No no no! Apple has GOT to start using desktop chips in the iMacs. The iMacs are the WORST deal Apple offers because they're selling essentially a laptop for a price well over some i7 solutions! I am completely willing to sacrifice form factor or thinness for a move to decent desktop grade chips, if not at least GPUs.
Apple should be using i5s or the new Lynnfield i7s, those would be the best choice by far. They need to make the thing capable of really competing with the competition! At the LEAST put in the Clarksfield Quadcore i7s.
Sigh. If these new iMacs at least look good, sport some nicer GPUs, and some how improve their chip solution (don't see how since they've maxed out the mobile Core 2 segment), they'll at least be an improvement. And if a price drop comes with that, it will at least be a better price/performance deal.
The logical course of action would be to go with a 24", 27" and 30" Cinema Display lineup.
iMacs would use the first two.
Of course, Apple's logic doesn't always sync up with history or conventional thinking.
I dunno... as far as a desktop screen that you sit 1 1/2 feet from I think anything bigger than 24" starts to demand you sit further away from the screen, which starts to negate the whole desktop idea and starts to look like a TV. I use 2 monitors for the extra screen real-estate, but neither is bigger than 24".
Anyone currently using a 27" or 30" monitor as their main display? How is it sitting that close to such a big screen?
...the high-end processor in the iMacs has been stuck on the 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo for the past two generations of the iMac. Snow Leopard enables multi-core processors, so I cannot imagine why Apple would not want to offer a quad core processor at least for the high-end iMac.
I know many of the posters here would like to see the highest level of leading edge desktop performance from the iMac, but high-performance within the design constraints and market target for the iMac would be good enough for many potential iMac buyers. I want to buy a new iMac, but it needs to be capable of supporting the latest features of the operating system. With Snow Leopard, this means it had better have more than 2 cores along with a reasonable GPU. I do not need all-out performance, but I do not want to be embarrassed about buying old technology in a shiny new iMac housing.
No, let the carping, whining, second-guessing, and threats begin. A feature or option that either is or isn't present will cause the usual suspects to declare the new iMac line a D.O.A. deal killer. See the post above this one.
Or look at this post and see the fanbois ready to take whatever Apple throws at them. The desire for Quad cores in the iMac is highly justified, having those cores there is the whole point behind GCD. If Apple doesn't provide the hardware to leverage GCD then the developers won't have the incentive to use it.
So yeah to make you happy, I will go on record as saying no quad core no deal. I don't consider myself to be a push over, and certainly not gullible. I won't buy an iMac just because Apple thinks dual core is good enough. It isn't and just puts the platform farther and farther behind performance wise.
In anyevent with the advent of Clarksfield I can't see Apple ignoring this chip. It should be in at least some of the iMacs that debut.
Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?
Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.
I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)
I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.
I would love a 30" iMac (you heard it hear first). I would 'Craig's List' my current 20" original white intel iMac and be as happy as a 'pig in Sh*t!' Please, please, please....
Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?
Look at the relative growth of desktop machines vs. laptops and tell me that people are rejecting laptop level power. Just because internet tech nerds obsess over dick waving contests and who's got the latest generation tech doesn't mean the average buyer does.
The average buyer checks out a machine and makes a judgement based on a variety of factors-- price, looks, ease of use, apparent quality, etc.
For a lot of people, an all in one machine that looks great and does everything they want it to in a snappy fashion is exactly what they want. They have no idea and could care less where the innards fall within Intel's lineup. It's been a while since pretty much any system sold (excepting netbooks) didn't have plenty of power to do what most people do with their computers.
A lot of the proud owners of PCs with i7 desktop parts will be running Office, email, internet, iTunes, and maybe some light photo editing software, all of which will are already going as fast as they can.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.
I would love a 30" iMac (you heard it hear first). I would 'Craig's List' my current 20" original white intel iMac and be as happy as a 'pig in Sh*t!' Please, please, please....
I used to hate laptop computers in my PC years and vowed to never ever buy a laptop. I bought my first iMac in 2006 and I loved it. Last year I needed a laptop and was really hesitate to replace my iMac with a laptop (MBP). Well, almost a year with my MBP and I couldn't be happier. The only thing I miss is the big 20" screen and for that I will get the 24" LED Cinema Display in the near future (along with the quad core MBP when they come out)
I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.
Well said, but I'll take it one step further.
I believe that if Apple did boost the iMac's guts, at least on a build-to-order spec, to make it "fully geek compliant" then they would finally bridge the gap that exists between the consumer-driven iMac current line and the Mac Pro folks.
Bottom line is they would encourage a lot more sales for the 'tweeners, without necessarily cannibalizing current Mac Pro sales.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
I was having a similar argument with my brother the other day. I was complaining about Apple's decision to pull the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro. He says that no one uses those slots. I said that music, video and design pros use the things and I'll be damned if there isn't a good number of them that would want to throw an eSATA card in there (especially the video guys). A MacPro is nice and all, but lugging around a 40 pound(!) CPU everywhere can get tiresome.
Ultimately we are resigned to Apple not offering choice. That's their schtick. You can have it in any color as long as you want black or something like that.
It's like Apple should just buy PsyStar and make 'em legit so they have a discount line. No in-store support, no glitz. But affordable, somewhat customizable hardware.
I know Apple's been down that road before when they licensed their OS to Power and it didn't work out so well, but if they produced the bargain brand themselves, they'd reap the revenue.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
You can criticize them all you like, I'm not even defending them-- clearly, for some subset of potential customers, a laptop masquerading as a desktop isn't ideal.
However, it's simply pointless to demand that Apple put a given processor into the next iMac, make claims about what they "must" do, or generally carry on like there was some terrible deficiency in play that makes Apple look foolish.
They've been doing this for quite a while now, why would you expect them to suddenly change up their strategy? Laptop parts keep getting more capable, they can do what most people want them to do, and Apple likes to make its machines as small as possible, the end.
Apple isn't gong to abruptly make the iMac a lot thicker or noisier to accommodate desktop parts. They just aren't, that's how they roll. The arguments about what they "should" do are as old as the hills and haven't gotten any more sophisticated: Apple should make a more powerful machine that costs less.
Sure. And they will. Just not to the degree you want.
Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.
I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)
I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.
I was having a similar argument with my brother the other day. I was complaining about Apple's decision to pull the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro. He says that no one uses those slots. I said that music, video and design pros use the things and I'll be damned if there isn't a good number of them that would want to throw an eSATA card in there (especially the video guys). A MacPro is nice and all, but lugging around a 40 pound(!) CPU everywhere can get tiresome.
Ultimately we are resigned to Apple not offering choice. That's their schtick. You can have it in any color as long as you want black or something like that.
It's like Apple should just buy PsyStar and make 'em legit so they have a discount line. No in-store support, no glitz. But affordable, somewhat customizable hardware.
Comments
Apple should be using i5s or the new Lynnfield i7s, those would be the best choice by far. They need to make the thing capable of really competing with the competition! At the LEAST put in the Clarksfield Quadcore i7s.
Sigh. If these new iMacs at least look good, sport some nicer GPUs, and some how improve their chip solution (don't see how since they've maxed out the mobile Core 2 segment), they'll at least be an improvement. And if a price drop comes with that, it will at least be a better price/performance deal.
The logical course of action would be to go with a 24", 27" and 30" Cinema Display lineup.
iMacs would use the first two.
Of course, Apple's logic doesn't always sync up with history or conventional thinking.
I dunno... as far as a desktop screen that you sit 1 1/2 feet from I think anything bigger than 24" starts to demand you sit further away from the screen, which starts to negate the whole desktop idea and starts to look like a TV. I use 2 monitors for the extra screen real-estate, but neither is bigger than 24".
Anyone currently using a 27" or 30" monitor as their main display? How is it sitting that close to such a big screen?
I know many of the posters here would like to see the highest level of leading edge desktop performance from the iMac, but high-performance within the design constraints and market target for the iMac would be good enough for many potential iMac buyers. I want to buy a new iMac, but it needs to be capable of supporting the latest features of the operating system. With Snow Leopard, this means it had better have more than 2 cores along with a reasonable GPU. I do not need all-out performance, but I do not want to be embarrassed about buying old technology in a shiny new iMac housing.
Very amusing. Like they were authorized to discuss the matter at all.
Haha, yeah, just my thought as well. It's clearly the best line of this news post
No, let the carping, whining, second-guessing, and threats begin. A feature or option that either is or isn't present will cause the usual suspects to declare the new iMac line a D.O.A. deal killer. See the post above this one.
Or look at this post and see the fanbois ready to take whatever Apple throws at them. The desire for Quad cores in the iMac is highly justified, having those cores there is the whole point behind GCD. If Apple doesn't provide the hardware to leverage GCD then the developers won't have the incentive to use it.
So yeah to make you happy, I will go on record as saying no quad core no deal. I don't consider myself to be a push over, and certainly not gullible. I won't buy an iMac just because Apple thinks dual core is good enough. It isn't and just puts the platform farther and farther behind performance wise.
In anyevent with the advent of Clarksfield I can't see Apple ignoring this chip. It should be in at least some of the iMacs that debut.
Dave
Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?
Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.
I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)
I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.
A little early, but right on time for Christmas.
Well, I believe at the end of the iPod event, SJ did say, "See you again soon."
Who buys specs? Some perhaps, but this is not the market for the iMac. Can you get a 20" or 24" laptop...?
Actually, I have a 30" Cinema Display at both home and office so, in effect, I DO have a 30" "laptop".
Well they better hurry on up because there's only a week to go.
Tuesday, September 29th.
Perfect day to make the announcement, as it is near or on the start of Apple's fiscal 1st quarter.
Yeah. Like that. What part of "Apple doesn't put desktop parts into their iMacs" are you not getting?
Look at the relative growth of desktop machines vs. laptops and tell me that people are rejecting laptop level power. Just because internet tech nerds obsess over dick waving contests and who's got the latest generation tech doesn't mean the average buyer does.
The average buyer checks out a machine and makes a judgement based on a variety of factors-- price, looks, ease of use, apparent quality, etc.
For a lot of people, an all in one machine that looks great and does everything they want it to in a snappy fashion is exactly what they want. They have no idea and could care less where the innards fall within Intel's lineup. It's been a while since pretty much any system sold (excepting netbooks) didn't have plenty of power to do what most people do with their computers.
A lot of the proud owners of PCs with i7 desktop parts will be running Office, email, internet, iTunes, and maybe some light photo editing software, all of which will are already going as fast as they can.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.
I would love a 30" iMac (you heard it hear first). I would 'Craig's List' my current 20" original white intel iMac and be as happy as a 'pig in Sh*t!' Please, please, please....
I used to hate laptop computers in my PC years and vowed to never ever buy a laptop. I bought my first iMac in 2006 and I loved it. Last year I needed a laptop and was really hesitate to replace my iMac with a laptop (MBP). Well, almost a year with my MBP and I couldn't be happier. The only thing I miss is the big 20" screen and for that I will get the 24" LED Cinema Display in the near future (along with the quad core MBP when they come out)
I think what addabox is saying is that the market for the iMac is not a performance-oriented market. I'd be willing to to bet that 99% of iMac buyers have no idea that the iMac is built with "laptop parts" or could tell you what that means even if they did know. So no, the iMac is not fully geek compliant, and very likely never will be. That does not however have much impact on the target market for the iMac.
Well said, but I'll take it one step further.
I believe that if Apple did boost the iMac's guts, at least on a build-to-order spec, to make it "fully geek compliant" then they would finally bridge the gap that exists between the consumer-driven iMac current line and the Mac Pro folks.
Bottom line is they would encourage a lot more sales for the 'tweeners, without necessarily cannibalizing current Mac Pro sales.
It would be a win-win.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
I was having a similar argument with my brother the other day. I was complaining about Apple's decision to pull the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro. He says that no one uses those slots. I said that music, video and design pros use the things and I'll be damned if there isn't a good number of them that would want to throw an eSATA card in there (especially the video guys). A MacPro is nice and all, but lugging around a 40 pound(!) CPU everywhere can get tiresome.
Ultimately we are resigned to Apple not offering choice. That's their schtick. You can have it in any color as long as you want black or something like that.
It's like Apple should just buy PsyStar and make 'em legit so they have a discount line. No in-store support, no glitz. But affordable, somewhat customizable hardware.
I know Apple's been down that road before when they licensed their OS to Power and it didn't work out so well, but if they produced the bargain brand themselves, they'd reap the revenue.
(along with the quad core MBP when they come out)
Yeah, the quad core MBP 17 (or whatever they make) is on my list of must-haves whenever they decide to release it.
I'm quite aware that current iMacs use mobile parts thank you. You are talking about one use case for an iMac - consumers. Because Apple doesn't release the numbers, we have no idea exactly who purchases the greater share of iMacs, but I would be willing to bet that would be graphics design or similar professionals that buy it because it's not worth spending the cash on Mac Pros. Most consumers would choose to buy a Macbook rather than a desktop-based Mac. So in this case, are you really going to tell me that these people wouldn't enjoy a more powerful desktop at a reasonable price point? Plus with the Grand Central technology in Snow Leopard, what point is there in sticking to a duo-core processor? Apple is the first one to tout the performance of their systems compared other competing systems, so I don't think I'm too far off base to criticize them on the lack of performance of their desktop based systems, especially when they choose to push a mobile parts based system against the more traditional desktops out there.
You can criticize them all you like, I'm not even defending them-- clearly, for some subset of potential customers, a laptop masquerading as a desktop isn't ideal.
However, it's simply pointless to demand that Apple put a given processor into the next iMac, make claims about what they "must" do, or generally carry on like there was some terrible deficiency in play that makes Apple look foolish.
They've been doing this for quite a while now, why would you expect them to suddenly change up their strategy? Laptop parts keep getting more capable, they can do what most people want them to do, and Apple likes to make its machines as small as possible, the end.
Apple isn't gong to abruptly make the iMac a lot thicker or noisier to accommodate desktop parts. They just aren't, that's how they roll. The arguments about what they "should" do are as old as the hills and haven't gotten any more sophisticated: Apple should make a more powerful machine that costs less.
Sure. And they will. Just not to the degree you want.
Personally, I'm not advocating Desktop parts in iMacs, I'm advocating current Intel Desktop parts in a desktop, with enough space for a decent graphics card.
I think the Apple Laptop Marketshare Growth vs Desktop Marketshare growth arguement is back-to-front
- the laptop marketshare growth is mainly because Apple has a decent laptop lineup, coupled with iPod/iPhone halo effects etc
- the reason the Desktop Market share isn't doing as well as the Laptop Market share is because Apple's Desktop line-up is pretty weak
- the only mid-range offering is the iMac, which, although quite neat in some respects, doesn't appeal to everyone (myself included)
I appreciate that SJ just doesn't want to do a mid-range machine other than the iMac, but I think he's missing a few $Billion worth of business because of that.
My thoughts exactly!
I was having a similar argument with my brother the other day. I was complaining about Apple's decision to pull the ExpressCard slot from their 15" MacBook Pro. He says that no one uses those slots. I said that music, video and design pros use the things and I'll be damned if there isn't a good number of them that would want to throw an eSATA card in there (especially the video guys). A MacPro is nice and all, but lugging around a 40 pound(!) CPU everywhere can get tiresome.
Ultimately we are resigned to Apple not offering choice. That's their schtick. You can have it in any color as long as you want black or something like that.
It's like Apple should just buy PsyStar and make 'em legit so they have a discount line. No in-store support, no glitz. But affordable, somewhat customizable hardware.
Oh please, please, please don't go there!