To me that rumor is utterly ridiculous. At least the multitouch part of it. Because the rumor is that they are going to drop Mac OS in favor of putting iOS in the machines and making them giant multitouch devices.
That isn't the rumor at all, it's what those with no imagination ("what's the use of an Ipad" brigade) assume when there is talk of some aspects of iOS being integrated into the desktop line up. I can see that if I were able to interact with my 27" iMac with limited tough, it would be incredible useful and intuitive. Who says a computer has to be vertical? Who says a computer has to be touch controlled or controlled via the keyboard/mouse model. There are shades of grey, and these could be very interesting indeed.
Apple was just a excellent PC manufacturing company before the release of iPod and iPhone, recently iPad. Steve Jobs has transformed Apple into a global technology giant from a domestic PC manufacturing major of US. This is indeed a tremendous outcome for Apple. iMac is an excellent product with the vision of taking the GUI and User experience into next level with the backing of Steve?s awesome thought process. I am not surprised at all with such a performance from Apple, because it?s the Steve?s brain which is behind this marketing graph, and everyone knows what a genius he is? http://www.webdesignseoglobal.com/
No apple was "just" an excellent software company and hardware design/manufacture company before the release of iPod and Iphone. You miss the really important turning point - it was the introduction of the iMac, not the iPod that came first. Without Jonny Ive and the rest of the team there would have been nothing.
I wonder why Apple isn't saying the truth about not including the blu-ray in Macs. If they don't want to ship blu-ray drive with Macs, it's fine, at least they can support it in the Mac OS X. I don't want to download these compressed craps known as HD movies on iTune store for 20 bucks, when I can find lots of blu-ray titles (true HD) for 10 bucks. Steve don't lie here.
Rest assured that this update won't render your current iMac obsolete, unless you're obsessed with having the latest wares.
I'm actually hoping more apps become multi-core aware. I've yet to have anything take up 100% of the 4-core CPU, even though some work takes a long time to complete. But CPU wise, I should be set for a while...
Typically, that?s the case, but the newest Mac Mini was redesigned without a Special Event.
That is a good point. However i think iMac and the Pro get more respect at Apple. Atleast for major updates.
Quote:
I think iLife and other apps might get the ?X? moniker to signify a conversion to 64-bit and Cocoa, the way QTX was bumped up from QT7. With iTunes, which is already on v9 and due for this year I can easily see them using ?X?, but that will have to wait for the iPod event in the Autumn.
That would work. In my opinion a business solution like iWork being updated every year is more of a negative that a positive. Paid for updates need to provide substantial additional capability that should be delivered complete and well tested.
As a side note it would be nice to see iWork eventually support scripting via MacRuby. That isnt ready for prime time but would be something to consider for 2012.[/QUOTE]
What is really sad is that i have nothing scheduled for purchase this year. So when these machines do come out i will have to sit back and listen to all the new owners.
I say nothing but im extremely tempted by iPad. All it would take is a Memory upgrade.
I'm actually hoping more apps become multi-core aware. I've yet to have anything take up 100% of the 4-core CPU, even though some work takes a long time to complete. But CPU wise, I should be set for a while...
As to specific apps realize that some will never see a huge speed up from multiple cores. Some apps simply are very difficult to multi thread. Then there is another class of apps where the developers simply dont have the skills to multi thread an app.
This isn't all negative though because even if the apps you use poorly exploit all those cores that doesnt mean the Mac,via OS/X, isn't using them. They can keep your machine from slowing down when back ground apps run. Plus advancements with Flash now use a process to separate that heap of $61@ from the browser.
In a nut shell if people ask me, i try to impress on them that the minimal number of cores you should consider these days is four. Unless your only focus is absolute lowest cost, quad cores simply give you more useful life and better support heavily threaded apps.
That is if you run heavily threaded apps. That very much depends upon the user.
If it is a major update, the media would be involved, thus Tuesday is unlikely.
That's what I thought last fall at the last updates, but they just popped them up at the store, so, it'll take some pretty major update to get an event, I think.
... As a side note it would be nice to see iWork eventually support scripting via MacRuby. That isnt ready for prime time but would be something to consider for 2012. ...
I just don't see that happening -- way too geeky a feature that probably wouldn't be used by more than 1% of iWork users, if that many.
Didn't Steve say that Apple would support blu-ray when it was popular enough? Well it's pretty damn popular now. Didn't Avatar do about 30-40% of it's sales on BD? I suspect that means the blue discs are mainstream now.
Apple have never given a real reason why they won't add BD support, I suspect because there isn't one beyond one of Steve's petty dislikes.
The real unknown is the bottom SKU with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics.
The i3/i5 replacing it has a built in intel chipset on the die, and NVIDIA can't make a chipset for it.
Intel is really screwing customers like Apple that want to offer additional capability over the run of the mill. That is why i'd like to see Apple look towards AMD.
The reality is AMDs current hardware can compete OK against some of Intels hardware. Especially at the lower end where AMD would be quad core and Intel would be dual core with SMT. Plus Apple would really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get an ATI video solution that is far worst than Intels IG.
There is a real problem of more power usage. On the otherhand nobody knows where AMD is with Fusion.
Quote:
This is one of the reasons why the 13" MacBook and MacBookPro are likely stuck on Core 2, since Apple can't ship computers with shit Intel integrated graphics, but adding a discrete video card is more expensive, and makes it harder to differentiate the more expensive SKUs.
Yep, there has to be atleast a few pissed of people at Apple due to intels stupidiyy. All intel needs to do is add an Arrandale variant without the IGPU.
I fully understand that the wave of the future is highly integrated chips with built in GPUs. The problem as you point out is that intels GPUs are still crap and likely are to remain that way for some time.
AMD on the otherhand has a great opportunity if they can get a desktop/laptop variant of Fusion out with a good GPU. While the first Fusions might not be stellar performers with respect to the GPU they have one other significant advantage which is good support for OpenCL like usage. Apparently AMDs "Ontario" Fusion chip is real near to release however it is designed for netbooks. If it drops though it may give us a better understanding of what AMD is up to with Fusion.
Quote:
At least the 21" iMac has less physical space limitations as Apple's laptops.
Yes that is true but on the other hand Apple could put more effort into the case instead of pursuing thinnest for thinnest sake. The flip side here is all the high integration SoCs that are coming. Putting a lot of "stuff" into things like the Mini and the iMac will just get easier. Imagine a Mini next year that is quad core with even better GPU performance running even cooler.
The same high integration will make for an even better iMac. The space saved could easily go to additional drives, LightPeak chips, additional RAM slots or a number of other uses.
One more side note here on LightPeak. I have to wonder where the electronics to support Light Peak get slotted into the many levels of bus's. Im not sure it would make sense to try to hook it up to PCI Express. If not then support would have to go directly into the chipsets.
I just don't see that happening -- way too geeky a feature that probably wouldn't be used by more than 1% of iWork users, if that many.
Yes Ruby is very geeky right now. On ther otherhand so was Python in its day. As a widely supported scripting language Ruby is growing and Apple is actively involved via MacRuby. MacRuby however still is Ruby a language with far wider support than AppleScript. The fact is it could be an excellent long term replacement for AppleScript.
As to being to geeky i'd have to say it likely won't be much worst than AppleScript. After all how many people really program in AppleScript beyound a few lines? Looking out beyound 2012 it doesnt appear to be that bad of an idea. By the way the reason why i mention MacRuby is due to Apples support. I have a stronger background in Python right now.
One last thing, Apple needsxa small dstabase manager in iWorks. Preferably built into numbers. This isnt there to compete with full blown database systems. Rather the idea is to add opaqueness to data in spreadsheets. Some times that can be accomplished via multiple pages for a given worksheet, but i just see SQL as often a better approach. The idea being to be able to use an SQL statement in a cell formula.
And I just got the email from work that they got my new iMac for my office. Curse you Apple! It's like you know we do all our purchasing in July. Last upgrade cycle, I missed the transition to Core 2 iMacs by a week.
On a more serious note, I don't expect big specs for the upcoming iMac. Look at the just released Mac Mini, their value Mac. It's $700 (!), without KB + Magic Mouse (+$100), and without a nice IPS monitor (+$300 at least). So now we are at $1100 comparable to an iMac, and it ships with a Core 2 2.4GHz and a 320M. That's not very promising.
I still don't get the glossy complaint. I have the 27" iMac in my home office where I do some pretty hard core design and photo retouching. There's even a window in the office and I have never once had an issue with glare. You realize the screen tilts, right? If you somehow manage to park the machine where it catches some glare a tiny tilt adjustment should make it disappear.
I could only get your glossy complaint for laptops in outdoor situations where you want to share the screen with somebody.
I still don't get the glossy complaint. I have the 27" iMac in my home office where I do some pretty hard core design and photo retouching. There's even a window in the office and I have never once had an issue with glare. You realize the screen tilts, right? If you somehow manage to park the machine where it catches some glare a tiny tilt adjustment should make it disappear.
I could only get your glossy complaint for laptops in outdoor situations where you want to share the screen with somebody.
Bingo! There's nothing wrong with the glossy displays for the iMac. I dunno what might be wrong with those that complain about it.
I still don't get the glossy complaint. I have the 27" iMac in my home office where I do some pretty hard core design and photo retouching. There's even a window in the office and I have never once had an issue with glare. You realize the screen tilts, right? If you somehow manage to park the machine where it catches some glare a tiny tilt adjustment should make it disappear.
I could only get your glossy complaint for laptops in outdoor situations where you want to share the screen with somebody.
Looking at my new iMac, the gloss is killing me. I'll have to buy a screen film to unglare this nonsense.
Anyone know a place that sells film for the 20" (not 21.5") model?
Comments
To me that rumor is utterly ridiculous. At least the multitouch part of it. Because the rumor is that they are going to drop Mac OS in favor of putting iOS in the machines and making them giant multitouch devices.
That isn't the rumor at all, it's what those with no imagination ("what's the use of an Ipad" brigade) assume when there is talk of some aspects of iOS being integrated into the desktop line up. I can see that if I were able to interact with my 27" iMac with limited tough, it would be incredible useful and intuitive. Who says a computer has to be vertical? Who says a computer has to be touch controlled or controlled via the keyboard/mouse model. There are shades of grey, and these could be very interesting indeed.
Apple was just a excellent PC manufacturing company before the release of iPod and iPhone, recently iPad. Steve Jobs has transformed Apple into a global technology giant from a domestic PC manufacturing major of US. This is indeed a tremendous outcome for Apple. iMac is an excellent product with the vision of taking the GUI and User experience into next level with the backing of Steve?s awesome thought process. I am not surprised at all with such a performance from Apple, because it?s the Steve?s brain which is behind this marketing graph, and everyone knows what a genius he is? http://www.webdesignseoglobal.com/
No apple was "just" an excellent software company and hardware design/manufacture company before the release of iPod and Iphone. You miss the really important turning point - it was the introduction of the iMac, not the iPod that came first. Without Jonny Ive and the rest of the team there would have been nothing.
Rest assured that this update won't render your current iMac obsolete, unless you're obsessed with having the latest wares.
I'm actually hoping more apps become multi-core aware. I've yet to have anything take up 100% of the 4-core CPU, even though some work takes a long time to complete. But CPU wise, I should be set for a while...
Typically, that?s the case, but the newest Mac Mini was redesigned without a Special Event.
That is a good point. However i think iMac and the Pro get more respect at Apple. Atleast for major updates.
I think iLife and other apps might get the ?X? moniker to signify a conversion to 64-bit and Cocoa, the way QTX was bumped up from QT7. With iTunes, which is already on v9 and due for this year I can easily see them using ?X?, but that will have to wait for the iPod event in the Autumn.
That would work. In my opinion a business solution like iWork being updated every year is more of a negative that a positive. Paid for updates need to provide substantial additional capability that should be delivered complete and well tested.
As a side note it would be nice to see iWork eventually support scripting via MacRuby. That isnt ready for prime time but would be something to consider for 2012.[/QUOTE]
What is really sad is that i have nothing scheduled for purchase this year. So when these machines do come out i will have to sit back and listen to all the new owners.
I say nothing but im extremely tempted by iPad. All it would take is a Memory upgrade.
Dave
I'm actually hoping more apps become multi-core aware. I've yet to have anything take up 100% of the 4-core CPU, even though some work takes a long time to complete. But CPU wise, I should be set for a while...
As to specific apps realize that some will never see a huge speed up from multiple cores. Some apps simply are very difficult to multi thread. Then there is another class of apps where the developers simply dont have the skills to multi thread an app.
This isn't all negative though because even if the apps you use poorly exploit all those cores that doesnt mean the Mac,via OS/X, isn't using them. They can keep your machine from slowing down when back ground apps run. Plus advancements with Flash now use a process to separate that heap of $61@ from the browser.
In a nut shell if people ask me, i try to impress on them that the minimal number of cores you should consider these days is four. Unless your only focus is absolute lowest cost, quad cores simply give you more useful life and better support heavily threaded apps.
That is if you run heavily threaded apps. That very much depends upon the user.
Dave
If it is a major update, the media would be involved, thus Tuesday is unlikely.
That's what I thought last fall at the last updates, but they just popped them up at the store, so, it'll take some pretty major update to get an event, I think.
... As a side note it would be nice to see iWork eventually support scripting via MacRuby. That isnt ready for prime time but would be something to consider for 2012. ...
I just don't see that happening -- way too geeky a feature that probably wouldn't be used by more than 1% of iWork users, if that many.
Apple have never given a real reason why they won't add BD support, I suspect because there isn't one beyond one of Steve's petty dislikes.
The real unknown is the bottom SKU with NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics.
The i3/i5 replacing it has a built in intel chipset on the die, and NVIDIA can't make a chipset for it.
Intel is really screwing customers like Apple that want to offer additional capability over the run of the mill. That is why i'd like to see Apple look towards AMD.
The reality is AMDs current hardware can compete OK against some of Intels hardware. Especially at the lower end where AMD would be quad core and Intel would be dual core with SMT. Plus Apple would really have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to get an ATI video solution that is far worst than Intels IG.
There is a real problem of more power usage. On the otherhand nobody knows where AMD is with Fusion.
This is one of the reasons why the 13" MacBook and MacBookPro are likely stuck on Core 2, since Apple can't ship computers with shit Intel integrated graphics, but adding a discrete video card is more expensive, and makes it harder to differentiate the more expensive SKUs.
Yep, there has to be atleast a few pissed of people at Apple due to intels stupidiyy. All intel needs to do is add an Arrandale variant without the IGPU.
I fully understand that the wave of the future is highly integrated chips with built in GPUs. The problem as you point out is that intels GPUs are still crap and likely are to remain that way for some time.
AMD on the otherhand has a great opportunity if they can get a desktop/laptop variant of Fusion out with a good GPU. While the first Fusions might not be stellar performers with respect to the GPU they have one other significant advantage which is good support for OpenCL like usage. Apparently AMDs "Ontario" Fusion chip is real near to release however it is designed for netbooks. If it drops though it may give us a better understanding of what AMD is up to with Fusion.
At least the 21" iMac has less physical space limitations as Apple's laptops.
Yes that is true but on the other hand Apple could put more effort into the case instead of pursuing thinnest for thinnest sake. The flip side here is all the high integration SoCs that are coming. Putting a lot of "stuff" into things like the Mini and the iMac will just get easier. Imagine a Mini next year that is quad core with even better GPU performance running even cooler.
The same high integration will make for an even better iMac. The space saved could easily go to additional drives, LightPeak chips, additional RAM slots or a number of other uses.
One more side note here on LightPeak. I have to wonder where the electronics to support Light Peak get slotted into the many levels of bus's. Im not sure it would make sense to try to hook it up to PCI Express. If not then support would have to go directly into the chipsets.
Dave
I just don't see that happening -- way too geeky a feature that probably wouldn't be used by more than 1% of iWork users, if that many.
Yes Ruby is very geeky right now. On ther otherhand so was Python in its day. As a widely supported scripting language Ruby is growing and Apple is actively involved via MacRuby. MacRuby however still is Ruby a language with far wider support than AppleScript. The fact is it could be an excellent long term replacement for AppleScript.
As to being to geeky i'd have to say it likely won't be much worst than AppleScript. After all how many people really program in AppleScript beyound a few lines? Looking out beyound 2012 it doesnt appear to be that bad of an idea. By the way the reason why i mention MacRuby is due to Apples support. I have a stronger background in Python right now.
One last thing, Apple needsxa small dstabase manager in iWorks. Preferably built into numbers. This isnt there to compete with full blown database systems. Rather the idea is to add opaqueness to data in spreadsheets. Some times that can be accomplished via multiple pages for a given worksheet, but i just see SQL as often a better approach. The idea being to be able to use an SQL statement in a cell formula.
Dave
Until you do that I will NEVER upgrade!
GET RID OF GLOSSY ONLY SCREENS!
Until you do that I will NEVER upgrade!
I second that!
Just applied matte film onto iPad. Gosh, how beautiful it became - the one can use matte iPad outdoor and in the car!!! FINALLY!!!
the hey go get a room crack was not nice
sorry
I second that!
Just applied matte film onto iPad. Gosh, how beautiful it became - the one can use matte iPad outdoor and in the car!!! FINALLY!!!
apple is DOOMED until they hire only people named matt
and they even have a red one that girls chaSE AFTER THE GuY WHO BUYS IT !!
so you glossy fun boys who willnewver even say the name apple again
dell welcomes you !!!!
9
On a more serious note, I don't expect big specs for the upcoming iMac. Look at the just released Mac Mini, their value Mac. It's $700 (!), without KB + Magic Mouse (+$100), and without a nice IPS monitor (+$300 at least). So now we are at $1100 comparable to an iMac, and it ships with a Core 2 2.4GHz and a 320M. That's not very promising.
GET RID OF GLOSSY ONLY SCREENS!
Until you do that I will NEVER upgrade!
I still don't get the glossy complaint. I have the 27" iMac in my home office where I do some pretty hard core design and photo retouching. There's even a window in the office and I have never once had an issue with glare. You realize the screen tilts, right? If you somehow manage to park the machine where it catches some glare a tiny tilt adjustment should make it disappear.
I could only get your glossy complaint for laptops in outdoor situations where you want to share the screen with somebody.
I still don't get the glossy complaint. I have the 27" iMac in my home office where I do some pretty hard core design and photo retouching. There's even a window in the office and I have never once had an issue with glare. You realize the screen tilts, right? If you somehow manage to park the machine where it catches some glare a tiny tilt adjustment should make it disappear.
I could only get your glossy complaint for laptops in outdoor situations where you want to share the screen with somebody.
Bingo! There's nothing wrong with the glossy displays for the iMac. I dunno what might be wrong with those that complain about it.
I still don't get the glossy complaint. I have the 27" iMac in my home office where I do some pretty hard core design and photo retouching. There's even a window in the office and I have never once had an issue with glare. You realize the screen tilts, right? If you somehow manage to park the machine where it catches some glare a tiny tilt adjustment should make it disappear.
I could only get your glossy complaint for laptops in outdoor situations where you want to share the screen with somebody.
Looking at my new iMac, the gloss is killing me. I'll have to buy a screen film to unglare this nonsense.
Anyone know a place that sells film for the 20" (not 21.5") model?