I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.
THAT causes a potential MacPro buyer to get a Dell for much less money. All fair and good that many think Apple has hit a winner with making iMac useless for anything above using Firefox.
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)
Yep...I know exactly where you are coming from! I used to agonize over the comfort of a desktop vs. the mobility of the laptop (with all it's limitations).
So I resigned myself to both! Problem solved! I had to give my intel original macbook to my daughter for medical school, so as soon as the MBA is updated with the same trackpad as the MacBook Pro's.
A 30" iMac, an updated MBA, a 2gig Time Capsule, SL, iLife & iWork suite, an iPhone 3GS and I will be set...Oh don't forget the new Tablet. Got's to have one of those too.
Again, I have just resigned myself to the overlap of the above mentioned products rather than debating (with myself) the pro's and con's of each! :
That's why I linked to the article, and mentioned Arrandale afterwards.
We may be seeing new Macbooks a bit later, so if that's true, I wonder what we'll see in them.
With Apple supposedly moving to even thinner enclosures for iMacs, I wonder how they could squeeze a 55 watt chip inside. But if you read the article, you would see that the TCPis just that, the max rating. With the new chips moving up so many bins in speed when needed, its just possible that average power may fall low enough for Apple to manage it. Just a guess.
At any rate, the iMacs using the mobile chips usually, because of the desktop buss and drives, eck out more performance than a laptop does with the same chips.
I don't know about you, but when I engineer something, I engineer it to the maximum possible condition. Designing a computer to the average thermal rating would be just asking for heat related problems. I would guess the iMac uses mobile chips because Steve wants a thin enclosure and doesn't want a huge power brick. The design choice has nothing to do with performance.
What's with this obsession with thin with a Desktop? I don't care what parts it has in it. It's not a mobile laptop. You hook it up, set it on your desk, and never look at the back again.
I have to agree. I'll be disappointed if they don't leverage any of the newer processor technology like i5 or i7. With the turbo technology from these newer series processors, and with the hinted LED display, the heat generated should be less compared to the ambient heat from the existing back light.
My iMac is only a year old so I'll be skipping this generation regardless unless something unforeseen happens, but IMO Apple needs to stop being so single minded about thin factor on an iMac. They don't need to be thin as they aren't portable, and it adds no benefit when you're looking at the screen. You can't tell how thick they are looking at the screen in any case.
I can't imagine the end users are wanting even more 'thinness' over better CPU and graphics options at this point.
That would be awesome! Something that is not an iMac but not a Mac pro but much more than a Mac Mini.
I would but that in a heartbeat!!!
And as long as I am asking...the ability to upgrade the CPU as well!
Hey I can dream can't I!!! :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonimus
I hope there will be an Intel i5 750 or (preferably) an i7 860.
It would be nice to see USB 3.0 or a faster version of FireWire.
I'd like to know who's been talking to Apple about the need for a thinner enclosure. I really can't imagine that the numbers asking for that aren't a slim fraction of the numbers wanting a DESKTOP quad processor and better video card. Some other rumors suggest a 25.5" or 26" screen. Rather have a better processor/video card.
Why not just make a Mac Pro Mini - with a mini aluminum enclosure with the opportunity for owners to make some hardware upgrades instead of being sealed off like most Apple products.
My Windows computer died from hardware failure and I was hoping for a quad core iMac. I may have to get a cheap Windows 7 laptop and wait until next Spring. I hope not....
You'd think Apple would want to exploit Snow Leopard's Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL with new, capable hardware -- at the consumer level.
I have a friend that got a 24" model about two months ago. She is happy with it but if she would have asked I would of suggested holding off on the purchase.
This could result in a very long discussion but I will just say that Snow Leopard changes that a bit. There appears to be a subset of programs that already benefit greatly from Snow Leopard. Apparently Apple refactored NSOperation facilities to leverage GCD so some programs fair well under SL.
The reality is though that many programs use older threading models that assume things about the machine they run on and thus don't benefit hugely from SL.
In otherwords Threaded apps under SL are a mixed bag today. Optimized software is a ways off.
I have to wonder if such testing would be valid today under SL?
I'll give it until sometime mid 2010 before Open CL and Grand Central make a difference for enough people, for it to begin to matter.
I'll give it until the end of 2010 before enough people see a difference in more than a small set of mostly programs by third party developers that are other than minor.
I'll give it until mid 2011 before most people will see significant improvements in their average daily computer usage from those advancements.
In other words, 4 cores aren't useful for most people for most programs now, and won't be for some time.
Better graphic card usage will come sooner, but not for most apps.
Quote:
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.
The people who have stated these concerns here loudly, are just going by what they think are useful specs. The differences between high end pro graphics monitors and the 24" iMac are not that great for most purposes. so if someone is doing high end color work in a tight commercial setting, then there are better monitors to choose. but for most graphics pros, this monitor is plenty good enough.
Considering that we've got to spec spot colors with Pantone numbers (or others in other places) anyway, no matter what monitor we're using, the ultimate monitor isn't meaningful for most work.
And I'm one of the pickiest people around.
Quote:
With Turbo Boost and the other processor enhancements an i7 based CPU ought to be able to out perform the current iMacs on poorly threaded code and at the same time do well with the newer GCD code. Maybe it is to good to be true but it would be very nice if i7 turns out to be the ideal transitional processor.
Dave
There's no doubt that Apple will b going to new cpu's with these still rumored machines. a four core Clarksdale is $1,000 bin price. That's a lot. maybe, just maybe, if Apple can manage the cooling, they would have than in the top model, just as the top models have the current 3.0.6.
After all, where can Apple go for chips? Either it will be a slightly upgraded Core 2 version, or the new Clarksdale.
Those are the only two realistic choices right now.
THAT causes a potential MacPro buyer to get a Dell for much less money. All fair and good that many think Apple has hit a winner with making iMac useless for anything above using Firefox.
Giant & obese Mac Pro
---- big gap ---- <<Dell, HP, Acer, etc
Weedy skinny iMac
That shows you don't know anything about Apple's machines, or the people who buy them.
I hope the 20" comes with VESA mounting capability. I want to put one on the kitchen counter but it needs to fit under the upper cabinet. Right now my white 20" with no VESA adapter does not fit where I want it because it is a little too tall. the 24" mount is VESA compatible but it is way too big for my purpose.
Well then we'll have to assume that PC buyers also find the available desktop offerings "pretty weak", because laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales in that market as well, a trend that appears to be accelerating.
Basically what we're doing here is backing into the great X-Mac outcry, which I guess is overdue: Apple should make an expandable, midrange machine with desktop parts. A headless iMac. A cheap Mac Pro. Whatever. I would welcome such a machine, I might even buy one.
But they won't, and they won't because desktops are a shrinking market and "expandability" is hugely overrated by the tech savvy as a necessary feature. Dirt cheap external drives and lots of internal memory mean the vast majority of users will never, ever crack open the case of their machines.
And given that the vast majority of their users will never really tax the laptop hardware they're getting in their iMacs, what is Apple's actual incentive to make the fabled X-Mac?
The theory amongst fans of the idea is that there are all these customers that need exactly that and that Apple could increase their market share, perhaps by quite a bit, if they offered such machines, but is that true? You have to assume that Apple has at least sort of looked into this; they're not entirely adverse to increasing market share as long as it involves their general premium market segment.
My suspicion is that while they would certainly sell a certain number of less expensive, more powerful, expandable desktop machines, the numbers aren't what enthusiasts believe, and certainly not sufficient for Apple to risk cannibalizing the sales of high margin iMacs or Mac Pros.
Like I say, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just how Apple operates and it seems to be working out pretty well. For those specific folks who need or want a machine that Apple doesn't sell it sucks.
Very true. It is an "enthusiasts" market for the "X-Mac". I don't think it would increase their market share or have any significant impact on their bottom line at all. For me, at least, its not as much about expandability as it is about having a couple more ram slots and a desktop class graphics card.
I agree with Steve, Blu Ray is expensive and kinda useless on a computer.
Expensive? Blu-ray drives are selling for as low as $60 at retail. Apple should be able to get them for a lot less than $50.
Quote:
First off, most programs still fit nicely on a DVD.
Second you would need a much larger then 24' display for blu ray to be useful, and for that you would need a TV, not an iMac.
Why do you need more than a 24" display for blu-ray to be useful? If you are sitting in front of a 24" monitor that can display 1080p at native resolution, it is quite easy to see the difference between upscaled 480p vs 1080p video.
Quote:
Third making iMacs more expensive right now is not a very good move, the economy is not good enough to support a price increase right now.
Therefore if blu ray does come about it would have to be an option for the most expensive iMac in the family. Just my prediction.
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.
Dave
Glare is an issue. WHy do you think they still use the old cinema display in Apple class on Fifth Avenue? So everyone can see it. You can't see it from every angle with all that glare. YOu have to constantly move it .
I'll take my white matte iMac screen anyday over the current screen.
I don't know about you, but when I engineer something, I engineer it to the maximum possible condition. Designing a computer to the average thermal rating would be just asking for heat related problems. I would guess the iMac uses mobile chips because Steve wants a thin enclosure and doesn't want a huge power brick. The design choice has nothing to do with performance.
Not really. I designed plenty of electronics myself. I understand thermal design.
There's a difference between using a chip that will dissipate an average amount of heat that's acceptable for long term conditions, while allowing for shorter term higher dissipation rates, and designing a machine that must allow the higher rates 100% of the time.
That's why, for example, fans have variable speeds.
There are two factors that have to be considered.
One is the obvious factor of the chip's cooling needs. The other is the capacity of the machine itself for absorbing and dissipating more heat.
Modern machines have cooling systems that are far more sophisticated than they once were. A design can be made smaller while still removing the same amount of heat.
In the old days, all the cooling was done by heatsinks and fans. That required a lot of room. But now it's much better.
I think the question here is not whether Apple could cool the chip properly, but what effect that would have on the rest of the machine. All manufacturers do studies on how the machines are stressed in actual use.
The entire machine is realistically part of the cooling system as it absorbs heat quickly and gives it off more slowly.
The question is whether Apple has decided that their design can absorb enough heat quickly but give it off properly so that the normal temp of the machine stays below design limits.
That doesn't mean that the machine as a whole must withstand 100% output all of the time. I don't know many consumer machines, PC or Mac that are designed today that can.
By that statement I know you didn't even bother to read the article... the article went into detail on how those organizations use Macs for applications requiring performance. Mostly they were talking about Mac Pros, but there was a couple of examples of iMac use.
Exactly. They are using iMacs in appropriate situations and Mac Pros when high performance is needed. This does not make your case that iMac performance must be increased.
I don't know what you mean by "consumer use." I'm a "consumer" of many things (including food) and have been using Macs for 25 years.
Comments
Put down the bottle pleez. So "Pros" only use iMacs now and not PCs?????
Stop embarrassing yourself.
Stop being a wiseass, you must of read the post I was responding to, it wasn't your business.
I believe EVERYONE was waiting for quad-core versions of iMacs, so I guess everyone will be totally disappointed. Why? Because every HP, Dell, Acer and Lenovo will offer at least a couple of quad-core models in their lineups and no one understands why Apple refuses to keep up with the Windows PC companies. Analysts and investors are going to complain to no end. They don't understand that Apple won't put a quad-core processor into an iMac because it would lessen the performance gap between an iMac and a MacPro. That might cause a potential MacPro buyer to backslide and pick up an iMac for much less money.
THAT causes a potential MacPro buyer to get a Dell for much less money. All fair and good that many think Apple has hit a winner with making iMac useless for anything above using Firefox.
Giant & obese Mac Pro
---- big gap ---- <<Dell, HP, Acer, etc
Weedy skinny iMac
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)
Yep...I know exactly where you are coming from!
So I resigned myself to both! Problem solved!
A 30" iMac, an updated MBA, a 2gig Time Capsule, SL, iLife & iWork suite, an iPhone 3GS and I will be set...Oh don't forget the new Tablet. Got's to have one of those too.
Again, I have just resigned myself to the overlap of the above mentioned products rather than debating (with myself) the pro's and con's of each! :
Best Regards!
That's why I linked to the article, and mentioned Arrandale afterwards.
We may be seeing new Macbooks a bit later, so if that's true, I wonder what we'll see in them.
With Apple supposedly moving to even thinner enclosures for iMacs, I wonder how they could squeeze a 55 watt chip inside. But if you read the article, you would see that the TCPis just that, the max rating. With the new chips moving up so many bins in speed when needed, its just possible that average power may fall low enough for Apple to manage it. Just a guess.
At any rate, the iMacs using the mobile chips usually, because of the desktop buss and drives, eck out more performance than a laptop does with the same chips.
I don't know about you, but when I engineer something, I engineer it to the maximum possible condition. Designing a computer to the average thermal rating would be just asking for heat related problems. I would guess the iMac uses mobile chips because Steve wants a thin enclosure and doesn't want a huge power brick. The design choice has nothing to do with performance.
Isn't that commonly know as Macorexia?
Funny! Allergies must be better!
You know what they say, 'you can never be too rich or too thin!'
I'm one case of the stomach flu from my ideal weight! Come on Winter and Flu season!
I have to agree. I'll be disappointed if they don't leverage any of the newer processor technology like i5 or i7. With the turbo technology from these newer series processors, and with the hinted LED display, the heat generated should be less compared to the ambient heat from the existing back light.
My iMac is only a year old so I'll be skipping this generation regardless unless something unforeseen happens, but IMO Apple needs to stop being so single minded about thin factor on an iMac. They don't need to be thin as they aren't portable, and it adds no benefit when you're looking at the screen. You can't tell how thick they are looking at the screen in any case.
I can't imagine the end users are wanting even more 'thinness' over better CPU and graphics options at this point.
I would but that in a heartbeat!!!
And as long as I am asking...the ability to upgrade the CPU as well!
Hey I can dream can't I!!! :-)
I hope there will be an Intel i5 750 or (preferably) an i7 860.
It would be nice to see USB 3.0 or a faster version of FireWire.
I'd like to know who's been talking to Apple about the need for a thinner enclosure. I really can't imagine that the numbers asking for that aren't a slim fraction of the numbers wanting a DESKTOP quad processor and better video card. Some other rumors suggest a 25.5" or 26" screen. Rather have a better processor/video card.
Why not just make a Mac Pro Mini - with a mini aluminum enclosure with the opportunity for owners to make some hardware upgrades instead of being sealed off like most Apple products.
My Windows computer died from hardware failure and I was hoping for a quad core iMac. I may have to get a cheap Windows 7 laptop and wait until next Spring. I hope not....
You'd think Apple would want to exploit Snow Leopard's Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL with new, capable hardware -- at the consumer level.
I have a friend that got a 24" model about two months ago. She is happy with it but if she would have asked I would of suggested holding off on the purchase.
This could result in a very long discussion but I will just say that Snow Leopard changes that a bit. There appears to be a subset of programs that already benefit greatly from Snow Leopard. Apparently Apple refactored NSOperation facilities to leverage GCD so some programs fair well under SL.
The reality is though that many programs use older threading models that assume things about the machine they run on and thus don't benefit hugely from SL.
In otherwords Threaded apps under SL are a mixed bag today. Optimized software is a ways off.
I have to wonder if such testing would be valid today under SL?
I'll give it until sometime mid 2010 before Open CL and Grand Central make a difference for enough people, for it to begin to matter.
I'll give it until the end of 2010 before enough people see a difference in more than a small set of mostly programs by third party developers that are other than minor.
I'll give it until mid 2011 before most people will see significant improvements in their average daily computer usage from those advancements.
In other words, 4 cores aren't useful for most people for most programs now, and won't be for some time.
Better graphic card usage will come sooner, but not for most apps.
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.
The people who have stated these concerns here loudly, are just going by what they think are useful specs. The differences between high end pro graphics monitors and the 24" iMac are not that great for most purposes. so if someone is doing high end color work in a tight commercial setting, then there are better monitors to choose. but for most graphics pros, this monitor is plenty good enough.
Considering that we've got to spec spot colors with Pantone numbers (or others in other places) anyway, no matter what monitor we're using, the ultimate monitor isn't meaningful for most work.
And I'm one of the pickiest people around.
With Turbo Boost and the other processor enhancements an i7 based CPU ought to be able to out perform the current iMacs on poorly threaded code and at the same time do well with the newer GCD code. Maybe it is to good to be true but it would be very nice if i7 turns out to be the ideal transitional processor.
Dave
There's no doubt that Apple will b going to new cpu's with these still rumored machines. a four core Clarksdale is $1,000 bin price. That's a lot. maybe, just maybe, if Apple can manage the cooling, they would have than in the top model, just as the top models have the current 3.0.6.
After all, where can Apple go for chips? Either it will be a slightly upgraded Core 2 version, or the new Clarksdale.
Those are the only two realistic choices right now.
THAT causes a potential MacPro buyer to get a Dell for much less money. All fair and good that many think Apple has hit a winner with making iMac useless for anything above using Firefox.
Giant & obese Mac Pro
---- big gap ---- <<Dell, HP, Acer, etc
Weedy skinny iMac
That shows you don't know anything about Apple's machines, or the people who buy them.
I hope the 20" comes with VESA mounting capability. I want to put one on the kitchen counter but it needs to fit under the upper cabinet. Right now my white 20" with no VESA adapter does not fit where I want it because it is a little too tall. the 24" mount is VESA compatible but it is way too big for my purpose.
http://www.imacmount.com/
No kids...
Ah! I've heard of that financial plan before. Some days it looks appealing.
I used to think the white intel iMac was the 'bee's knees' until I got accustomed to the aluminum iteration. Now the white looks somewhat dated.
I find the HP's and Dells creaky and 'vomit worthy' compared to the Macs.
However, I do take your point about thinness at the expense of performance. But knowing Apple I will eventually get both.
Stop being a wiseass, you must of read the post I was responding to, it wasn't your business.
"Wise" and "techstud" are two words that should never be used in the same sentence.
"Wise" and "techstud" are two words that should never be used in the same sentence.
Now, now. Be nice. Techstud has allergies!
Well then we'll have to assume that PC buyers also find the available desktop offerings "pretty weak", because laptop sales have overtaken desktop sales in that market as well, a trend that appears to be accelerating.
Basically what we're doing here is backing into the great X-Mac outcry, which I guess is overdue: Apple should make an expandable, midrange machine with desktop parts. A headless iMac. A cheap Mac Pro. Whatever. I would welcome such a machine, I might even buy one.
But they won't, and they won't because desktops are a shrinking market and "expandability" is hugely overrated by the tech savvy as a necessary feature. Dirt cheap external drives and lots of internal memory mean the vast majority of users will never, ever crack open the case of their machines.
And given that the vast majority of their users will never really tax the laptop hardware they're getting in their iMacs, what is Apple's actual incentive to make the fabled X-Mac?
The theory amongst fans of the idea is that there are all these customers that need exactly that and that Apple could increase their market share, perhaps by quite a bit, if they offered such machines, but is that true? You have to assume that Apple has at least sort of looked into this; they're not entirely adverse to increasing market share as long as it involves their general premium market segment.
My suspicion is that while they would certainly sell a certain number of less expensive, more powerful, expandable desktop machines, the numbers aren't what enthusiasts believe, and certainly not sufficient for Apple to risk cannibalizing the sales of high margin iMacs or Mac Pros.
Like I say, it's not a matter of right or wrong, it's just how Apple operates and it seems to be working out pretty well. For those specific folks who need or want a machine that Apple doesn't sell it sucks.
Very true. It is an "enthusiasts" market for the "X-Mac". I don't think it would increase their market share or have any significant impact on their bottom line at all. For me, at least, its not as much about expandability as it is about having a couple more ram slots and a desktop class graphics card.
It's just enthusiasts' wishful thinking.
At least then Apple used the best cpus Motorola and IBM could produce.
I agree with Steve, Blu Ray is expensive and kinda useless on a computer.
Expensive? Blu-ray drives are selling for as low as $60 at retail. Apple should be able to get them for a lot less than $50.
First off, most programs still fit nicely on a DVD.
Second you would need a much larger then 24' display for blu ray to be useful, and for that you would need a TV, not an iMac.
Why do you need more than a 24" display for blu-ray to be useful? If you are sitting in front of a 24" monitor that can display 1080p at native resolution, it is quite easy to see the difference between upscaled 480p vs 1080p video.
Third making iMacs more expensive right now is not a very good move, the economy is not good enough to support a price increase right now.
Therefore if blu ray does come about it would have to be an option for the most expensive iMac in the family. Just my prediction.
I'm not sure where all the negativity about the screens come from. As you point out they are very good. Probably over active imaginations. To me it is a realtively minor concern when compared to the issue of quad cores in an iMac.
Dave
Glare is an issue. WHy do you think they still use the old cinema display in Apple class on Fifth Avenue? So everyone can see it. You can't see it from every angle with all that glare. YOu have to constantly move it .
I'll take my white matte iMac screen anyday over the current screen.
Why do you think matte is back on the Pros?
The larger the screen the more the glare.
I don't know about you, but when I engineer something, I engineer it to the maximum possible condition. Designing a computer to the average thermal rating would be just asking for heat related problems. I would guess the iMac uses mobile chips because Steve wants a thin enclosure and doesn't want a huge power brick. The design choice has nothing to do with performance.
Not really. I designed plenty of electronics myself. I understand thermal design.
There's a difference between using a chip that will dissipate an average amount of heat that's acceptable for long term conditions, while allowing for shorter term higher dissipation rates, and designing a machine that must allow the higher rates 100% of the time.
That's why, for example, fans have variable speeds.
There are two factors that have to be considered.
One is the obvious factor of the chip's cooling needs. The other is the capacity of the machine itself for absorbing and dissipating more heat.
Modern machines have cooling systems that are far more sophisticated than they once were. A design can be made smaller while still removing the same amount of heat.
In the old days, all the cooling was done by heatsinks and fans. That required a lot of room. But now it's much better.
I think the question here is not whether Apple could cool the chip properly, but what effect that would have on the rest of the machine. All manufacturers do studies on how the machines are stressed in actual use.
The entire machine is realistically part of the cooling system as it absorbs heat quickly and gives it off more slowly.
The question is whether Apple has decided that their design can absorb enough heat quickly but give it off properly so that the normal temp of the machine stays below design limits.
That doesn't mean that the machine as a whole must withstand 100% output all of the time. I don't know many consumer machines, PC or Mac that are designed today that can.
By that statement I know you didn't even bother to read the article... the article went into detail on how those organizations use Macs for applications requiring performance. Mostly they were talking about Mac Pros, but there was a couple of examples of iMac use.
Exactly. They are using iMacs in appropriate situations and Mac Pros when high performance is needed. This does not make your case that iMac performance must be increased.
I don't know what you mean by "consumer use." I'm a "consumer" of many things (including food) and have been using Macs for 25 years.