Yeah, we read it from you in twenty other threads. Stop, already.
You're thinking of buying a Mini now? Really? So then you already own a keyboard and mouse, and your complaining about the ones that come with the iMac is... just for the sake of complaining?
What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.
I'm thinking of buying the Mini now- at least I'll save $1,000.
Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
So in recapping, these tests really only test CPU speed and we can see that the CPU-speed has only increased marginally. So tell me again, what's the point or value of these tests?
To temper users expectations?
Hey I'm all for better gpus and faster HDDs but lets face it, when it comes to all around performance the CPU does the heavy lifting.
If it doesn't change or change much, users aren't going to notice much difference.
What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.
Actually, no, it shouldn't be "you're." I was referring to "your complaining," as in the complaining that you have been doing, Grammarstud.
Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
Thank you Dave. I currently have the 20" white iMac with the better resolution & matte screen than the current 20". I really was hoping to get a new one after 3 years but now I think it's gonna be the Mac mini. I'll use the Air Mouse App on my iPod Touch along with my old bluetooth keyboard with the number pad sitting in the closet .
- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.
The Min got what I expected, that is a small clock rate boost but the iMac is pathetic. The Mini isn't that bad.
What is amazing is that they went to the trouble of designing a new motherboard, for the iMac, to offer up this so called update. From what i can see it is basically the same 9400M approach they used on the Mac Book Pros.
Quote:
- Integrated graphics as standard in the first two models?? Pathetic..
Yep entry level only, which by the way has its place. The problem is they are delivering the entry level equivalent of a two year old machine. But as you allude to above Quad Cores are a requirement and should have entered the line up someplace midlevel. Especially considering that Snow Leopard isn't very far off at all. People will be paying top dollar today for hardware that can hardly be leveraged on what will be the new OS strategy going forward.
Quote:
- Although it SHOULD BE STANDARD in a freaking $2000 machine, At least the ATI 4850 is available as an option. It's an excellent card for this type of computer. The GT120/GT130 are crap.
Agreed that the top line machine ought to be - well top of the line.
Like wise we really shouldn't be getting last years CPU performance as for many users these machines offer up absolutely nothing.
Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing? Has there been a mass outcry from current iMac users that their computers are underpowered and preforming badly? I haven't heard those complaints. Apple gave us a nice bump up. Nothing hugely dramatic, but it's something. My question is would a dedicated graphics card, and quad-core machines really make a difference for users doing basic tasks?
Of course they aren't short term machines as they are using new Nvidia system chips. In my mind this means the platform will be around a lot longer than is reasonable. I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon.
Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing?
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
Clearly you must have had problems in school grasping facts and reality. The reports clearly indicate that the machines have gained nothing from this update as far as CPU performance goes. For many of us that CPU performance is pretty good as some things will never be speed up via GPU processing.
Which brings up an interesting point, I expect in the future that we will see many reports of much better graphical performance on the new machines. That is all well and good if it applies to the way you use the machine, if not it is just a way to detract from the fact that each new iMac sold these days is in effect grossly outdated hardware. In a nut shell you are paying for 2 year old CPU performance.
Dave
I think you are very lost on what processors mean in todays computers.
Intel as the biggest processor manufacturer acknowledge and changed their stand regarding this, they went from speed mindset to multicore processing (nothing new to mac users)
If you take a look on the entire list of products that Intel has you wont see anything blazing fast regarding speed.
That was in general, now looking that Apple has finally upgraded their entire computing offering to support 100% Snow Leopard and OpenCL which uses a lot of the processing power of the GPU. The overall experience will greatly improved.
It is pretty unfair to judge a computer by some of their components and not by the whole thing.
For the first time most mini users will have the chance to play decent games and make use of some more specialized software and in the other hand I can't recall so many choices regarding video cards on any iMac until this release. Those choices are more than enough to satisfy anyone demands regarding speed/video punch.
Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing? Has there been a mass outcry from current iMac users that their computers are underpowered and preforming badly? I haven't heard those complaints. Apple gave us a nice bump up. Nothing hugely dramatic, but it's something. My question is would a dedicated graphics card, and quad-core machines really make a difference for users doing basic tasks?
Good point. One could still argue that for tasks like movie making, a faster CPU is definitely a plus... As for the bump, I'm still wondering which one, unless you meant graphics bump (that, I agree, but for the basic tasks, it's useless).
SInce when is critiquing complaining, you, who have so little to say?
What exactly have you brought to this discussion that's constructive besides calling people "complainers" and other names of sort?
I have not called anyone a complainer, nor any other name, except for you. And all I called you was "Grammarstud," which was clearly ironic because your "correction" of my non-existent error was so amusingly wrong. You complain here constantly.
I have mostly lurked here, and I know this to be a fact: I am not the first to call you out on your behavior here. I will certainly not be the last, either. So don't act all offended like this is some novel thing.
What have I added to this conversation? Nothing. I've had nothing to add that hasn't been said: namely that Geekbench is a useless benchmark for a computer whose primary improvement was with the GPU, which it does not measure. GPUs, as you should know and probably do but are ignoring, are used by OSX for much of the UI, and will be used even more under Snow Leopard — so this is not a trifling factor that should be ignored by anyone (Primate Labs, that is) attempting to offer useful information about the new system.
And, incidentally, those tasks that backtomac was talking about? Almost all of them would benefit from a better GPU.
Also, remember when Jobs kept stressing that PowerPCs were better, faster, blah, blah? Remember the keynotes with sections all about CPU speed? Apple got caught at its own game, once more. Only difference here, they were not limited by their partner (intel this time, not IBM/Moto), they limited themselves...
But as you allude to above Quad Cores are a requirement and should have entered the line up someplace midlevel. Especially considering that Snow Leopard isn't very far off at all. People will be paying top dollar today for hardware that can hardly be leveraged on what will be the new OS strategy going forward.
++++
I imagine people who buy iMacs and minis today will be very disappointed later this year when SL comes out and their machines are barely able to take advantage of it.
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
I don't get your point, I really don't.
If you really use your computer and know or keep yourself up to date with Mac news as I do think you do since you are here. You should now that all this new hardware including the entire MacBook lines had been prepared to support Snow Leopard and all the improvements regarding processing.
You can buy one now and buy Snow Leopard later or wait until Snow Leopard is released and it is included on every new Mac computer.
People come to the forums to look for information, clear doubts and share their knowledge.
It will be nicer and responsible if your post where closer to reality.
The point is simple: Apple on their website is saying their new "beasts" are faster (please have a look). Very misleading, as they should actually stress "faster graphics". The point is, when you release something that is about the same as what you released up to 2 years ago (mac mini), at the same price (or even more for some countries outside of the US), it's a real shame. Come on, how many mac users are hardcore gamers? These guys use windows/xbox/ps3 for that, not a mac... Nvidia 9400? Real joke for the average Joe.
Pot, meet kettle. To suggest that gaming is the only thing that really benefits from the improved graphics over the previous version is misleading or ignorant on your part. Anything that is core image or core video enabled should be a lot faster, and that's now, in current operating systems. Not to mention OpenCL, Grand Central and any other enhancements in Snow Leopard.
A faster CPU, bigger stock memory would have been better, but to say it isn't faster isn't quite right, it's just not measured using a benchmark that reflects what OS X is about.
I have not called anyone a complainer, nor any other name, except for you. And all I called you was "Grammarstud," which was clearly ironic because your "correction" of my non-existent error was so amusingly wrong. You complain here constantly.
I have mostly lurked here, and I know this to be a fact: I am not the first to call you out on your behavior here. I will certainly not be the last, either. So don't act all offended like this is some novel thing.
What have I added to this conversation? Nothing. I've had nothing to add that hasn't been said: namely that Geekbench is a useless benchmark for a computer whose primary improvement was with the GPU, which it does not measure. GPUs, as you should know and probably do but are ignoring, are used by OSX for much of the UI, and will be used even more under Snow Leopard — so this is not a trifling factor that should be ignored by anyone (the authors, that is) attempting to offer useful information about the new system.
And, incidentally, those tasks that backtomac was talking about? Almost all of them would benefit from a better GPU.
Complain? I actually like to think of it as a fine whine.
All kidding aside, I appreciate your responding with ideas. But you really have to understand that many of us are frustrated that we have waited so long for this and it's simply not delivering. How can you call that a complaint. It's a criticism -that's all.
Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
Dave
Bad news there. A Toby over on Macrumors created a thread about his installation of RAM in his new mini and he noticed that the C2D were not socketed. There goes a cheap upgrade ..sigh. I'm going to remain hopeful that whatever card Apple is using can be replicated by a 3rd party.
Comments
Yeah, we read it from you in twenty other threads. Stop, already.
You're thinking of buying a Mini now? Really? So then you already own a keyboard and mouse, and your complaining about the ones that come with the iMac is... just for the sake of complaining?
What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.
.............
I'm thinking of buying the Mini now- at least I'll save $1,000.
Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
So in recapping, these tests really only test CPU speed and we can see that the CPU-speed has only increased marginally. So tell me again, what's the point or value of these tests?
To temper users expectations?
Hey I'm all for better gpus and faster HDDs but lets face it, when it comes to all around performance the CPU does the heavy lifting.
If it doesn't change or change much, users aren't going to notice much difference.
Maybe that's the point.
What's your problem? Didn't you read the other's calling this a pathetic update? This is the first time I've mentioned this iMac update. And for future reference, your should be spelled you're.
Actually, no, it shouldn't be "you're." I was referring to "your complaining," as in the complaining that you have been doing, Grammarstud.
Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
Thank you Dave. I currently have the 20" white iMac with the better resolution & matte screen than the current 20". I really was hoping to get a new one after 3 years but now I think it's gonna be the Mac mini. I'll use the Air Mouse App on my iPod Touch along with my old bluetooth keyboard with the number pad sitting in the closet .
- I still cannot even BELIEVE they didn't use a low-power quad-core part, even in the highest end model. Clearly they think everyone is a sucker and didn't bother to revise the cooling system to support a low-power quad core. They hardly use any more power than the fastest Core 2 Duo.
The Min got what I expected, that is a small clock rate boost but the iMac is pathetic. The Mini isn't that bad.
What is amazing is that they went to the trouble of designing a new motherboard, for the iMac, to offer up this so called update. From what i can see it is basically the same 9400M approach they used on the Mac Book Pros.
- Integrated graphics as standard in the first two models?? Pathetic..
Yep entry level only, which by the way has its place. The problem is they are delivering the entry level equivalent of a two year old machine. But as you allude to above Quad Cores are a requirement and should have entered the line up someplace midlevel. Especially considering that Snow Leopard isn't very far off at all. People will be paying top dollar today for hardware that can hardly be leveraged on what will be the new OS strategy going forward.
- Although it SHOULD BE STANDARD in a freaking $2000 machine, At least the ATI 4850 is available as an option. It's an excellent card for this type of computer. The GT120/GT130 are crap.
Agreed that the top line machine ought to be - well top of the line.
Like wise we really shouldn't be getting last years CPU performance as for many users these machines offer up absolutely nothing.
Dave
Actually, no, it shouldn't be "you're." I was referring to "your complaining," as in the complaining that you have been doing, Grammarstud.
SInce when is critiquing complaining, you, who have so little to say?
What exactly have you brought to this discussion that's constructive besides calling people "complainers" and other names of sort?
Of course they aren't short term machines as they are using new Nvidia system chips. In my mind this means the platform will be around a lot longer than is reasonable. I really hope that Apple has something more up its sleeves that is due out very soon.
Snow Leopard Grand Central.
Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing?
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
Clearly you must have had problems in school grasping facts and reality. The reports clearly indicate that the machines have gained nothing from this update as far as CPU performance goes. For many of us that CPU performance is pretty good as some things will never be speed up via GPU processing.
Which brings up an interesting point, I expect in the future that we will see many reports of much better graphical performance on the new machines. That is all well and good if it applies to the way you use the machine, if not it is just a way to detract from the fact that each new iMac sold these days is in effect grossly outdated hardware. In a nut shell you are paying for 2 year old CPU performance.
Dave
I think you are very lost on what processors mean in todays computers.
Intel as the biggest processor manufacturer acknowledge and changed their stand regarding this, they went from speed mindset to multicore processing (nothing new to mac users)
If you take a look on the entire list of products that Intel has you wont see anything blazing fast regarding speed.
That was in general, now looking that Apple has finally upgraded their entire computing offering to support 100% Snow Leopard and OpenCL which uses a lot of the processing power of the GPU. The overall experience will greatly improved.
It is pretty unfair to judge a computer by some of their components and not by the whole thing.
For the first time most mini users will have the chance to play decent games and make use of some more specialized software and in the other hand I can't recall so many choices regarding video cards on any iMac until this release. Those choices are more than enough to satisfy anyone demands regarding speed/video punch.
Will the average user have noticed the difference if these updates included the high end specs so many of the commenters here demand? Isn't it true that most people use with Macs for email, internet, photos, movie making and word processing? Has there been a mass outcry from current iMac users that their computers are underpowered and preforming badly? I haven't heard those complaints. Apple gave us a nice bump up. Nothing hugely dramatic, but it's something. My question is would a dedicated graphics card, and quad-core machines really make a difference for users doing basic tasks?
Good point. One could still argue that for tasks like movie making, a faster CPU is definitely a plus... As for the bump, I'm still wondering which one, unless you meant graphics bump (that, I agree, but for the basic tasks, it's useless).
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
Hear, hear!
SInce when is critiquing complaining, you, who have so little to say?
What exactly have you brought to this discussion that's constructive besides calling people "complainers" and other names of sort?
I have not called anyone a complainer, nor any other name, except for you. And all I called you was "Grammarstud," which was clearly ironic because your "correction" of my non-existent error was so amusingly wrong. You complain here constantly.
I have mostly lurked here, and I know this to be a fact: I am not the first to call you out on your behavior here. I will certainly not be the last, either. So don't act all offended like this is some novel thing.
What have I added to this conversation? Nothing. I've had nothing to add that hasn't been said: namely that Geekbench is a useless benchmark for a computer whose primary improvement was with the GPU, which it does not measure. GPUs, as you should know and probably do but are ignoring, are used by OSX for much of the UI, and will be used even more under Snow Leopard — so this is not a trifling factor that should be ignored by anyone (Primate Labs, that is) attempting to offer useful information about the new system.
And, incidentally, those tasks that backtomac was talking about? Almost all of them would benefit from a better GPU.
A little history:
http://lowendmac.com/musings/08mm/power-mac-g5.html
But as you allude to above Quad Cores are a requirement and should have entered the line up someplace midlevel. Especially considering that Snow Leopard isn't very far off at all. People will be paying top dollar today for hardware that can hardly be leveraged on what will be the new OS strategy going forward.
++++
I imagine people who buy iMacs and minis today will be very disappointed later this year when SL comes out and their machines are barely able to take advantage of it.
I'm not going to be one of those people.
Hell yes!
I use my machine. Have you ever encoded a home made movie with iDVD to watch on a TV?
Give that a try and come back and tell us if you wouldn't want a faster processor.
Have you heard of the new image stabilization feature in iMovie? People run that OVERNIGHT because it can take so long.
Heave you heard of Handbrake? Try ripping a DVD to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch and see how long that takes.
Lastly if people are ONLY going to surf the net and use email on their computer they ought to just get a cheap pc and run linux.
But I like to DO things with my Mac. Apple makes it EASY. That's why I PREFER it.
I don't get your point, I really don't.
If you really use your computer and know or keep yourself up to date with Mac news as I do think you do since you are here. You should now that all this new hardware including the entire MacBook lines had been prepared to support Snow Leopard and all the improvements regarding processing.
You can buy one now and buy Snow Leopard later or wait until Snow Leopard is released and it is included on every new Mac computer.
People come to the forums to look for information, clear doubts and share their knowledge.
It will be nicer and responsible if your post where closer to reality.
The point is simple: Apple on their website is saying their new "beasts" are faster (please have a look). Very misleading, as they should actually stress "faster graphics". The point is, when you release something that is about the same as what you released up to 2 years ago (mac mini), at the same price (or even more for some countries outside of the US), it's a real shame. Come on, how many mac users are hardcore gamers? These guys use windows/xbox/ps3 for that, not a mac... Nvidia 9400? Real joke for the average Joe.
Pot, meet kettle. To suggest that gaming is the only thing that really benefits from the improved graphics over the previous version is misleading or ignorant on your part. Anything that is core image or core video enabled should be a lot faster, and that's now, in current operating systems. Not to mention OpenCL, Grand Central and any other enhancements in Snow Leopard.
A faster CPU, bigger stock memory would have been better, but to say it isn't faster isn't quite right, it's just not measured using a benchmark that reflects what OS X is about.
I have not called anyone a complainer, nor any other name, except for you. And all I called you was "Grammarstud," which was clearly ironic because your "correction" of my non-existent error was so amusingly wrong. You complain here constantly.
I have mostly lurked here, and I know this to be a fact: I am not the first to call you out on your behavior here. I will certainly not be the last, either. So don't act all offended like this is some novel thing.
What have I added to this conversation? Nothing. I've had nothing to add that hasn't been said: namely that Geekbench is a useless benchmark for a computer whose primary improvement was with the GPU, which it does not measure. GPUs, as you should know and probably do but are ignoring, are used by OSX for much of the UI, and will be used even more under Snow Leopard — so this is not a trifling factor that should be ignored by anyone (the authors, that is) attempting to offer useful information about the new system.
And, incidentally, those tasks that backtomac was talking about? Almost all of them would benefit from a better GPU.
Complain? I actually like to think of it as a fine whine.
All kidding aside, I appreciate your responding with ideas. But you really have to understand that many of us are frustrated that we have waited so long for this and it's simply not delivering. How can you call that a complaint. It's a criticism -that's all.
Yep the Mini is a much better update for many people. Plus you can link it to a modern LED backlit display. I honestly expect to see Mini sales sky rocket. You still have the storage space issue but FireWire 800 makes a big difference there too.
This also makes me wonder if the new Minis CPU is still socketed and if so can it be upgraded by the average user. If the Mini can go to 2.4 or 2.6 GHz it might make for a very nice machine.
Dave
Dave
Bad news there. A Toby over on Macrumors created a thread about his installation of RAM in his new mini and he noticed that the C2D were not socketed. There goes a cheap upgrade ..sigh. I'm going to remain hopeful that whatever card Apple is using can be replicated by a 3rd party.