Yeah- and you could add numbers with cards on Fotran before that which much have been before your time. And before that an Abacus.
Excel was a total imitator of Lotus 12 3- plain and simple. Lotus 1 2 3 ran on IBM computers- not Macs.
Don't re-write history.
Look it up - it is really an interesting read how Lotus 123 was able to 'steal' Visicalc (which by the way, also ran in DOS) because the original programmers forgot to patent it. I'm not supporting the original claim that Apple had something to do with the development of Excel, only pointing out that historically Visicalc came before Lotus.
A 28" iMac would be very disappointing. People don't need that size of display, nor should they be forced to buy one to get a Core i7 desktop.
I think a 28" iMac with a core i7 chip is very unlikely.
The core i7 is a 120 watt chip. That will take an unusual amount of engineering to get into an AOI machine. The low power, penryn based, desktop quad core cpus make much more sense in an AIO machine.
The rumor looks bogus to me but stranger things have happened.
I think a 28" iMac with a core i7 chip is very unlikely.
The core i7 is a 120 watt chip. That will take an unusual amount of engineering to get into an AOI machine. The low power, penryn based, desktop quad core cpus make much more sense in an AIO machine.
The rumor looks bogus to me but stranger things have happened.
It sounds like people are building rumors on top of rumors. The under-clocking Mini idea probably stems from the fake mockup shown in post #9.
The Core i7 + cooling device suggestions will be linked.
I think the Mini will be slightly smaller with a standard Nvidia board similar to the MB.
The iMac will have to get a quad but will likely be the Core 2 Quad as you say.
What is the TDP of the MIni? The Q9000 is a quad 2GHz and only has a TDP of 45W. Seems like that could possibly go into making a quad Mini on the higher end.
Imagine for a second the scenario that they get rid of the iMac and instead make a quad 2GHz Mini with a 9600M GT chip that can be powered from the 24" Cinema display and has an SSD option.
Why do you need the iMac any more? Besides the 3.5" drive and a possibility for faster GPU and CPU, it doesn't offer anything that people really need. A quad 2 GHz is fast enough for most people as well as a 9600M GT.
Once they introduce a machine like that which is enough for pretty much anyone, there doesn't need to be any more products therefore no need for MacWorld. It's like Gillette. They keep adding an extra blade and gimmicky features but there doesn't really need to be any more models.
I don't think any consumer will ever need more than a quad 2GHz with a 9600M GT. Beyond that, you buy a Mac Pro.
iMac fans won't lose out because it can be powered by the display so one power socket and the same screen can be switched to a laptop.
I think this whole set of insider information is BS. Some things may be right but not because this source has any insider info. Sure, iMac and mini getting the MCP79; that was disclosed in the latest OS release. Mac pro based on Core i7? Sure, it's not a stretch to think Apple would go there. Core i7 as is provides DP functionality. But what is whack is the prediction for the 28" iMac based on the Core i7 and the under-clocked mini chipset? Plus, where is this fake mockup?
The iMac 28" was more of a "might" see prediction. The iMac 20/24 and Mac mini were expect to see. So, Strout was hedging his bets on the iMac 28. From everything I read, Strout's article makes sense. Mac mini and low end iMac 20" don't have discrete graphics, just the 9400m IGP, with the mini underclocked. The high end iMac 20" and low end iMac 24" would have 9600 discrete graphics, while the high end iMac 24" would have 9800 discrete graphics. That's pretty much an as expected stratification of performance.
No word of the iMac and Mac mini processors though, but he appears to only have Nvidia contacts.
It is presumed that the new iMac and Mac mini will have at most Core 2 Quad (and Core 2 duo for cheaper machines) while the MP will likely be a 2 socket Core i7 when it is updated. The iMac 28 is not a bad rumination on an inbetween machine.
Imagine for a second the scenario that they get rid of the iMac and instead make a quad 2GHz Mini with a 9600M GT chip that can be powered from the 24" Cinema display and has an SSD option.
Why do you need the iMac any more?
That's precisely why I wouldn't expect to see a quad core mini for quite some time. I wouldn't expect that to occur until iMacs have quad core Nehalem chips powering them.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if minis never get quad core chips. Apple might just make them smaller and use Atom, or comparable chips, which will be pretty powerful when the manufacturing process shrinks to 32nm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't think any consumer will ever need more than a quad 2GHz with a 9600M GT. Beyond that, you buy a Mac Pro.
.
For applications that cannot be broken into multiple thread the higher clock speed is the only way to go.
I would say that for many users once we get Macs with quad core chips faster than 2.5 ghz and software able to take advantage of that, then users will be satisfied for quite some time.
In fact it may be a challenge to get them to upgrade.
Imagine for a second the scenario that they get rid of the iMac and instead make a quad 2GHz Mini with a 9600M GT chip that can be powered from the 24" Cinema display and has an SSD option.
Why do you need the iMac any more? Besides the 3.5" drive and a possibility for faster GPU and CPU, it doesn't offer anything that people really need. A quad 2 GHz is fast enough for most people as well as a 9600M GT.
This is just a variation of the xMac scenario. Apple will only do it if they can offer a design feature that adds enough value for people to pay for the increased cost of the machine compared to other offerings. Currently, the the iMac's AIO design and clean aluminum lines set that value along with great branding and marketability for the consumer market. They tried quiet with the G4 cube, and it wasn't enough of a feature.
A bigger Mac mini, but still very compact, I'm not so sure about that. I think it would be more difficult to sell/market, and very susceptible to poor margins. Well, I think Apple thinks that.
Also, yes, I think a 28" iMac is something people would be attracted to. They don't have to use a 16:10 aspect ratio screen either. It could be 2.5:1 or 2:1 aspect ratio screen which would be less daunting on the eyes. Part of the big problem with Mac OS X is that the GUI is still mired in small screen design decisions like the app menus in the MenuBar. I'd love it if Apple made some changes there because on multiple monitor setup, it's cumbersome.
That's precisely why I wouldn't expect to see a quad core mini for quite some time. I wouldn't expect that to occur until iMacs have quad core Nehalem chips powering them.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if minis never get quad core chips. Apple might just make them smaller and use Atom, or comparable chips, which will be pretty powerful when the manufacturing process shrinks to 32nm.
Also, everyone seems to be jumping on the iMac quad-core bandwagon. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses 2.8 to 3.3 GHz Core 2 duos in the iMac revision! It's actually not that bad of an upgrade. Getting a faster graphics processor instead of quad-core CPU might provide more benefit in the long run too.
Also, yes, I think a 28" iMac is something people would be attracted to. They don't have to use a 16:10 aspect ratio screen either. It could be 2.5:1 or 2:1 aspect ratio screen which would be less daunting on the eyes.
I think larger than 24" would be hit. I also like your idea of having a wider display.
I wonder if the size would allow for Apple to remove the chin completely since their would now be considerably more room for components behind the display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT
Also, everyone seems to be jumping on the iMac quad-core bandwagon. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses 2.8 to 3.3 GHz Core 2 duos in the iMac revision! It's actually not that bad of an upgrade. Getting a faster graphics processor instead of quad-core CPU might provide more benefit in the long run too.
If Grand Central will really be as good as Apple will claim it is, then I think we'll see QuadCore iMacs in at least the higher-end models.
Oh please the Gods that be! An 8-core i7 Xeon Mac Pro supporting SLI NVidia GTX 280 cards - a *real* workstation-class computer!!!!
The whole point of OpenCL and Grand Central is that more compute devices will scale perfectly - dual SLI graphics cards would be a formidable compute engine driven by OpenCL.
And NVidia please release a GTX280 for older Mac Pro's at the same time! Why oh why can we still only buy old 8xxx series cards for our Mac Workstations...
Oh please the Gods that be! An 8-core i7 Xeon Mac Pro supporting SLI NVidia GTX 280 cards - a *real* workstation-class computer!!!!
The whole point of OpenCL and Grand Central is that more compute devices will scale perfectly - dual SLI graphics cards would be a formidable compute engine driven by OpenCL.
And NVidia please release a GTX280 for older Mac Pro's at the same time! Why oh why can we still only buy old 8xxx series cards for our Mac Workstations...
</idle-dream>
SLI probably isn't going to appear on Macs for a whole host of reasons. Not sure how you can talk about gaming cards and workstation-class computers in the same sentance either
I don't think many computer users are interested in all-in-ones, and I don't see that interest increasing. I certainly wouldn't buy one, at least not at prices I could get a real computer for.
If only their was some economic crisis that could be affecting companies despite their earnings. Oh yeah, that thing I just said.
You'll almost always find an non-Mac PC with more HW "features" and at lower cost than a Mac PC. I don't beleive you about your keyboard with built in HDMI. That makes no sense so I assume that was just worded incorrectly, and that it's the Dell that has HDMI, but either way, Macs have DVI, so I am not sure what point you are getting at with that. You aren't going to find any halfway decent PCs these days that don't have DVI or HDMI, and soon DP. HDMi is more likely found on those marketed as Home Theater PCs.
Display Port is better than HDMI, Smaller and provides the same encryption. Display port is on ALL Apple portables now.
Instead of using the 9400M as its foundation, the system would use Intel's X58 chipset and a processor using the Core i7 (previously codenamed Nehalem) architecture. As a result, it would not only include the four cores thought to be present in the upcoming Core 2-based iMac updates but would gain HyperThreading support that at times mimics the behavior of an eight-core system.
Hyperthreading can help in highly-threaded apps, but "Core i7"/Nehalem is much more than that... Nehalem is a true quad-core, not two dual-core dies, IMC, quickpath, 3-channel memory, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
He also believes Mac Pros will be upgraded to Core i7 architecture early this year; while claiming it will use a similar platform, the processor is more likely to be one of Intel's new Core i7-based Xeons than the consumer-grade parts. Even so, the similarity between the supersized iMac and the Mac Pro tower is described as small enough that the main difference will be the workstation's dedicated graphics, which Shrout hears will use some variant of NVIDIA's GT200 graphics card line.
"Main difference" being the choice of GPU?? Is that a joke? The Mac Pro has dual processors, uses Xeons, can support enormous amounts of memory, has free PCIexpress slots / upgradable GPU, available with Pro OpenGL GPUs, RAID capable, can support Fibrechannel, can support SAS drives, etc...
Regardless of the fact that a high-end iMac would use a single-socket Nehalem, these machines are vastly different in purpose and intended use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Some of these systems may not necessarily ship to stores at or shortly after the start of Macworld Expo. The 28-inch iMac and the Mac Pro will supposedly be pushed back to February where the smaller iMacs and the Mac mini are more likely to ship quickly.
The Mac Pro being available later in Q1 2009 makes sense since DP Nehalem Xeons are not out yet. Not the case for the single-socket Nehalem that the iMac would use. If they were to wait for a chip that isn't out yet, it would be for Q3 2009 when the lower-end desktop Nehalems are out that don't need a northbridge or use quickpath..
Display Port is better than HDMI, Smaller and provides the same encryption. Display port is on ALL Apple portables now.
And connects to your television and wide range of computer displays through easily available adapters...oh wait. And its Mini-Display port. As of now, the Apple products are not compatible with standard display port.
And connects to your television and wide range of computer displays through easily available adapters...oh wait. And its Mini-Display port. As of now, the Apple products are not compatible with standard display port.
Given that Apple sells several adapters, and Monoprice is planning to sell their own, I don't see a big deal. I think it's going to be less of an issue because I see more people jumping in to make adapters and native cables.
Comments
Yeah- and you could add numbers with cards on Fotran before that which much have been before your time. And before that an Abacus.
Excel was a total imitator of Lotus 12 3- plain and simple. Lotus 1 2 3 ran on IBM computers- not Macs.
Don't re-write history.
Look it up - it is really an interesting read how Lotus 123 was able to 'steal' Visicalc (which by the way, also ran in DOS) because the original programmers forgot to patent it. I'm not supporting the original claim that Apple had something to do with the development of Excel, only pointing out that historically Visicalc came before Lotus.
A 28" iMac would be very disappointing. People don't need that size of display, nor should they be forced to buy one to get a Core i7 desktop.
I think a 28" iMac with a core i7 chip is very unlikely.
The core i7 is a 120 watt chip. That will take an unusual amount of engineering to get into an AOI machine. The low power, penryn based, desktop quad core cpus make much more sense in an AIO machine.
The rumor looks bogus to me but stranger things have happened.
I think a 28" iMac with a core i7 chip is very unlikely.
The core i7 is a 120 watt chip. That will take an unusual amount of engineering to get into an AOI machine. The low power, penryn based, desktop quad core cpus make much more sense in an AIO machine.
The rumor looks bogus to me but stranger things have happened.
It sounds like people are building rumors on top of rumors. The under-clocking Mini idea probably stems from the fake mockup shown in post #9.
The Core i7 + cooling device suggestions will be linked.
I think the Mini will be slightly smaller with a standard Nvidia board similar to the MB.
The iMac will have to get a quad but will likely be the Core 2 Quad as you say.
What is the TDP of the MIni? The Q9000 is a quad 2GHz and only has a TDP of 45W. Seems like that could possibly go into making a quad Mini on the higher end.
Imagine for a second the scenario that they get rid of the iMac and instead make a quad 2GHz Mini with a 9600M GT chip that can be powered from the 24" Cinema display and has an SSD option.
Why do you need the iMac any more? Besides the 3.5" drive and a possibility for faster GPU and CPU, it doesn't offer anything that people really need. A quad 2 GHz is fast enough for most people as well as a 9600M GT.
Once they introduce a machine like that which is enough for pretty much anyone, there doesn't need to be any more products therefore no need for MacWorld. It's like Gillette. They keep adding an extra blade and gimmicky features but there doesn't really need to be any more models.
I don't think any consumer will ever need more than a quad 2GHz with a 9600M GT. Beyond that, you buy a Mac Pro.
iMac fans won't lose out because it can be powered by the display so one power socket and the same screen can be switched to a laptop.
I think this whole set of insider information is BS. Some things may be right but not because this source has any insider info. Sure, iMac and mini getting the MCP79; that was disclosed in the latest OS release. Mac pro based on Core i7? Sure, it's not a stretch to think Apple would go there. Core i7 as is provides DP functionality. But what is whack is the prediction for the 28" iMac based on the Core i7 and the under-clocked mini chipset? Plus, where is this fake mockup?
The iMac 28" was more of a "might" see prediction. The iMac 20/24 and Mac mini were expect to see. So, Strout was hedging his bets on the iMac 28. From everything I read, Strout's article makes sense. Mac mini and low end iMac 20" don't have discrete graphics, just the 9400m IGP, with the mini underclocked. The high end iMac 20" and low end iMac 24" would have 9600 discrete graphics, while the high end iMac 24" would have 9800 discrete graphics. That's pretty much an as expected stratification of performance.
No word of the iMac and Mac mini processors though, but he appears to only have Nvidia contacts.
It is presumed that the new iMac and Mac mini will have at most Core 2 Quad (and Core 2 duo for cheaper machines) while the MP will likely be a 2 socket Core i7 when it is updated. The iMac 28 is not a bad rumination on an inbetween machine.
You're WACK- Excel if anything derives from Lotus 1,2,3 which had nothing to do with a Mac or Apple.
Both Word and Excel were developed on and for the Mac first. Were bought by Microsoft and ported to DOS and then windows systems.
Much of Excel's best feature were first put in the second version many of them stolen from First Impact a spreadsheet first marketed by Ashton-Tate.
Technically all computer spreadsheets come from visicalc as it was the first.
Imagine for a second the scenario that they get rid of the iMac and instead make a quad 2GHz Mini with a 9600M GT chip that can be powered from the 24" Cinema display and has an SSD option.
Why do you need the iMac any more?
That's precisely why I wouldn't expect to see a quad core mini for quite some time. I wouldn't expect that to occur until iMacs have quad core Nehalem chips powering them.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if minis never get quad core chips. Apple might just make them smaller and use Atom, or comparable chips, which will be pretty powerful when the manufacturing process shrinks to 32nm.
I don't think any consumer will ever need more than a quad 2GHz with a 9600M GT. Beyond that, you buy a Mac Pro.
.
For applications that cannot be broken into multiple thread the higher clock speed is the only way to go.
I would say that for many users once we get Macs with quad core chips faster than 2.5 ghz and software able to take advantage of that, then users will be satisfied for quite some time.
In fact it may be a challenge to get them to upgrade.
Imagine for a second the scenario that they get rid of the iMac and instead make a quad 2GHz Mini with a 9600M GT chip that can be powered from the 24" Cinema display and has an SSD option.
Why do you need the iMac any more? Besides the 3.5" drive and a possibility for faster GPU and CPU, it doesn't offer anything that people really need. A quad 2 GHz is fast enough for most people as well as a 9600M GT.
This is just a variation of the xMac scenario. Apple will only do it if they can offer a design feature that adds enough value for people to pay for the increased cost of the machine compared to other offerings. Currently, the the iMac's AIO design and clean aluminum lines set that value along with great branding and marketability for the consumer market. They tried quiet with the G4 cube, and it wasn't enough of a feature.
A bigger Mac mini, but still very compact, I'm not so sure about that. I think it would be more difficult to sell/market, and very susceptible to poor margins. Well, I think Apple thinks that.
Also, yes, I think a 28" iMac is something people would be attracted to. They don't have to use a 16:10 aspect ratio screen either. It could be 2.5:1 or 2:1 aspect ratio screen which would be less daunting on the eyes. Part of the big problem with Mac OS X is that the GUI is still mired in small screen design decisions like the app menus in the MenuBar. I'd love it if Apple made some changes there because on multiple monitor setup, it's cumbersome.
That's precisely why I wouldn't expect to see a quad core mini for quite some time. I wouldn't expect that to occur until iMacs have quad core Nehalem chips powering them.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if minis never get quad core chips. Apple might just make them smaller and use Atom, or comparable chips, which will be pretty powerful when the manufacturing process shrinks to 32nm.
Also, everyone seems to be jumping on the iMac quad-core bandwagon. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses 2.8 to 3.3 GHz Core 2 duos in the iMac revision! It's actually not that bad of an upgrade. Getting a faster graphics processor instead of quad-core CPU might provide more benefit in the long run too.
Oh please be a Mac Pro update.
Amen to that!
Also, yes, I think a 28" iMac is something people would be attracted to. They don't have to use a 16:10 aspect ratio screen either. It could be 2.5:1 or 2:1 aspect ratio screen which would be less daunting on the eyes.
I think larger than 24" would be hit. I also like your idea of having a wider display.
I wonder if the size would allow for Apple to remove the chin completely since their would now be considerably more room for components behind the display.
Also, everyone seems to be jumping on the iMac quad-core bandwagon. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple uses 2.8 to 3.3 GHz Core 2 duos in the iMac revision! It's actually not that bad of an upgrade. Getting a faster graphics processor instead of quad-core CPU might provide more benefit in the long run too.
If Grand Central will really be as good as Apple will claim it is, then I think we'll see QuadCore iMacs in at least the higher-end models.
Oh please the Gods that be! An 8-core i7 Xeon Mac Pro supporting SLI NVidia GTX 280 cards - a *real* workstation-class computer!!!!
The whole point of OpenCL and Grand Central is that more compute devices will scale perfectly - dual SLI graphics cards would be a formidable compute engine driven by OpenCL.
And NVidia please release a GTX280 for older Mac Pro's at the same time! Why oh why can we still only buy old 8xxx series cards for our Mac Workstations...
</idle-dream>
<idle-dream>
Oh please the Gods that be! An 8-core i7 Xeon Mac Pro supporting SLI NVidia GTX 280 cards - a *real* workstation-class computer!!!!
The whole point of OpenCL and Grand Central is that more compute devices will scale perfectly - dual SLI graphics cards would be a formidable compute engine driven by OpenCL.
And NVidia please release a GTX280 for older Mac Pro's at the same time! Why oh why can we still only buy old 8xxx series cards for our Mac Workstations...
</idle-dream>
SLI probably isn't going to appear on Macs for a whole host of reasons. Not sure how you can talk about gaming cards and workstation-class computers in the same sentance either
Don't ya just love speculations and random thoughts?
"Fantasizing" is probably a better word for it. We all know Apple will make the computer that we want, if not this year, then the next. Yeah.
If only their was some economic crisis that could be affecting companies despite their earnings. Oh yeah, that thing I just said.
You'll almost always find an non-Mac PC with more HW "features" and at lower cost than a Mac PC. I don't beleive you about your keyboard with built in HDMI. That makes no sense so I assume that was just worded incorrectly, and that it's the Dell that has HDMI, but either way, Macs have DVI, so I am not sure what point you are getting at with that. You aren't going to find any halfway decent PCs these days that don't have DVI or HDMI, and soon DP. HDMi is more likely found on those marketed as Home Theater PCs.
Display Port is better than HDMI, Smaller and provides the same encryption. Display port is on ALL Apple portables now.
Instead of using the 9400M as its foundation, the system would use Intel's X58 chipset and a processor using the Core i7 (previously codenamed Nehalem) architecture. As a result, it would not only include the four cores thought to be present in the upcoming Core 2-based iMac updates but would gain HyperThreading support that at times mimics the behavior of an eight-core system.
Hyperthreading can help in highly-threaded apps, but "Core i7"/Nehalem is much more than that... Nehalem is a true quad-core, not two dual-core dies, IMC, quickpath, 3-channel memory, etc...
He also believes Mac Pros will be upgraded to Core i7 architecture early this year; while claiming it will use a similar platform, the processor is more likely to be one of Intel's new Core i7-based Xeons than the consumer-grade parts. Even so, the similarity between the supersized iMac and the Mac Pro tower is described as small enough that the main difference will be the workstation's dedicated graphics, which Shrout hears will use some variant of NVIDIA's GT200 graphics card line.
"Main difference" being the choice of GPU?? Is that a joke? The Mac Pro has dual processors, uses Xeons, can support enormous amounts of memory, has free PCIexpress slots / upgradable GPU, available with Pro OpenGL GPUs, RAID capable, can support Fibrechannel, can support SAS drives, etc...
Regardless of the fact that a high-end iMac would use a single-socket Nehalem, these machines are vastly different in purpose and intended use.
Some of these systems may not necessarily ship to stores at or shortly after the start of Macworld Expo. The 28-inch iMac and the Mac Pro will supposedly be pushed back to February where the smaller iMacs and the Mac mini are more likely to ship quickly.
The Mac Pro being available later in Q1 2009 makes sense since DP Nehalem Xeons are not out yet. Not the case for the single-socket Nehalem that the iMac would use. If they were to wait for a chip that isn't out yet, it would be for Q3 2009 when the lower-end desktop Nehalems are out that don't need a northbridge or use quickpath..
Display Port is better than HDMI, Smaller and provides the same encryption. Display port is on ALL Apple portables now.
And connects to your television and wide range of computer displays through easily available adapters...oh wait. And its Mini-Display port. As of now, the Apple products are not compatible with standard display port.
And connects to your television and wide range of computer displays through easily available adapters...oh wait. And its Mini-Display port. As of now, the Apple products are not compatible with standard display port.
Given that Apple sells several adapters, and Monoprice is planning to sell their own, I don't see a big deal. I think it's going to be less of an issue because I see more people jumping in to make adapters and native cables.