Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.
As it has been stated so many times before, i7 is 130W. Not possible. Even the 95W C2Q won't happen. Intel has just released 65W C2Q at a higher price, but since the price-to-power and new lower wattage, especially if Apple users Nvidia's lower watesge options over Intel's and does add more advanced coolng, then we may see desktop-grade chips in the iMac. But to expect i7 is just setting yourself up for for dissapointnent.
I hope we don't get these quad cores in the upper tiers of the iMac. That would be outrageous. Dell and Co. had i7s in their line ups ages ago.
And it adds fuel to the fire that we should have a desktop cpu option for the Mac Tower with a price cut to reflect this. It would render the debate moot.
Cube 2? Or 'Desktop' Mac Pro. Whatever Apple.
Also, there are some great gpus at good prices. Hopefully Apple will include the best in their Towers and iMac.
Why limit the design of the iMac to underperforming over priced components and fleece iMac buyers? I'd put a proper mid-tower alongside it. They'd still make money on Cinema displays.
Apple should be there by now. Quad core. Decent gpus. They've been available ages now. These machines haven't had an update in over a year, just under a year or years in the case of the Mac Mini.
Their desktop line up is flawed. It's go holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.
Apple could go a long way to keep buyers buying in this economic climate. A desktop mid-tower. A Cube shaped mini-tower. And allow us to pick better gpus and i7s in our desktop machines.
The design is good, Apple. But it's not excellent is it? Otherwise, we'd be able to pick our own components or a broader choice of components. The current desktop is embarrassing, out of date, a bean counter's wet dream and politically etched with Steve Jobs stubborness.
Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...
The desktop line has flies over the carcass.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I could not agree more. Apple's reputation is for delivering new hardware late, choosing a lower end, if not bottom end, part, and gouging the customer. And then there is still the problem of Rev A machines that continue to have problems.
Apple does not seem to have the ability to execute product development and introduction.
The answer to many of the questions surrounding the choice of processors for the new iMac is probably that the newer processor does not perform as well as expected with Leopard and there are problems with Snow Leopard (which is supposed to provide better multi-core support) which means that it is unlikely to be ready for release by the time the new iMac is ready to ship.
Decisions, decisions. If Apple ship the iMac with the newer processor they will give up the opportunity to pocket some money that could be saved by shipping the older one and the purchaser probably would not notice much of a difference until they upgrade to Snow Leopard.
My guess is that the $$$ will win out. The bean counters are the real designers at Apple.
Apple's reputation is for delivering new hardware late, choosing a lower end, if not bottom end, part, and gouging the customer.
In order for it to be a reputation it really should be truthful. Apple has always used Intels highest-grade chip in class. They have even gotten Xeons before anyone else, as in the case of a previous Mac Pro, have even gotten Intel to send to production a previous shelved item, as in the case of the first MBA processor, and have gotten Intel to release "hybrid chips" early, as in the case of the current iMac. What you are trying to compare is an aging revision due for an overhaul, like the current iMac, to the other major OEMs who showcase new models and revisions each month but sell most oldhat machines at little to no profit. For all intents and purposes Apple still works like a boutique computer shop. If you want a Nac with the latest HW you'll have to wait until the revisions are made.
In order for it to be a reputation it really should be truthful. Apple has always used Intels highest-grade chip in class. They have even gotten Xeons before anyone else, as in the case of a previous Mac Pro, have even gotten Intel to send to production a previous shelved item, as in the case of the first MBA processor, and have gotten Intel to release "hybrid chips" early, as in the case of the current iMac. What you are trying to compare is an aging revision due for an overhaul, like the current iMac, to the other major OEMs who showcase new models and revisions each month but sell most oldhat machines at little to no profit. For all intents and purposes Apple still works like a boutique computer shop. If you want a Nac with the latest HW you'll have to wait until the revisions are made.
Apple has a nasty habit of tossing you a dog biscuit...with a bite taken out of it, a pattern that goes back much further than their use of Intel chips.
Are things better since the adoption of Intel chips? Of course, but it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. The product development cycle is absurdly slow which only contributes to the problem. By the time the product gets out, it is already dated.
Their desktop line up is flawed. It's got holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.
Or that existing PowerMac users are so disgusted with Apple's current lineup, that they're choosing not to upgrade. Having done the reluctant PowerMac to iMac conversion, I don't blame them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
What industry moved entirely to 4-core mobile CPUs? You like to compare Apple's mini-desktop and AIOs and then cry foul, but you never want to acknowledge that these are a differnt class of machine than towers.
We acknowledge it all the time, the iMac has a place. It's just not the one size fits all computer that Apple wants it to be.
Quote:
Apple currently only wants to make a tower that is a higher-end workstation. What choice do you have but to accept that?
That's the point, you have no choice but to accept whatever Apple gives you unless you want to risk not being able to use your files and have to repurchase every piece of software you own on a move to windows. This shows how twisted things have become, the user is now supposed to serve Apple like a corrupt monarch. Whatever happened to the company who earned devout loyalty by offering a better computer? Live a minute in our shoes and might might understand why Jobs and apple have turned from the hero to the villain.
Or that existing PowerMac users are so disgusted with Apple's current lineup, that they're choosing not to upgrade. Having done the reluctant PowerMac to iMac conversion, I don't blame them.
He get's it. And the post PowerMac Mac Pro is even more expensive to add insult to injury! And with a lame ass built to order mid-range GT.
iMac boutique? It's got some way to go to catch the Mac Pro!
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.
I'm not sure what that means for the iMac, frankly. I'm sure they'll keep making it, because signs point to its being by far their best selling desktop, but I'm not sure where it will go. Ironically, like other desktops it might settle into a school/enterprise role.
It's impossible to make any firm projections without looking at the sales numbers, which Apple of course refuses to provide, so but it would not surprise me if the delay in updates reflects a sense that the whole desktop product line needs a do-over, now that the laptop is king.
I'm not going to try to predict where this is going, except that a move by the mini to the Atom platform would be an interesting repositioning. (They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.) I don't know to what extent Grand Central works across machines or with Apple's distributed computing frameworks, but that could be an interesting partnership. Its usefulness would depend, for one, on the speed and reliability of the network connecting the pieces, especially if they're wireless.
The odd duck is the Mac Pro. There are people will need maximum computational power more or less indefinitely. The question is whether there are enough of them to justify making the machine at a less than stratospheric price (and if you think the Mac Pro's price is stratospheric, you've never priced a UNIX workstation). It's possible to make machines that scale up to near-maximum power while still catering to people who only need a lot of power, which is one way the Windows PC killed the UNIX workstation. I guess the real question is actually whether a large enough number of people will need the internal expansion, since the computational power can be more efficiently stuffed into a rackmount unit.
I can't see why they'd do it in the near term. And there's only the one monitor. But if you look at it as a toe in the water, an exploration of a product realignment, it's kind of interesting.
Of course, it could simply be a laptop monitor with a couple of other bits thrown in for convenience. Even so, if the novelty wears off and the price drops, it could signal a shift. I'm sure Apple is watching the numbers.
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.
When your desktop lineup is a three year old dinosaur, a non-portable Macbook Pro in a a display, and a professional workstation, there is no good reason not to buy a laptop. The MBPs are easier to expand and upgrade than the iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Exactly which Apple product has been launched with dated components?
Unless you count this as a member of the NOS category. Then again, who's that nostalgic about what computers were like three years ago.
When the mini had its last update, the processor and chipset were current. Its obvious Jobs wants to kill the mini. Someone with some power in Apple is keeping it alive.
Quote:
You also might want to check to graphics chipsets against wants currently in use. They're a generation or two behind.
This depends on what is needed. Battery and heat management are as much a useful advancement as speed. Apple does not use the fastest graphics because they want sleek notebooks with good battery life. As opposed to hulking cases with loud fans and short battery life.
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.
I'm not sure what that means for the iMac, frankly. I'm sure they'll keep making it, because signs point to its being by far their best selling desktop, but I'm not sure where it will go. Ironically, like other desktops it might settle into a school/enterprise role.
It's impossible to make any firm projections without looking at the sales numbers, which Apple of course refuses to provide, so but it would not surprise me if the delay in updates reflects a sense that the whole desktop product line needs a do-over, now that the laptop is king.
I'm not going to try to predict where this is going, except that a move by the mini to the Atom platform would be an interesting repositioning. (They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.) I don't know to what extent Grand Central works across machines or with Apple's distributed computing frameworks, but that could be an interesting partnership. Its usefulness would depend, for one, on the speed and reliability of the network connecting the pieces, especially if they're wireless.
The odd duck is the Mac Pro. There are people will need maximum computational power more or less indefinitely. The question is whether there are enough of them to justify making the machine at a less than stratospheric price (and if you think the Mac Pro's price is stratospheric, you've never priced a UNIX workstation). It's possible to make machines that scale up to near-maximum power while still catering to people who only need a lot of power, which is one way the Windows PC killed the UNIX workstation. I guess the real question is actually whether a large enough number of people will need the internal expansion, since the computational power can be more efficiently stuffed into a rackmount unit.
Just thinking out loud, though.
I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
When the mini had its last update, the processor and chipset were current. Its obvious Jobs wants to kill the mini. Someone with some power in Apple is keeping it alive.
If current means leftovers from the then recently updated Macbook.
I guess everyone is making the same mistake, every other major computer company is suffering from plummeting sales and job losses. Could something be going on right now to cause all this trouble? Hmmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Apple's "plummeting desktop sales" is a crisis entirely of their own making.
Before our current global economic meltdown, the current iMac was selling very well. With a higher average revenue than the general desktop market.
Apple is not directly supporting CUDA. Apple is developing an open graphics framework called OpenCL. CUDA will work with OpenCL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
Comments
Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.
As it has been stated so many times before, i7 is 130W. Not possible. Even the 95W C2Q won't happen. Intel has just released 65W C2Q at a higher price, but since the price-to-power and new lower wattage, especially if Apple users Nvidia's lower watesge options over Intel's and does add more advanced coolng, then we may see desktop-grade chips in the iMac. But to expect i7 is just setting yourself up for for dissapointnent.
Agreed.
I hope we don't get these quad cores in the upper tiers of the iMac. That would be outrageous. Dell and Co. had i7s in their line ups ages ago.
And it adds fuel to the fire that we should have a desktop cpu option for the Mac Tower with a price cut to reflect this. It would render the debate moot.
Cube 2? Or 'Desktop' Mac Pro. Whatever Apple.
Also, there are some great gpus at good prices. Hopefully Apple will include the best in their Towers and iMac.
Why limit the design of the iMac to underperforming over priced components and fleece iMac buyers? I'd put a proper mid-tower alongside it. They'd still make money on Cinema displays.
Apple should be there by now. Quad core. Decent gpus. They've been available ages now. These machines haven't had an update in over a year, just under a year or years in the case of the Mac Mini.
Their desktop line up is flawed. It's go holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.
Apple could go a long way to keep buyers buying in this economic climate. A desktop mid-tower. A Cube shaped mini-tower. And allow us to pick better gpus and i7s in our desktop machines.
The design is good, Apple. But it's not excellent is it? Otherwise, we'd be able to pick our own components or a broader choice of components. The current desktop is embarrassing, out of date, a bean counter's wet dream and politically etched with Steve Jobs stubborness.
Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...
The desktop line has flies over the carcass.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I could not agree more. Apple's reputation is for delivering new hardware late, choosing a lower end, if not bottom end, part, and gouging the customer. And then there is still the problem of Rev A machines that continue to have problems.
Apple does not seem to have the ability to execute product development and introduction.
The answer to many of the questions surrounding the choice of processors for the new iMac is probably that the newer processor does not perform as well as expected with Leopard and there are problems with Snow Leopard (which is supposed to provide better multi-core support) which means that it is unlikely to be ready for release by the time the new iMac is ready to ship.
Decisions, decisions. If Apple ship the iMac with the newer processor they will give up the opportunity to pocket some money that could be saved by shipping the older one and the purchaser probably would not notice much of a difference until they upgrade to Snow Leopard.
My guess is that the $$$ will win out. The bean counters are the real designers at Apple.
Apple's reputation is for delivering new hardware late, choosing a lower end, if not bottom end, part, and gouging the customer.
In order for it to be a reputation it really should be truthful. Apple has always used Intels highest-grade chip in class. They have even gotten Xeons before anyone else, as in the case of a previous Mac Pro, have even gotten Intel to send to production a previous shelved item, as in the case of the first MBA processor, and have gotten Intel to release "hybrid chips" early, as in the case of the current iMac. What you are trying to compare is an aging revision due for an overhaul, like the current iMac, to the other major OEMs who showcase new models and revisions each month but sell most oldhat machines at little to no profit. For all intents and purposes Apple still works like a boutique computer shop. If you want a Nac with the latest HW you'll have to wait until the revisions are made.
In order for it to be a reputation it really should be truthful. Apple has always used Intels highest-grade chip in class. They have even gotten Xeons before anyone else, as in the case of a previous Mac Pro, have even gotten Intel to send to production a previous shelved item, as in the case of the first MBA processor, and have gotten Intel to release "hybrid chips" early, as in the case of the current iMac. What you are trying to compare is an aging revision due for an overhaul, like the current iMac, to the other major OEMs who showcase new models and revisions each month but sell most oldhat machines at little to no profit. For all intents and purposes Apple still works like a boutique computer shop. If you want a Nac with the latest HW you'll have to wait until the revisions are made.
Apple has a nasty habit of tossing you a dog biscuit...with a bite taken out of it, a pattern that goes back much further than their use of Intel chips.
Are things better since the adoption of Intel chips? Of course, but it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. The product development cycle is absurdly slow which only contributes to the problem. By the time the product gets out, it is already dated.
Their desktop line up is flawed. It's got holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.
Or that existing PowerMac users are so disgusted with Apple's current lineup, that they're choosing not to upgrade. Having done the reluctant PowerMac to iMac conversion, I don't blame them.
What industry moved entirely to 4-core mobile CPUs? You like to compare Apple's mini-desktop and AIOs and then cry foul, but you never want to acknowledge that these are a differnt class of machine than towers.
We acknowledge it all the time, the iMac has a place. It's just not the one size fits all computer that Apple wants it to be.
Apple currently only wants to make a tower that is a higher-end workstation. What choice do you have but to accept that?
That's the point, you have no choice but to accept whatever Apple gives you unless you want to risk not being able to use your files and have to repurchase every piece of software you own on a move to windows. This shows how twisted things have become, the user is now supposed to serve Apple like a corrupt monarch. Whatever happened to the company who earned devout loyalty by offering a better computer? Live a minute in our shoes and might might understand why Jobs and apple have turned from the hero to the villain.
never
I mentioned the iMac by name. I even used that boutique design statement more than once in my ramble.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Or that existing PowerMac users are so disgusted with Apple's current lineup, that they're choosing not to upgrade. Having done the reluctant PowerMac to iMac conversion, I don't blame them.
He get's it.
iMac boutique? It's got some way to go to catch the Mac Pro!
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm not sure what that means for the iMac, frankly. I'm sure they'll keep making it, because signs point to its being by far their best selling desktop, but I'm not sure where it will go. Ironically, like other desktops it might settle into a school/enterprise role.
It's impossible to make any firm projections without looking at the sales numbers, which Apple of course refuses to provide, so but it would not surprise me if the delay in updates reflects a sense that the whole desktop product line needs a do-over, now that the laptop is king.
I'm not going to try to predict where this is going, except that a move by the mini to the Atom platform would be an interesting repositioning. (They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.) I don't know to what extent Grand Central works across machines or with Apple's distributed computing frameworks, but that could be an interesting partnership. Its usefulness would depend, for one, on the speed and reliability of the network connecting the pieces, especially if they're wireless.
The odd duck is the Mac Pro. There are people will need maximum computational power more or less indefinitely. The question is whether there are enough of them to justify making the machine at a less than stratospheric price (and if you think the Mac Pro's price is stratospheric, you've never priced a UNIX workstation). It's possible to make machines that scale up to near-maximum power while still catering to people who only need a lot of power, which is one way the Windows PC killed the UNIX workstation. I guess the real question is actually whether a large enough number of people will need the internal expansion, since the computational power can be more efficiently stuffed into a rackmount unit.
Just thinking out loud, though.
The product development cycle is absurdly slow which only contributes to the problem. By the time the product gets out, it is already dated.
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.
Lowend MacBook + 24" Apple Cinema Display = $2200 = :-(
I hope they don't go down that road.
Desktop sales are plummeting.
Lowend MacBook + 24" Apple Cinema Display = $2200 = :-(
I hope they don't go down that road.
I can't see why they'd do it in the near term. And there's only the one monitor. But if you look at it as a toe in the water, an exploration of a product realignment, it's kind of interesting.
Of course, it could simply be a laptop monitor with a couple of other bits thrown in for convenience. Even so, if the novelty wears off and the price drops, it could signal a shift. I'm sure Apple is watching the numbers.
put this 8 core in the Pro, a quad in the iMac and a crippled quad in the mini?
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.
When your desktop lineup is a three year old dinosaur, a non-portable Macbook Pro in a a display, and a professional workstation, there is no good reason not to buy a laptop. The MBPs are easier to expand and upgrade than the iMacs.
Exactly which Apple product has been launched with dated components?
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Unless you count this as a member of the NOS category. Then again, who's that nostalgic about what computers were like three years ago.
You also might want to check to graphics chipsets against wants currently in use. They're a generation or two behind.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Unless you count this as a member of the NOS category. Then again, who's that nostalgic about what computers were like three years ago.
When the mini had its last update, the processor and chipset were current. Its obvious Jobs wants to kill the mini. Someone with some power in Apple is keeping it alive.
You also might want to check to graphics chipsets against wants currently in use. They're a generation or two behind.
This depends on what is needed. Battery and heat management are as much a useful advancement as speed. Apple does not use the fastest graphics because they want sleek notebooks with good battery life. As opposed to hulking cases with loud fans and short battery life.
The MBPs are easier to expand and upgrade than the iMacs.
Exactly. I can get to the Hard drive in my laptop. I can't in my iMac. Why would I buy an iMac?
Apple's "plummeting desktop sales" is a crisis entirely of their own making.
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.
I'm not sure what that means for the iMac, frankly. I'm sure they'll keep making it, because signs point to its being by far their best selling desktop, but I'm not sure where it will go. Ironically, like other desktops it might settle into a school/enterprise role.
It's impossible to make any firm projections without looking at the sales numbers, which Apple of course refuses to provide, so but it would not surprise me if the delay in updates reflects a sense that the whole desktop product line needs a do-over, now that the laptop is king.
I'm not going to try to predict where this is going, except that a move by the mini to the Atom platform would be an interesting repositioning. (They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.) I don't know to what extent Grand Central works across machines or with Apple's distributed computing frameworks, but that could be an interesting partnership. Its usefulness would depend, for one, on the speed and reliability of the network connecting the pieces, especially if they're wireless.
The odd duck is the Mac Pro. There are people will need maximum computational power more or less indefinitely. The question is whether there are enough of them to justify making the machine at a less than stratospheric price (and if you think the Mac Pro's price is stratospheric, you've never priced a UNIX workstation). It's possible to make machines that scale up to near-maximum power while still catering to people who only need a lot of power, which is one way the Windows PC killed the UNIX workstation. I guess the real question is actually whether a large enough number of people will need the internal expansion, since the computational power can be more efficiently stuffed into a rackmount unit.
Just thinking out loud, though.
I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
When the mini had its last update, the processor and chipset were current. Its obvious Jobs wants to kill the mini. Someone with some power in Apple is keeping it alive.
If current means leftovers from the then recently updated Macbook.
Apple's "plummeting desktop sales" is a crisis entirely of their own making.
Apple is not directly supporting CUDA. Apple is developing an open graphics framework called OpenCL. CUDA will work with OpenCL.
I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.