, they merely obscure the fundamental problem: Intel sells high performance parts at reasonable prices, but Apple won't let us have them.



    Let's face reality here. Most people would be well served by a Mac mini or 3 year old iMac. The only way any computer company is going to make sales is by convincing us we want something new, whether we need it or not. Holding back new technology is not a very good strategy for encouraging unnecessary purchases and is a terrible strategy in the segment of the market that actually benefits from higher performance.



    Apple has decided they can do better offering mostly aesthetic changes rather than technical ones. That's their choice, but it's very frustrating to knowledgeable buyers.
  • Reply 299 of 486
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post


    You know. Only people beyond redemption to the Apple 'cause' could lay claim that another side grade of core-duo with low end gpu to go would be acceptable because no one else knows what 'Apple buyers want' (like they, themselves are an expert on the matter...) It's beyond kool-aid.



    There are quad-core i7 class options available now. Both in terms of desktop and laptop. It's simply not acceptable to be paying more, twice as much more for twice less the performance on the PC side. YEesh. Going intel was supposed to stop that PPC 'cpu lag' crap. Now we're getting it from Apple themselves. They seem to paint themselves into a corner. Offering an expensive laptop class cpu in a desktop machine when there are cheaper, more powerful options out there.



    Saying duos are ok because aunty alice is ignorant or incapable of using quad cores...is beyond patronising. There are programs that use quad core cpus. Games will become more quad core aware, consumer programs are using more cpu power all the time...more ram...more gpu power...there's never enough 'power'.



    Would people argue for 1 gig of ram instead of 2? 250 gig harddrive instead of a 500 gig one? saying dual-core is acceptable? Man. Stockholm syndrome. No wonder Mac users get bad press...(here's your white coat sir...take him away boys.)



    Apple haven't shipped a decent iMac upgrade in quite a while. I'd argue...since we went 'flat' screen design...we got 'flat line' performance. Side grade, side grade...bump, blip.



    Now's the time to give the iMac a design shake and put this crap behind us. Apple have had time to consolidate on the Intel platform. Time to make with the choice, make with the performance and make with the power and performance and price cut that the Intel line of cpus afford.



    Apple like to boast about alot of things, OS, iPhone, marketshare...cheaper prices on the iPod, iPhone and OS side. About time to give the mainstream Mac some love. Done with the 'lick of paint' upgrades already.



    In short? It's about bloody time for quad cores! At a cheaper, fairer price.



    Lemon Bon Bon.



    I'm not sure why you quoted me. I've been strongly pro-quad core since before the last, incredibly lame iMac revision. Like you I've been calling for real desktop chips in the Mac lineup for years. I want good performance per dollar. Performance per watt is nice, but far less important.



    I replaced a dual 2.7 G5 tower (energy pig) with the only machine I could afford at the time, a 2009 mini and I couldn't see any change on my electricity bill. Compared with winter heating and summer air conditioning requirements, the electricity used by my computer is just a drop in the bucket.
  • Reply 300 of 486
    I saw the ad for the HP with the i7 and it's impressive how fast they move to update their components. If I'm not mistaken, it's it basically an Intel motherboard + the usual components (HD, RAM, etc)?



    Apple puts a lot more engineering into each revision and thus we wait 6 months or longer between updates. By the time we are due for an update, our PC buddies are sailing away on much faster and cheaper hardware. Then we get our update and for a while, we are binary kings.



    That's not to say Apple won't speed up their update cycle. But I think it will require one magical idea... MODULARITY.



    Granted, Apple will always want to engineer a complete solution, but if Intel would ever move strongly in this direction, we would probably see faster and cheaper updates, as well as computers that people use for longer periods. A hobbyist market would undoubtedly unfold as well.



    But I still would be open for disruptive technology advances that rapidly left me behind. Modularity can only go so far. It might be that for a long while, the best we'll see out of Cupertino is twice a year upgrades.
Sign In or Register to comment.