An Intel Quad in iMac soon?

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    You're right, but Zinfella was specifically comparing the 24" iMac for use in the Pro market.



    24" iMacs are indeed seeing adoption in the Pro market. But few realize that a small business that does credit card processing or keeps its customer databases on an iMac is likely in violation of privacy laws if they take the machine and leave it with an outside facility.



    Then they should keep such info on an external drive, with copies in a secure location.
  • Reply 42 of 53
    grahamwgrahamw Posts: 575member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post


    You're right, but Zinfella was specifically comparing the 24" iMac for use in the Pro market.



    24" iMacs are indeed seeing adoption in the Pro market. But few realize that a small business that does credit card processing or keeps its customer databases on an iMac is likely in violation of privacy laws if they take the machine and leave it with an outside facility.



    Being in Canada as both you and I are, PIPEDA is served quite well as long as data integrity is preserved; the actual place of business is irrelevant. In the case of anyone processing credit cards it's part of the agreement with the big three that any transmitted data needs to be transmitted and stored with stringent encryption standards.



    This also speaks volumes about external storage - by ensuring that your databases and your records are stored on an external drive you never have to worry about the data venturing offsite (assuming you secure the drive. You would secure the drive, right?).



    While I don't doubt that there's a market for the xMac (I used to think I was that customer) I've found that the iMac fits my needs better than I could have imagined. It's creepy and slightly irritating to realize that sometimes Apple does know best.
  • Reply 43 of 53
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grahamw View Post


    Being in Canada as both you and I are, PIPEDA is served quite well as long as data integrity is preserved; the actual place of business is irrelevant. In the case of anyone processing credit cards it's part of the agreement with the big three that any transmitted data needs to be transmitted and stored with stringent encryption standards.



    This also speaks volumes about external storage - by ensuring that your databases and your records are stored on an external drive you never have to worry about the data venturing offsite (assuming you secure the drive. You would secure the drive, right?).



    While I don't doubt that there's a market for the xMac (I used to think I was that customer) I've found that the iMac fits my needs better than I could have imagined. It's creepy and slightly irritating to realize that sometimes Apple does know best.



    I agree that Apple has a very good handle on these things, but I disagree about me being in Canada. I'm right here in the heart of the desert Southwest, in Phoenix. Well, actually in Mesa.
  • Reply 44 of 53
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,786member
    He's talking about Me being in Canada.



    You're correct about the best practices, but I highly doubt that lots of small businesses are securing external drives.

    External drives are also much easier to lose from theft than AIOs.
  • Reply 45 of 53
    grahamwgrahamw Posts: 575member
    Not you, Frank (edit: dangit, beaten again!)



    I've not no idea about American Privacy laws - I heard something about a FISA and Telecom Immunity and tuned right out.





    How's Mesa treatin' you this time of year?



    Edit: As for folks stealin' your external - they're small. Lock 'em down!
  • Reply 46 of 53
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grahamw View Post


    Not you, Frank (edit: dangit, beaten again!)



    I







    How's Mesa treatin' you this time of year?



    Warmly, Graham, VERY warmly!
  • Reply 47 of 53
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tubgirl View Post


    how well does '[running] multiple taxing apps' reflect the average usage pattern of an imac owner?



    Well first you have to define what is average. Then you have to get everybody to agree to that!



    I will simply say that it is possible to have enough concurrent applications going that things slow down. Now for me it is hard to do that on my current dual core MBP, but there are times when it is obvious that an additional processor is needed. The big problem when working a MBP that hard is that it gets a little hot!

    Quote:



    i think dual core technology is one of the greatest thing in personal computing ever - one core for your main app and one for background processes - but i wouldn't know what to do with the other two...?



    The key here is that you should need to know what to do wit the other two, four or six. That is an issue for the OS to resolve with a little help form the various app developers. In any event it does look l9ike Apple is trying to directly attack this issue via Snow Leopard. By that I mean better use of multiple cores, the user really shouldn't have to know or even understand how many cores his machine might have.

    Quote:

    i'd say the only type of consumer with would actually have any use of quad core computers would be the obsessive dvd-ripper...



    Never ripped a DVD in my life. Frankly not into the whole media hoarding mentality at all. That doesn't mean that at time I don't wish for a faster system than what my dual core can offer up. Of course currently a big issue is the reality that single core/thread performance can still be critical.

    Quote:



    or maybe i'm just missing the bigger picture...?



    I think so. Having Quad core sis just a reasonable safe guard against a machine becoming obsolete to fast. It can offer up real advantages to what today would be considered more advanced users. In the near future, with Snow Leopard, it ought to be an advantage for any user. The reality is the world is slowly moving to a multicore reality and software is slowly catching up. The hardware goes multicore simply because there is no other alternative. Software catches up as it can.



    Dave
  • Reply 48 of 53
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Having Quad core sis just a reasonable safe guard against a machine becoming obsolete to fast.



    yeah, I guess so - but in that regard i'd say apple/intel should do something about the rather low 4GB memory cap.

    that's a big drawback from using the mobile chipsets and more limiting on system longevity than the number of cores, i think...
  • Reply 49 of 53
    zinfellazinfella Posts: 876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tubgirl View Post


    yeah, I guess so - but in that regard i'd say apple/intel should do something about the rather low 4GB memory cap.

    that's a big drawback from using the mobile chipsets and more limiting on system longevity than the number of cores, i think...



    Unless you're doing video work, 4GB works fine in most circumstances. If you're doing video, then the MacPro is what you really need anyway. I open images in Photoshop, Aperture 2, and Nikon Capture NX as fast as I click on them with 4GB on my iMac.
  • Reply 50 of 53
    futurepastnowfuturepastnow Posts: 1,772member
    PM/GM45 should support 8GB of RAM. Good luck finding 4 gig SO-DIMMs.
  • Reply 51 of 53
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,756member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tubgirl View Post


    yeah, I guess so - but in that regard i'd say apple/intel should do something about the rather low 4GB memory cap.



    That depends on what you are doing with that memory and the associated processors. 8GB could be to little or it could be more than enough. More important when adding more processors is the bandwidth to that memory, this is something that I'm not sure Intel is really fixing that much in the next round of mobile processors.

    Quote:

    that's a big drawback from using the mobile chipsets and more limiting on system longevity than the number of cores, i think...



    Well the use of mobile processors takes you out of the desktop chip set upgrade cycles and laptop tech has lagged the desktop. So I have to agree with you here, the use of mobile components does impact what Apple can deliver and when. It is a drawback if you want leading edge performance. However if you need the other advantages offered up by mobile electronics then the use of Intels mobile hardware really isn't that bad.



    Now if you are about to ask what advantages, what I have in mind here is power usage and the potential for dramatically lowering ones power foot print. Lets face it if the iMac is quick enough for your personal usage then its lower power demands is something worth considering.



    Apples use of laptops parts, in the iMac, isn't bad it is just not something that allows for the leading edge chip sets and processors. Still I suspect that when it does go quad core it will be a very nice enhancement. Maybe not for everybody but long term it isthe way to go.





    Dave
  • Reply 52 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    Look up "naive" too.



    What these companies are going to do is proprietary information, until they decide otherwise. Try finding out ANY particulars on a yet to be released camera. It will be the same story as the Macs, if they wanted you to know, they would tell you. Some folks know, but they've all signed NDAs, so that are going to tell you either.



    Letting info out ahead of time gives the competition an unnecessary advantage. IOW, basic good business.



    Not really a fair comment and your previous posts were quite rude. If the OP is coming from the PC side then perhaps he's used to his computer manufacturers being more transparent with their model roadmaps. While I agree that it's good business sense for Apple to keep their secrets secret, it's not that way for all companies and it shouldn't be assumed that the OP would have previous knowledge about Apple's obsession with secrecy with regards to future products.
  • Reply 53 of 53
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zinfella View Post


    Look up "naive" too.



    What these companies are going to do is proprietary information, until they decide otherwise. Try finding out ANY particulars on a yet to be released camera. It will be the same story as the Macs, if they wanted you to know, they would tell you. Some folks know, but they've all signed NDAs, so that are going to tell you either.



    Letting info out ahead of time gives the competition an unnecessary advantage. IOW, basic good business.



    The problem swith no info as to what is coming out is holding people up who might want to purchase but not sure if the money is going to be wasted.



    I want to buy a mini, but with 3GHz cpus currently in the iMacs, I'm sure the mini is due for a refresh, and probably by Christmas. As you cant upgrade anything in the mini I don't want to fork out NZ$1400 for a fully loaded mini only to have a faster one come in at the same price point or have the 2GHz one drop.
Sign In or Register to comment.