...and he's pulling pure speculation out of his behind.
Still, this does seem fairly plausible. The most likely scenario, if this is true, would be to offer 2 versions each of the 20" and 24" models; something like:
20" dual core: $999
20" quad-core: $1,299
24" dual core: $1,499
24" quad-core: $1,799
with, perhaps, a super-duper "ultimate" speculated 28" uber-iMac for $2,199 or whatever.
I thought it was a 30" and not a 28" that was rumored? Anyway, let's start a new rumor on a rumor.
Don't forget that the iMac still doesn't have Penryn, still uses LCD instead of LED, still uses DDR2 memory, has only a 6MB L2 cache, and the 3.06 GHz CPU is basically a "special edition" of a lower-clock-speed design.
So yeah, it's way overdue for an update. If they would have updated those features at the same time as the MacBook Pros, it would definitely have been an improvement (and I would have bought one).
I hope the delay is not just because of a change in the case (like the 17-inch MacBook Pro), but because they're making even greater improvements in the technologies (and optimizing for Snow Leopard). If that's the case, I don't mind waiting, although my iMac G5 (single core 1.8) is crying out to be retired.
Your comments highlight you ignorance with regards to computer manufacture. Apple are moving their products to an Nvidia mainboard chipset AND will accomodate new intel CPU's. Also Its pretty difficult to design and test hardware when the CPU supplier has not shipped final hardware to your labs.
Would you rather Apple shipped a slightly upgraded iMac last October with a slight CPU upgrade and better GPU, which you then buy and then in Feb/March release a quad core system with far superior GPU which you then piss and moan about as you just bought a new iMac. (BTW, this happened with the 2.1ghz G5 isight Mac which was only out for a few months before the intel iMac hit and lots of buyers were well pissed off.)
By looking at the way Apple have been extending the life cycles of all of its computer products I can see that in the future there will be a significantly longer period between major hardware revisions.
I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.
A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.
Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.
I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
I hope the delay is not just because of a change in the case (like the 17-inch MacBook Pro), but because they're making even greater improvements in the technologies (and optimizing for Snow Leopard). If that's the case, I don't mind waiting, although my iMac G5 (single core 1.8) is crying out to be retired.
More like your credit card is burning a hole in your pocket. Your iMac G5 still has plenty of life left in it unless its physically dying.
I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.
A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.
Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.
I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
Again, there wasn't a significant enough update to justify a refresh for the iMac. Going from 2.4 to 2.5 or 2.6 isn't going to make one hell of a difference. And like I said earlier, a general consumer isn't going to care which type of processor the iMac is using (Merom or Penryn).
Its not as simple and just throw a processor in there and release it. There still has to be testing to make sure there aren't heating issues and such. Also, you have to try and clear out old inventories or sell off remaining inventories at cheaper prices. All of this for just a 200 or 300 MHz update?
These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
Don't know if I can get a machine with a quad cpu and a monitor for $700, but here's a sample of what is available.
I know Apple can't match these specs on the iMac. But they need to get closer. Simply putting slightly faster dual core cpus in the iMac ain't gonna cut it IMO.
I won't buy one and I'm in the market for a new desktop machine this year.
But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.
The new nVidia chipsets ARE required for the New CPU & GPU. ALSO, the new low power Quad core chips are only just shipping.
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
Now, those are nice prices but they have sod all to do with replacing an iMac now do they?!?!?!?!
The iMac is an all in one, those links are for bog standard boxes. Of course you can get a cheaper base unit than an iMac, and damn fool could make one. The iMac is a different beast entirely and bares no comparison whatsoever to those systems linked.
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
Now, those are nice prices but they have sod all to do with replacing an iMac now do they?!?!?!?!
The iMac is an all in one, those links are for bog standard boxes. Of course you can get a cheaper base unit than an iMac, and damn fool could make one. The iMac is a different beast entirely and bares no comparison whatsoever to those systems linked.
Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
I would rather have a 3GHz dual core than a 2.4GHz Quad.
That's understandable. If the applications you run do not support more than 2-cores well then having a higher frequency is going to be faster. However as we begin to move to Snow Leopard and beyond this will not the case because even low level task will be optimized for multiple cores and applications will not expressly have to be written to yield benefit from 4-core and beyond.
"In our experience, when Apple sends an advisory to its channel partners of limited availability and inventory of existing models are drawn down, it is highly likely that a product refresh is within a few weeks," he said.
Oh, thank God there is a Wall Street Analyst to tell us the obvious! What a moron. This guy is a retard like the others.
I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.
A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.
Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.
I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
Launched in July 2007, Refreshed in May 2008 (8 months later) Refresh looming now (feb/Mar 2009) 8 months later.
Do you see a pattern? Do Apple EVER refresh products more often than that? Do their sales dip so much that they see the need to update more often? Does the operating system demand that much more from the hardware that you would need to update more often?
Oh, thank God there is a Wall Street Analyst to tell us the obvious! What a moron. This guy is a retard like the others.
As the years have passed and I've read more & more of Mr. Wu's "analysis" - I feel comfortable saying his "predictions" and "analysis" are probably entirely gleaned from the pages of Appleinsider and MR. Seemingly, without the latter 2 sites....Mr. Wu wouldn't have a clue.
Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.
erm.. if this were the case Apple would be bankrupt by now instead of turning a profit from its computers. You know that those looking to get a sub $1000 system are unlikely to be a Mac customer. And those that were teetering around the $1000 mark will probably cough up the extra once they see an iMac or Macbook in person. Especially if they have an iPhone or iPod Touch (and like them !!).
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
You forgot to mention that you are also getting a piece of shit PC box running Vista. Stop comparing cheap PC's to Macs. If you don't like the price and quality of a Mac, then go to Costco or Best Buy and get your piece of shit PC Box.
Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday that AppleInsider's latest report on iMac shortages is "consistent" with comments from his supply chain sources that the iMac is due for a refresh in the March or June quarters.
...
In his note to clients today, Wu now claims to be hearing from his sources "that both types of processors will likely be used," which would "makes sense as this helps Apple create better tiers within the iMac family, utilizing quad-core for the high-end, and dual-core for mid-range and low-end."
Wu seems to have discovered a method for making his predictions more accurate. Instead of
predicting one processor type to be used, he predicts two. Instead of predicting the new
models will be released within a few weeks, he predicts a six month time frame.
I hereby predict there will be an earthquake in California that measures between 2.0 and
8.0 on the Richter scale and that it will occur during the next 10 years.
Comments
...and he's pulling pure speculation out of his behind.
Still, this does seem fairly plausible. The most likely scenario, if this is true, would be to offer 2 versions each of the 20" and 24" models; something like:
20" dual core: $999
20" quad-core: $1,299
24" dual core: $1,499
24" quad-core: $1,799
with, perhaps, a super-duper "ultimate" speculated 28" uber-iMac for $2,199 or whatever.
I thought it was a 30" and not a 28" that was rumored? Anyway, let's start a new rumor on a rumor.
So yeah, it's way overdue for an update. If they would have updated those features at the same time as the MacBook Pros, it would definitely have been an improvement (and I would have bought one).
I hope the delay is not just because of a change in the case (like the 17-inch MacBook Pro), but because they're making even greater improvements in the technologies (and optimizing for Snow Leopard). If that's the case, I don't mind waiting, although my iMac G5 (single core 1.8) is crying out to be retired.
I seriously doubt that a 30" iMac would see any significant buyers. People like Macs, but they're not crazy.
Your comments highlight you ignorance with regards to computer manufacture. Apple are moving their products to an Nvidia mainboard chipset AND will accomodate new intel CPU's. Also Its pretty difficult to design and test hardware when the CPU supplier has not shipped final hardware to your labs.
Would you rather Apple shipped a slightly upgraded iMac last October with a slight CPU upgrade and better GPU, which you then buy and then in Feb/March release a quad core system with far superior GPU which you then piss and moan about as you just bought a new iMac. (BTW, this happened with the 2.1ghz G5 isight Mac which was only out for a few months before the intel iMac hit and lots of buyers were well pissed off.)
By looking at the way Apple have been extending the life cycles of all of its computer products I can see that in the future there will be a significantly longer period between major hardware revisions.
Hardware predictions:
Base iMac 20" - intel 2.4 dual core, NV9400 gfx
Mid iMac 20" - intel 2.6 dual core, NV 9600 gfx
Base 24" - intel 2.6 quad core, NV9600 gfx
Top 24" - intel 2.8 - 3.00 quad core - NV9800GTS/X
I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.
A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.
Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.
I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
I hope the delay is not just because of a change in the case (like the 17-inch MacBook Pro), but because they're making even greater improvements in the technologies (and optimizing for Snow Leopard). If that's the case, I don't mind waiting, although my iMac G5 (single core 1.8) is crying out to be retired.
More like your credit card is burning a hole in your pocket.
I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.
A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.
Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.
I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
Again, there wasn't a significant enough update to justify a refresh for the iMac. Going from 2.4 to 2.5 or 2.6 isn't going to make one hell of a difference. And like I said earlier, a general consumer isn't going to care which type of processor the iMac is using (Merom or Penryn).
Its not as simple and just throw a processor in there and release it. There still has to be testing to make sure there aren't heating issues and such. Also, you have to try and clear out old inventories or sell off remaining inventories at cheaper prices. All of this for just a 200 or 300 MHz update?
These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US
Intel® Core? 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz
$999 w/24" LCD
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741
AMD Phenom? X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
These numbers sound like they were pulled straight out of your rear end. Please post an actual detailed comparison with links to the $700 computer that's the equivalent of the $1299 iMac. (or STFU)
Don't know if I can get a machine with a quad cpu and a monitor for $700, but here's a sample of what is available.
Core i7 machine for $1200 sans a monitor.
A quad core penryn machine for $800 sans a monitor.
Several Phenom machines for under a grand. Most around $800 without a monitor.
I know Apple can't match these specs on the iMac. But they need to get closer. Simply putting slightly faster dual core cpus in the iMac ain't gonna cut it IMO.
I won't buy one and I'm in the market for a new desktop machine this year.
LOL these analysts make me laugh.
me too
____________
But in the mean time they could/should have released a refreshed model with a new CPU and GPU, they did not have to wait for the new nvidia chipset for that.
The new nVidia chipsets ARE required for the New CPU & GPU. ALSO, the new low power Quad core chips are only just shipping.
Please come back from cloud cuckoo land
Once again, I have to ask where this rumoured 28" flat screen is being sourced from.
I seriously doubt that a 30" iMac would see any significant buyers. People like Macs, but they're not crazy.
I would buy one. I don't have a TV! I use my iMac G5 PPC 20" as my TV. I'm just CRAZY!
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US
Intel® Core? 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz
$999 w/24" LCD
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741
AMD Phenom? X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
Now, those are nice prices but they have sod all to do with replacing an iMac now do they?!?!?!?!
The iMac is an all in one, those links are for bog standard boxes. Of course you can get a cheaper base unit than an iMac, and damn fool could make one. The iMac is a different beast entirely and bares no comparison whatsoever to those systems linked.
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US
Intel® Core? 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz
$999 w/24" LCD
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741
AMD Phenom? X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
Now, those are nice prices but they have sod all to do with replacing an iMac now do they?!?!?!?!
The iMac is an all in one, those links are for bog standard boxes. Of course you can get a cheaper base unit than an iMac, and damn fool could make one. The iMac is a different beast entirely and bares no comparison whatsoever to those systems linked.
Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.
I would rather have a 3GHz dual core than a 2.4GHz Quad.
That's understandable. If the applications you run do not support more than 2-cores well then having a higher frequency is going to be faster. However as we begin to move to Snow Leopard and beyond this will not the case because even low level task will be optimized for multiple cores and applications will not expressly have to be written to yield benefit from 4-core and beyond.
"In our experience, when Apple sends an advisory to its channel partners of limited availability and inventory of existing models are drawn down, it is highly likely that a product refresh is within a few weeks," he said.
Oh, thank God there is a Wall Street Analyst to tell us the obvious! What a moron. This guy is a retard like the others.
I understand that Apple is moving their product line, however the speed with which they have updated the iMac and the Mac Mini is far too slow.
A revision should have been released, those that have bought an iMac in the last 6 months will off course want the new model with the nvidia graphics system.
Having said that, those people that did buy an iMac in the last 6 months would have been better served by a speed bump and GPU update.
I suppose the fact that they bought one shows that they may not need the extra power, at the same time Apple's slow refresh of simple specs is frustrating.
Launched in July 2007, Refreshed in May 2008 (8 months later) Refresh looming now (feb/Mar 2009) 8 months later.
Do you see a pattern? Do Apple EVER refresh products more often than that? Do their sales dip so much that they see the need to update more often? Does the operating system demand that much more from the hardware that you would need to update more often?
Oh, thank God there is a Wall Street Analyst to tell us the obvious! What a moron. This guy is a retard like the others.
As the years have passed and I've read more & more of Mr. Wu's "analysis" - I feel comfortable saying his "predictions" and "analysis" are probably entirely gleaned from the pages of Appleinsider and MR. Seemingly, without the latter 2 sites....Mr. Wu wouldn't have a clue.
Yes in your mind you think the comparision is invalid. But to consumers who are looking at value the iMac does indeed have to compare to the sub $999 PC boxen at the local retailer.
erm.. if this were the case Apple would be bankrupt by now instead of turning a profit from its computers. You know that those looking to get a sub $1000 system are unlikely to be a Mac customer. And those that were teetering around the $1000 mark will probably cough up the extra once they see an iMac or Macbook in person. Especially if they have an iPhone or iPod Touch (and like them !!).
http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product...se=&lang=en-US
Intel® Core? 2 Quad Processor Q6600 at 2.4GHz
8MB L2 Cache
1066MHz Front Side Bus
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz
$999 w/24" LCD
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....=1218038551741
AMD Phenom? X4 9100e* quad-core processor
True multicore processing for extreme multitasking performance. Cool'n'Quiet? 2.0 technology for efficient energy usage. HyperTransport? 3.0 technology to improve 3D graphics performance.
4GB of RAM
Now if I wanted to go off brand (which is fine) I can indeed hit better prices,
You forgot to mention that you are also getting a piece of shit PC box running Vista. Stop comparing cheap PC's to Macs. If you don't like the price and quality of a Mac, then go to Costco or Best Buy and get your piece of shit PC Box.
Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu told clients on Monday that AppleInsider's latest report on iMac shortages is "consistent" with comments from his supply chain sources that the iMac is due for a refresh in the March or June quarters.
...
In his note to clients today, Wu now claims to be hearing from his sources "that both types of processors will likely be used," which would "makes sense as this helps Apple create better tiers within the iMac family, utilizing quad-core for the high-end, and dual-core for mid-range and low-end."
Wu seems to have discovered a method for making his predictions more accurate. Instead of
predicting one processor type to be used, he predicts two. Instead of predicting the new
models will be released within a few weeks, he predicts a six month time frame.
I hereby predict there will be an earthquake in California that measures between 2.0 and
8.0 on the Richter scale and that it will occur during the next 10 years.