Pathetic update of the iMac, I had money in hand to purchase but will not with the current "update" Apple are offering (last Years Technology at a premium price). If the next update of the iMac range is not more inspiring - such as Core i7 chips and LED display I have to say they may lose me as a previously loyal customer.
Core i7 will be replaced in part by Core i5 the mainstream Intel Nehalem chip and motherboard setup. Like Nvidia, Intel is going to a two chip mobo setup. Core i5 (Lynnfield) should perform as well as a Core i7 in most areas since it's pretty much the same chip minus the QPI link to RAM which means little in a single socket system.
Dollars to donuts that's where Apple's headed with the iMac.
Core i7 will be replaced in part by Core i5 the mainstream Intel Nehalem chip and motherboard setup. Like Nvidia, Intel is going to a two chip mobo setup. Core i5 (Lynnfield) should perform as well as a Core i7 in most areas since it's pretty much the same chip minus the QPI link to RAM which means little in a single socket system.
Dollars to donuts that's where Apple's headed with the iMac.
Nope. The TDP is 95 watts.
I don't see it happening. Apple could have put 65 watt low power Penryn CPUs in the iMac this time around but passed. What makes you optimistic they'd adopt and even more power hungry and hotter CPU?
Maybe clarksdale which have a TDP of 45-55 watts. Maybe. But after this most recent 'update', I envision someone at Apple in a decision making position who slams down his fist screaming " MUST... NOT...ALLOW... TOO MUCH POWER... TO THE... UNWASHED... MASSES'' every time an engineer suggests a CPU for the iMac.
But I bet they wait for Arrandale which, on the 32nm node, will likely give great performance per watt for the portable line and I suspect will find their way into the iMac and mini as well.
I don't see it happening. Apple could have put 65 watt low power Penryn CPUs in the iMac this time around but passed. Why makes you optimistic they'd adopt and even more power hungry and hotter CPU?
Maybe clarksdale which have a TDP of 45-55 watts. Maybe. But after this most recent 'update', I envision someone at Apple in a decision making position who slams down his fist screaming " MUST... NOT...ALLOW... TOO MUCH POWER... TO THE... UNWASHED... MASSES'' every time an engineer suggests a CPU for the iMac.
But I bet they wait for Arrandale which, on the 32nm node, will likely give great performance per watt for the portable line and I suspect will find their way into the iMac and mini as well.
The economical four core processors Intel core i7 will be released within lynnfield architecture. Moreover, their maximum heat emission must not exceed 65 watts, This means, that those processors can be examined as alternative for compact PC. However, their appearance on sale is planned for the beginning of 2010.
Note lynnfield architecture will not only include the integrated memory controller , but also the integrated PCI express controller for the straight connection between the processor and video card.
I don't think today's casing can handle 65W w/o the fans working overtime. I expect to see a more beefy and aggressive iMac debut with mainstream Nehalem. Apple has got to get this hardware platform to work comfortably at 65W and extend to 95W. The process shrinks aren't reducing heat as much as folks speculated years ago.
I agree the mobile lineup cannot and probably will not handle Clarksfield unless Apple adds some good ole rugged looking amp like heatsink LOL.
The economical four core processors Intel core i7 will be released within lynnfield architecture. Moreover, their maximum heat emission must not exceed 65 watts, This means, that those processors can be examined as alternative for compact PC. However, their appearance on sale is planned for the beginning of 2010.
Note lynnfield architecture will not only include the integrated memory controller , but also the integrated PCI express controller for the straight connection between the processor and video card.
I don't think today's casing can handle 65W w/o the fans working overtime. I expect to see a more beefy and aggressive iMac debut with mainstream Nehalem. Apple has got to get this hardware platform to work comfortably at 65W and extend to 95W. The process shrinks aren't reducing heat as much as folks speculated years ago.
I agree the mobile lineup cannot and probably will not handle Clarksfield unless Apple adds some good ole rugged looking amp like heatsink LOL.
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Sure it would be great. And it makes perfect sense to me. But somebody at Apple doesn't think that non-professional users need or deserve more than dual core power in their computer.
Sure it would be great. And it makes perfect sense to me. But somebody at Apple doesn't think that non-professional users need or deserve more than dual core power in their computer.
Wanting it won't necessarily make it happen.
I wish I had a modeling program so that I could model my visions for an iMac Pro.
I'd use the same perforated look for the sides that Mac Pro uses for its face. I'd have a height adjustable stand with tilt. I'd have two drive bays and i'd leverage the larger 26" LCD screens like those found in
95W sounds like a lot but with Core i5 we're getting a break because there's no North Bridge lessing the TDP numbers and the P55 PCH should be more power efficient overall.
I'd like to see Apple get back to solid engineering beyond smartphones.
It seems since he left Apple, engineering went downhill.
If you look at the iMac disassembly pictures from iFixit you get the impression that this is rather a mess. Not neatly laid out like the G5 iMacs, very hard to disassemble and service, and the mother board design looks rather clumsy. This is not a well nor nicely engineered machine on the inside.
If that is the best Apple engineering can come up with, then I think I know why they're sticking with the old Mac Pro case for as long as they can...
It certainly seems that since Rubinstein left Apple internal hardware layout got sloppier.
He led the teams that designed the PowerMac G5 and white iMac G5 cases both IMHO the best internal designs Apple ever did.
Just look at how clean the iMac G5 was laid out internally compared to the latest update!
It took them a year or more to release these 'updates?'
This is what is distressful. I was really hoping that the iMac would have graduated to a better chipset/family. The Mini update was almost exactly what i expected, if slightly slow at the top end. But given that these are 9400M based machines you have to wonder what the hell was up. The only rational excuse I can see is that NVidia had to ramp up 9400M production so Apple spaced things out a bit.
Quote:
Where they sitting on their thumbs?
I'm not going to suggest where those thumbs where lodged but they where likely wiggling them so that the could feel good about this update. At least in the case of the iMac which has to be the biggest embarrassment that Apple has shoved on tot he market since the Cube.
Quote:
Lemon Bon Bon.
All in all I just don't know how to rationalize this to myself or to others in conversation. It is like Apple went off the deep end here and missed one of the most important things related to computer performance which is the CPU. Like it or not it is the only thing that can assure better performance, on a broad range of software, on each revision of hardware.
This is important because even with Apples focus on OpenCL it is a limited technology. Limited in the sense that the software actually has to benefit from GPU acceleration (much won't) and software writers have to actually implement the OpenCL code. The expectation many have that Snow Leopard will magically accelerate their personal suite of software is misguided, a lot has to happen to leverage the new technologies in SL. This is why the lack of real CPU improvements in the iMac are so disappointing. If you want universally better performance in your apps the only sure bet is a faster CPU.
The other thing I find scary here is that Apple went to a lot of trouble to produce this model iMac which leaves me with the fear that it will be around for a long time. We may not see another revision until 2011. Even scarier is that sales might tank but the numbskulls at Apple will probably blame the poor sales on the so called recession we are in. Sadly I can almost smell the spin at the next earnings report.
All in all I just don't know how to rationalize this to myself or to others in conversation. It is like Apple went off the deep end here and missed one of the most important things related to computer performance which is the CPU. Like it or not it is the only thing that can assure better performance, on a broad range of software, on each revision of hardware.
This is important because even with Apples focus on OpenCL it is a limited technology. Limited in the sense that the software actually has to benefit from GPU acceleration (much won't) and software writers have to actually implement the OpenCL code. The expectation many have that Snow Leopard will magically accelerate their personal suite of software is misguided, a lot has to happen to leverage the new technologies in SL. This is why the lack of real CPU improvements in the iMac are so disappointing. If you want universally better performance in your apps the only sure bet is a faster CPU.
The other thing I find scary here is that Apple went to a lot of trouble to produce this model iMac which leaves me with the fear that it will be around for a long time. We may not see another revision until 2011. Even scarier is that sales might tank but the numbskulls at Apple will probably blame the poor sales on the so called recession we are in. Sadly I can almost smell the spin at the next earnings report.
Dave
We've not always agreed on things but I couldn't agree more with what you've just said and the articulate way in which you said it.
In the debates raging here I can't tell you how many posters have fallen back on the "wait till Snow Leopard arrives" defense of these 'new' machines. I'm as hopeful as next guy that SL will bring meaningful improvements in everyday performance. But I'm a realist and I'm not going to expect magic code out of Apple.
Its not that hard to give the iMac and mini a meaningful improvement in performance NOW. The CPUs to do so exist now. Apple have chosen not to use them.
'This' Apple seems oblivious to the fact that the world is in a deep recession (depression even). But I guess Apple will learn the hard way that the prices they're asking for the Mac Pro isn't going to fly.
One has to be careful with this current recession. On obvious component or factor in this recession has been political interference (by both parties) with respect to mortgages. It is not like the issues with the banks haven't been know in Washington for years but unfortunately both parties, for different reasons, have made home ownership and artificially high home prices political goals which have come back to haunt them severely. In many was this is a manufactured recession and frankly one of the reasons you don't see any bankers testifying on capital hill as both parties would be implicated.
What I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult to determine how deep the current recession really is as many industries are doing just fine. Another unique factor in this recession is the extremely negative reporting that has actually had an impact on many people. In many ways the severity of the recession has been enhanced by the mass media scaring the living hell out of people. This recession is very unique and different from past problems and is a bit harder to get a handle on. Worst is the thought that we have an administration that is hell bent on making things worst, with the idea that they must save GM as the best example of their stupidity.
What does this have to do with Apple. Well number one they may not think that the recession will significantly impact them. That is they may not see a big economic impact on the demographic they are targeting. Or the other way around is that they may be expecting an impact but don't want to crimp their income on the expected lower sales. That is lower volumes mean higher prices.
I'm not a potential Mac Pro customer, at the moment, so I haven't put much thought into that machine. With the iMac I'm not convinced they will learn anything if they already have their minds made up with respect to the economy. If a pre-manufactured excuse is already available I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple use it. It is in my mind a case where the thoughts on the economy are driving manufactures to do stupid things that actually make the economy worst. If you make products that nobody in their right mind will buy then you will have a big slow down in sales and may not recognize that the economy isn't the issue but rather it is you the producer that has crapped your sales.
'This' Apple seems oblivious to the fact that the world is in a deep recession (depression even). But I guess Apple will learn the hard way that the prices they're asking for the Mac Pro isn't going to fly.
Yeah, Kim...
...in a recession, premium product purchases are 1st to get hit...and usually harder! That means Apple. What are they going to do when PC 'switchers' come into the Apple stores and show them the specs of quad core machines with better gpus than the iMacs at cheaper prices? I'll be surprised if Apple's sales don't take one helluva beating from this prostate check of a price jack. Rewind. We're back to the intro' of the Cube. These guys just haven't learned their lesson, have they?
Think different? Think greedyTM.
Wizard.
Your two lengthy, but utterly articulate posts say all I wanted to say. (And more...) Apple seem to have their own pre-rehearsed spin (or line of crap...) they expect people to buy. And they've been on that line of crap since they jacked up the tower prices with the G5, then the Intel switch...and AGAIN with the 'i7' Server Xeon. Steve Jobs, touch your head and get back in touch with reality. £1895 to buy a tower? That's the starting price for quad power on the Mac. It was £1450 a few days ago. Remember the PPC days? G3 and G4 pricing? Doesn't look so bad now, eh? It's just outrageous. And Apple can't blame IBM or Moto this time. The cheaper cpus are there...with better bang for the buck and they are CHOOSING NOT to use them! This makes Apple just as bad as M$ for overcharging for their OS with 7 different flavours.
Dave. I had a PC owning friend that came over last night. We had a long chat (over a hour...!) about this recent update. To his credit, he didn't laugh at me or the update. Personally, I think he's more grown up than me...I would have laughed at him ) I told him that I didn't think I could see a way into Apple's recent desktop line up. He said Apple's prices were outrageous and lacking choice before and now they're basically off the deep end. Consumers will look and go...'no.' He couldn't understand the lack of vram on the mid-range 4870 card when many PC suppliers are charging the same or less price for the card with more vram. He couldn't understand the lack of high end gpu and the claim to be a workstation. His eyes are wide with disbelief at the lack of consumer tower 'i7' and the dearth of quad power in the iMac or the £1650 price tag just to get a low end 4870 gpu that any £500 PC tower could be configured with.
However, he did say that I should stop looking at the horizon and just buy the quad tower. That I have a project to get on with and the power will be impressive (he bought an i7 2.66 overclocked 3.33 quad, with 6 gigs of ram and a 2 gig Radeon 4870x2 for £1850...) and that it's time to bite the bullet and open the wallet and pay (albeit with the taste of vommit in my mouth.) He also said to drop my dream of a 30 inch Apple monitor for £1100 and get a non-Apple 28 incher I saw for £262 and it comes with 3 year on site warranty.
My friend also couldn't believe some of the apologist tripe on these boards by people who shall remain nameless for now.
Hard choice. Yeah. I went on a rant. But in the current climate, people are careful with their money and want value for money. It's not easy to just cough up £2000 and hand it over. It's a tough decision when you're buying Apple because they are so obtuse. They are penny pinching with their specs to make money...they can't blame the consumer if they do the same. If SL was on PC hardware? I wouldn't buy Apple kit. Period.
I'm not a potential Mac Pro customer, at the moment, so I haven't put much thought into that machine.
Well. They'll have less Mac Pro customers than ever now. I guess I'll wait until benches become available, retail discounts or use my edu' discount. I think I'll wait until SL if I do make a purchase. I'm not going to give Apple another £100 after forking out for over priced kit.
I'm on the verge of being a grudging, anti-Apple guy. I want to work with Apple kit. But this desktop update was almost the final straw for me. If Microsoft ever got Vista working with the 'feel' of 'X'...
Custom build yourself a new Mac Mini. If you already have a HD LCD TV, there will be no need for a monitor. Add wireless keyboard and mouse and Ta-Da! I have a new 320G Mini 2.0 wireless networked with this set up and don't need anything else. I leave the pimped out Mac for my design work in the office.
Yeah, same old reaction after every new desktop Mac release.
There's definitely a pattern forming:
ever since the days of the G5 PowerMac and iMac with every new desktop release you get less value for your money.
(this is not true for all laptops though!)
If the state of the desktop Macs wouldn't be so sad, it would actually be funny.
No this is a typical reaction after every Apple release or update, same thing after every laptop update, desktop, ipod, iphone, whatever. Apple does have a special breed of customers and fans. I believe for the vast majority of their customers though, these updates are welcome.
...I'm on the verge of being a grudging, anti-Apple guy. I want to work with Apple kit. But this desktop update was almost the final straw for me. If Microsoft ever got Vista working with the 'feel' of 'X'...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Me too buddy, I feel ya pain. But Windows 7 ain't gonna come close to Leopard or Snow Leopard. Honestly.
I am hooked on Mac OS X. As for hardware, well, I guess Apple isn't a hardware company, so I'll be sticking with my 3-year-Applecare-soon-to-expire MacBook Core Duo White... When you hook it up to a 17" or larger screen, Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse, quite survivable, actually. 2GB RAM, 7200rpm hard drive.
I think things will run faster on Snow Leopard, a slight performance boost. Apple knows they gotta hit the big notes with Snow Leopard, Windows 7 is looking very promising on reversing (well, addressing) the epic failure of Vista.
We've not always agreed on things but I couldn't agree more with what you've just said and the articulate way in which you said it.
In the debates raging here I can't tell you how many posters have fallen back on the "wait till Snow Leopard arrives" defense of these 'new' machines. I'm as hopeful as next guy that SL will bring meaningful improvements in everyday performance. But I'm a realist and I'm not going to expect magic code out of Apple.
Its not that hard to give the iMac and mini a meaningful improvement in performance NOW. The CPUs to do so exist now. Apple have chosen not to use them.
Who's to blame, IBM?
Quad cores that fit in the current form factor of iMac and Mini do not exist. Therefore I blame Intel (bless their hearts, but where is the laptop quad cores?) and I blame Apple (bless their hearts, but anorexia can kill true innovation).
Agree with you on calling bullsh*t on the "OH, but Snow Leopard will make everything fine and dandy and the 9400M integrated driving 1920x1200 24" will be oh so wonderful and so-not-underpowered when Snow Leopard comes out"
That said, I do look forward to *some* performance improvements. But again, it's not going to negate the lack of bang-for-buck in these updates. I guess Apple is just playing it safe.
Quad cores that fit in the current form factor of iMac and Mini do not exist. .
I not sure I agree with that.
There are laptop quad core cpus. A 2.0 ghz and 2.5 ghz variety IIRC. They are quite expensive though, at least the 2.5 ghz frequency.
But the real cpu for the iMac is the low power desk top cpu. Yes they are 65 watt TDP but I have a hard time believing that a company that can engineer the MB Air can't figure out a way to fit these cpus into an AIO form factor. It appears that Dell figured it out. Are there engineers better? Even Anand thought these cpus are perfect for AIO form factors. That's really their only reason for existence. They don't offer any advantage over a regular desk top cpu other than their ability to go into a smaller form factor.
If you want an nVidia GPU at least the top level iMac has a better GPU option than a fully speced $14,000 (!!) Mac Pro!
<sarcasm OFF>
My last hope is that this is a stop-gap release until Snow Leopard.
With its many technical advances it could come hand-in-hand with new hardware.
I kinda doubt that the release of Snow Leopard will mean a significant upgrade of this hardware. Apple didn't spend all this money and engineering effort to produce motherboards and other electronics that will be usable for 3 months. Unfortunately I suspect the basic design of these machines will be around for at least two years.
Quote:
Blu-Ray option could be one of these (as SL is widely expected to support it), better GPU options (drivers only available for SL due to OpenCL), more RAM slots (since SL is more thread friendly), etc.
While GPU drivers do improve over time it won't be because of OpenCL. In fact OpenCL has the real potential of lowering the performance of the GPU as cores are allocated to non graphical processing. It is not a world where we can get free processing power, use the GPU to accelerate your app and something is going to loose elsewhere.
AS to more RAM, lets face it Apple is all about placing artificial limitations on what a machine is capable of RAM wise. Beyond that Apple would need to implement a new chip set as the 9400M only addresses 8GB anyways.
In either of these cases I just don't see Apple going forward with this platform. That is about the only significant update they could do to the machines is to add a quad core CPU. If they do that to co market Snow Leopard it will be pretty pathetic in my mind. I mean how would you take it if Apple put on the market a machine that has a dual core processor, buy it, and then see them update the line with quad core processors three months down the road? Frankly this looks like Apples marketing crew doesn't have a clue as to how Snow Leopard will work.
Quote:
But from past experience I wouldn't be surprised if this 'upgrade' will be it until Q1 2010...
I for one am not holding my breath.
The best we could get is a move to Penryn type quad cores which will be very low end by the time Apple makes the update.
Quote:
Long live Hackintosh!
This market will be huge!
Thanks to Apple itself.
Exactly! I don't really know what they where thinking. It is a good thing I'm not invested with them as I'd be asking more questions than they might want to hear.
An even bigger problem is that they won't garner much sympathy in the publics mind if they continue to go after the Hackintosh and jailbreak community. Their tone with respect to these activities aren't exactly generating good vibes. Combine that with grossly mis-marketed product and in reality a lack of product and you will see a backlash.
Comments
So we have 7:
Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, Xserve, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air
Though you might argue that the MacBook has 2 distinct options...
Either way, plenty finger's left...
(or in other words: not much to choose from)
That's it until WWDC - at the earliest.
And my money is on WWDC being an iPhone OS exclusive.
Until then either give in and buy one of the 'upgrades' - or it's back to hibernation!
Pathetic update of the iMac, I had money in hand to purchase but will not with the current "update" Apple are offering (last Years Technology at a premium price). If the next update of the iMac range is not more inspiring - such as Core i7 chips and LED display I have to say they may lose me as a previously loyal customer.
Core i7 will be replaced in part by Core i5 the mainstream Intel Nehalem chip and motherboard setup. Like Nvidia, Intel is going to a two chip mobo setup. Core i5 (Lynnfield) should perform as well as a Core i7 in most areas since it's pretty much the same chip minus the QPI link to RAM which means little in a single socket system.
Dollars to donuts that's where Apple's headed with the iMac.
Core i7 will be replaced in part by Core i5 the mainstream Intel Nehalem chip and motherboard setup. Like Nvidia, Intel is going to a two chip mobo setup. Core i5 (Lynnfield) should perform as well as a Core i7 in most areas since it's pretty much the same chip minus the QPI link to RAM which means little in a single socket system.
Dollars to donuts that's where Apple's headed with the iMac.
Nope. The TDP is 95 watts.
I don't see it happening. Apple could have put 65 watt low power Penryn CPUs in the iMac this time around but passed. What makes you optimistic they'd adopt and even more power hungry and hotter CPU?
Maybe clarksdale which have a TDP of 45-55 watts. Maybe. But after this most recent 'update', I envision someone at Apple in a decision making position who slams down his fist screaming " MUST... NOT...ALLOW... TOO MUCH POWER... TO THE... UNWASHED... MASSES'' every time an engineer suggests a CPU for the iMac.
But I bet they wait for Arrandale which, on the 32nm node, will likely give great performance per watt for the portable line and I suspect will find their way into the iMac and mini as well.
That's just the way Apple rolls.
Nope. The TDP is 95 watts.
I don't see it happening. Apple could have put 65 watt low power Penryn CPUs in the iMac this time around but passed. Why makes you optimistic they'd adopt and even more power hungry and hotter CPU?
Maybe clarksdale which have a TDP of 45-55 watts. Maybe. But after this most recent 'update', I envision someone at Apple in a decision making position who slams down his fist screaming " MUST... NOT...ALLOW... TOO MUCH POWER... TO THE... UNWASHED... MASSES'' every time an engineer suggests a CPU for the iMac.
But I bet they wait for Arrandale which, on the 32nm node, will likely give great performance per watt for the portable line and I suspect will find their way into the iMac and mini as well.
That's just the way Apple rolls.
Simple. Low Power Lynnfield 65W TDP
The economical four core processors Intel core i7 will be released within lynnfield architecture. Moreover, their maximum heat emission must not exceed 65 watts, This means, that those processors can be examined as alternative for compact PC. However, their appearance on sale is planned for the beginning of 2010.
Note lynnfield architecture will not only include the integrated memory controller , but also the integrated PCI express controller for the straight connection between the processor and video card.
I don't think today's casing can handle 65W w/o the fans working overtime. I expect to see a more beefy and aggressive iMac debut with mainstream Nehalem. Apple has got to get this hardware platform to work comfortably at 65W and extend to 95W. The process shrinks aren't reducing heat as much as folks speculated years ago.
I agree the mobile lineup cannot and probably will not handle Clarksfield unless Apple adds some good ole rugged looking amp like heatsink LOL.
Simple. Low Power Lynnfield 65W TDP
The economical four core processors Intel core i7 will be released within lynnfield architecture. Moreover, their maximum heat emission must not exceed 65 watts, This means, that those processors can be examined as alternative for compact PC. However, their appearance on sale is planned for the beginning of 2010.
Note lynnfield architecture will not only include the integrated memory controller , but also the integrated PCI express controller for the straight connection between the processor and video card.
I don't think today's casing can handle 65W w/o the fans working overtime. I expect to see a more beefy and aggressive iMac debut with mainstream Nehalem. Apple has got to get this hardware platform to work comfortably at 65W and extend to 95W. The process shrinks aren't reducing heat as much as folks speculated years ago.
I agree the mobile lineup cannot and probably will not handle Clarksfield unless Apple adds some good ole rugged looking amp like heatsink LOL.
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Sure it would be great. And it makes perfect sense to me. But somebody at Apple doesn't think that non-professional users need or deserve more than dual core power in their computer.
Wanting it won't necessarily make it happen.
I wouldn't get your hopes up.
Sure it would be great. And it makes perfect sense to me. But somebody at Apple doesn't think that non-professional users need or deserve more than dual core power in their computer.
Wanting it won't necessarily make it happen.
I wish I had a modeling program so that I could model my visions for an iMac Pro.
I'd use the same perforated look for the sides that Mac Pro uses for its face. I'd have a height adjustable stand with tilt. I'd have two drive bays and i'd leverage the larger 26" LCD screens like those found in
http://www.hazro.co.uk/products/hazro_hz26w.html
95W sounds like a lot but with Core i5 we're getting a break because there's no North Bridge lessing the TDP numbers and the P55 PCH should be more power efficient overall.
I'd like to see Apple get back to solid engineering beyond smartphones.
I'd like to see Apple get back to solid engineering beyond smartphones.
Maybe it all has to do with Jon Rubinstein?
It seems since he left Apple, engineering went downhill.
If you look at the iMac disassembly pictures from iFixit you get the impression that this is rather a mess. Not neatly laid out like the G5 iMacs, very hard to disassemble and service, and the mother board design looks rather clumsy. This is not a well nor nicely engineered machine on the inside.
If that is the best Apple engineering can come up with, then I think I know why they're sticking with the old Mac Pro case for as long as they can...
It certainly seems that since Rubinstein left Apple internal hardware layout got sloppier.
He led the teams that designed the PowerMac G5 and white iMac G5 cases both IMHO the best internal designs Apple ever did.
Just look at how clean the iMac G5 was laid out internally compared to the latest update!
I really think Apple is losing it.
It took them a year or more to release these 'updates?'
This is what is distressful. I was really hoping that the iMac would have graduated to a better chipset/family. The Mini update was almost exactly what i expected, if slightly slow at the top end. But given that these are 9400M based machines you have to wonder what the hell was up. The only rational excuse I can see is that NVidia had to ramp up 9400M production so Apple spaced things out a bit.
Where they sitting on their thumbs?
I'm not going to suggest where those thumbs where lodged but they where likely wiggling them so that the could feel good about this update. At least in the case of the iMac which has to be the biggest embarrassment that Apple has shoved on tot he market since the Cube.
Lemon Bon Bon.
All in all I just don't know how to rationalize this to myself or to others in conversation. It is like Apple went off the deep end here and missed one of the most important things related to computer performance which is the CPU. Like it or not it is the only thing that can assure better performance, on a broad range of software, on each revision of hardware.
This is important because even with Apples focus on OpenCL it is a limited technology. Limited in the sense that the software actually has to benefit from GPU acceleration (much won't) and software writers have to actually implement the OpenCL code. The expectation many have that Snow Leopard will magically accelerate their personal suite of software is misguided, a lot has to happen to leverage the new technologies in SL. This is why the lack of real CPU improvements in the iMac are so disappointing. If you want universally better performance in your apps the only sure bet is a faster CPU.
The other thing I find scary here is that Apple went to a lot of trouble to produce this model iMac which leaves me with the fear that it will be around for a long time. We may not see another revision until 2011. Even scarier is that sales might tank but the numbskulls at Apple will probably blame the poor sales on the so called recession we are in. Sadly I can almost smell the spin at the next earnings report.
Dave
All in all I just don't know how to rationalize this to myself or to others in conversation. It is like Apple went off the deep end here and missed one of the most important things related to computer performance which is the CPU. Like it or not it is the only thing that can assure better performance, on a broad range of software, on each revision of hardware.
This is important because even with Apples focus on OpenCL it is a limited technology. Limited in the sense that the software actually has to benefit from GPU acceleration (much won't) and software writers have to actually implement the OpenCL code. The expectation many have that Snow Leopard will magically accelerate their personal suite of software is misguided, a lot has to happen to leverage the new technologies in SL. This is why the lack of real CPU improvements in the iMac are so disappointing. If you want universally better performance in your apps the only sure bet is a faster CPU.
The other thing I find scary here is that Apple went to a lot of trouble to produce this model iMac which leaves me with the fear that it will be around for a long time. We may not see another revision until 2011. Even scarier is that sales might tank but the numbskulls at Apple will probably blame the poor sales on the so called recession we are in. Sadly I can almost smell the spin at the next earnings report.
Dave
We've not always agreed on things but I couldn't agree more with what you've just said and the articulate way in which you said it.
In the debates raging here I can't tell you how many posters have fallen back on the "wait till Snow Leopard arrives" defense of these 'new' machines. I'm as hopeful as next guy that SL will bring meaningful improvements in everyday performance. But I'm a realist and I'm not going to expect magic code out of Apple.
Its not that hard to give the iMac and mini a meaningful improvement in performance NOW. The CPUs to do so exist now. Apple have chosen not to use them.
Who's to blame, IBM?
'This' Apple seems oblivious to the fact that the world is in a deep recession (depression even). But I guess Apple will learn the hard way that the prices they're asking for the Mac Pro isn't going to fly.
One has to be careful with this current recession. On obvious component or factor in this recession has been political interference (by both parties) with respect to mortgages. It is not like the issues with the banks haven't been know in Washington for years but unfortunately both parties, for different reasons, have made home ownership and artificially high home prices political goals which have come back to haunt them severely. In many was this is a manufactured recession and frankly one of the reasons you don't see any bankers testifying on capital hill as both parties would be implicated.
What I'm trying to say is that it is very difficult to determine how deep the current recession really is as many industries are doing just fine. Another unique factor in this recession is the extremely negative reporting that has actually had an impact on many people. In many ways the severity of the recession has been enhanced by the mass media scaring the living hell out of people. This recession is very unique and different from past problems and is a bit harder to get a handle on. Worst is the thought that we have an administration that is hell bent on making things worst, with the idea that they must save GM as the best example of their stupidity.
What does this have to do with Apple. Well number one they may not think that the recession will significantly impact them. That is they may not see a big economic impact on the demographic they are targeting. Or the other way around is that they may be expecting an impact but don't want to crimp their income on the expected lower sales. That is lower volumes mean higher prices.
I'm not a potential Mac Pro customer, at the moment, so I haven't put much thought into that machine. With the iMac I'm not convinced they will learn anything if they already have their minds made up with respect to the economy. If a pre-manufactured excuse is already available I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Apple use it. It is in my mind a case where the thoughts on the economy are driving manufactures to do stupid things that actually make the economy worst. If you make products that nobody in their right mind will buy then you will have a big slow down in sales and may not recognize that the economy isn't the issue but rather it is you the producer that has crapped your sales.
Dave
'This' Apple seems oblivious to the fact that the world is in a deep recession (depression even). But I guess Apple will learn the hard way that the prices they're asking for the Mac Pro isn't going to fly.
Yeah, Kim...
...in a recession, premium product purchases are 1st to get hit...and usually harder! That means Apple. What are they going to do when PC 'switchers' come into the Apple stores and show them the specs of quad core machines with better gpus than the iMacs at cheaper prices? I'll be surprised if Apple's sales don't take one helluva beating from this prostate check of a price jack. Rewind. We're back to the intro' of the Cube. These guys just haven't learned their lesson, have they?
Think different? Think greedyTM.
Wizard.
Your two lengthy, but utterly articulate posts say all I wanted to say.
Dave. I had a PC owning friend that came over last night. We had a long chat (over a hour...!) about this recent update. To his credit, he didn't laugh at me or the update. Personally, I think he's more grown up than me...I would have laughed at him
However, he did say that I should stop looking at the horizon and just buy the quad tower. That I have a project to get on with and the power will be impressive (he bought an i7 2.66 overclocked 3.33 quad, with 6 gigs of ram and a 2 gig Radeon 4870x2 for £1850...) and that it's time to bite the bullet and open the wallet and pay (albeit with the taste of vommit in my mouth.) He also said to drop my dream of a 30 inch Apple monitor for £1100 and get a non-Apple 28 incher I saw for £262 and it comes with 3 year on site warranty.
My friend also couldn't believe some of the apologist tripe on these boards by people who shall remain nameless for now.
Hard choice. Yeah. I went on a rant. But in the current climate, people are careful with their money and want value for money. It's not easy to just cough up £2000 and hand it over. It's a tough decision when you're buying Apple because they are so obtuse. They are penny pinching with their specs to make money...they can't blame the consumer if they do the same. If SL was on PC hardware? I wouldn't buy Apple kit. Period.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm not a potential Mac Pro customer, at the moment, so I haven't put much thought into that machine.
Well. They'll have less Mac Pro customers than ever now. I guess I'll wait until benches become available, retail discounts or use my edu' discount. I think I'll wait until SL if I do make a purchase. I'm not going to give Apple another £100 after forking out for over priced kit.
I'm on the verge of being a grudging, anti-Apple guy. I want to work with Apple kit. But this desktop update was almost the final straw for me. If Microsoft ever got Vista working with the 'feel' of 'X'...
Lemon Bon Bon.
There's definitely a pattern forming:
ever since the days of the G5 PowerMac and iMac with every new desktop release you get less value for your money.
(this is not true for all laptops though!)
If the state of the desktop Macs wouldn't be so sad, it would actually be funny.
Custom build yourself a new Mac Mini. If you already have a HD LCD TV, there will be no need for a monitor. Add wireless keyboard and mouse and Ta-Da! I have a new 320G Mini 2.0 wireless networked with this set up and don't need anything else. I leave the pimped out Mac for my design work in the office.
Just a thought.
Yeah, same old reaction after every new desktop Mac release.
There's definitely a pattern forming:
ever since the days of the G5 PowerMac and iMac with every new desktop release you get less value for your money.
(this is not true for all laptops though!)
If the state of the desktop Macs wouldn't be so sad, it would actually be funny.
No this is a typical reaction after every Apple release or update, same thing after every laptop update, desktop, ipod, iphone, whatever. Apple does have a special breed of customers and fans. I believe for the vast majority of their customers though, these updates are welcome.
...I'm on the verge of being a grudging, anti-Apple guy. I want to work with Apple kit. But this desktop update was almost the final straw for me. If Microsoft ever got Vista working with the 'feel' of 'X'...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Me too buddy, I feel ya pain. But Windows 7 ain't gonna come close to Leopard or Snow Leopard. Honestly.
I am hooked on Mac OS X. As for hardware, well, I guess Apple isn't a hardware company, so I'll be sticking with my 3-year-Applecare-soon-to-expire MacBook Core Duo White... When you hook it up to a 17" or larger screen, Logitech wireless keyboard and mouse, quite survivable, actually. 2GB RAM, 7200rpm hard drive.
I think things will run faster on Snow Leopard, a slight performance boost. Apple knows they gotta hit the big notes with Snow Leopard, Windows 7 is looking very promising on reversing (well, addressing) the epic failure of Vista.
We've not always agreed on things but I couldn't agree more with what you've just said and the articulate way in which you said it.
In the debates raging here I can't tell you how many posters have fallen back on the "wait till Snow Leopard arrives" defense of these 'new' machines. I'm as hopeful as next guy that SL will bring meaningful improvements in everyday performance. But I'm a realist and I'm not going to expect magic code out of Apple.
Its not that hard to give the iMac and mini a meaningful improvement in performance NOW. The CPUs to do so exist now. Apple have chosen not to use them.
Who's to blame, IBM?
Quad cores that fit in the current form factor of iMac and Mini do not exist. Therefore I blame Intel (bless their hearts, but where is the laptop quad cores?) and I blame Apple (bless their hearts, but anorexia can kill true innovation).
Agree with you on calling bullsh*t on the "OH, but Snow Leopard will make everything fine and dandy and the 9400M integrated driving 1920x1200 24" will be oh so wonderful and so-not-underpowered when Snow Leopard comes out"
That said, I do look forward to *some* performance improvements. But again, it's not going to negate the lack of bang-for-buck in these updates. I guess Apple is just playing it safe.
Quad cores that fit in the current form factor of iMac and Mini do not exist. .
I not sure I agree with that.
There are laptop quad core cpus. A 2.0 ghz and 2.5 ghz variety IIRC. They are quite expensive though, at least the 2.5 ghz frequency.
But the real cpu for the iMac is the low power desk top cpu. Yes they are 65 watt TDP but I have a hard time believing that a company that can engineer the MB Air can't figure out a way to fit these cpus into an AIO form factor. It appears that Dell figured it out. Are there engineers better? Even Anand thought these cpus are perfect for AIO form factors. That's really their only reason for existence. They don't offer any advantage over a regular desk top cpu other than their ability to go into a smaller form factor.
<sarcasm ON>
What are you complaining about?
If you want an nVidia GPU at least the top level iMac has a better GPU option than a fully speced $14,000 (!!) Mac Pro!
<sarcasm OFF>
My last hope is that this is a stop-gap release until Snow Leopard.
With its many technical advances it could come hand-in-hand with new hardware.
I kinda doubt that the release of Snow Leopard will mean a significant upgrade of this hardware. Apple didn't spend all this money and engineering effort to produce motherboards and other electronics that will be usable for 3 months. Unfortunately I suspect the basic design of these machines will be around for at least two years.
Blu-Ray option could be one of these (as SL is widely expected to support it), better GPU options (drivers only available for SL due to OpenCL), more RAM slots (since SL is more thread friendly), etc.
While GPU drivers do improve over time it won't be because of OpenCL. In fact OpenCL has the real potential of lowering the performance of the GPU as cores are allocated to non graphical processing. It is not a world where we can get free processing power, use the GPU to accelerate your app and something is going to loose elsewhere.
AS to more RAM, lets face it Apple is all about placing artificial limitations on what a machine is capable of RAM wise. Beyond that Apple would need to implement a new chip set as the 9400M only addresses 8GB anyways.
In either of these cases I just don't see Apple going forward with this platform. That is about the only significant update they could do to the machines is to add a quad core CPU. If they do that to co market Snow Leopard it will be pretty pathetic in my mind. I mean how would you take it if Apple put on the market a machine that has a dual core processor, buy it, and then see them update the line with quad core processors three months down the road? Frankly this looks like Apples marketing crew doesn't have a clue as to how Snow Leopard will work.
But from past experience I wouldn't be surprised if this 'upgrade' will be it until Q1 2010...
I for one am not holding my breath.
The best we could get is a move to Penryn type quad cores which will be very low end by the time Apple makes the update.
Long live Hackintosh!
This market will be huge!
Thanks to Apple itself.
Exactly! I don't really know what they where thinking. It is a good thing I'm not invested with them as I'd be asking more questions than they might want to hear.
An even bigger problem is that they won't garner much sympathy in the publics mind if they continue to go after the Hackintosh and jailbreak community. Their tone with respect to these activities aren't exactly generating good vibes. Combine that with grossly mis-marketed product and in reality a lack of product and you will see a backlash.
Dave