New part numbers reveal Apple to refresh most of Mac lineup at WWDC

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 131
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member


    I really wish a 23" or 24" iMac reappears.  21.5" strikes me as too small.

  • Reply 122 of 131
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nht View Post

    I really wish a 23" or 24" iMac reappears.  21.5" strikes me as too small.


     


    Is 27" too big? Maybe with the chin… image


     


    What about a smaller chin?

  • Reply 123 of 131
    maddanmaddan Posts: 75member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by enzos View Post


    The WWDC is presumably meant to focus on software development (?)


     


    Has Apple announced major hardware releases at WWDC before?


     


     



    Apple did in 1998. It wasn't available for immediate sale but the original iMac made its first public appearance.

     

  • Reply 124 of 131
    td912td912 Posts: 26member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    Not always the most convenient, esp. when you're trying to look at a 150-page PDF/Preview document, and you want to quickly scroll from, say p. 3 to somewhere between pages 77 and 83 to do a quick browse.....


     


    Lion is alright. I don't see much that is a noticeable by way of improvements other than pages scrolling in the same direction as the finger movement and some additional desktop images.


     


    Apple could just as easily have done that with a 2MB update to 10.6.



    Type in the page number, or System Prefs > General > Show scroll bars: Always. Easy enough.

  • Reply 125 of 131
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pdq2 View Post


    What's with the dorky "better/best/ultimate" monikers? What is this, Sears?


     


    Very un-Apple like, if you ask me.



     


    Very "merchandiser-like" actually.  The egg producers association (there must be one), is likely contemplating a "trade dress" suit against Apple even as I write.  That is Apple is "stealing" their convention:  In the egg world the smallest size of egg commonly sold is "large," which is analogous to Apple not selling any computer below the level of "better." (And, anticipating you clever types, let me cut anyone off at the pass from replying that it means "better than a Windows machine" even if that's true - the fact remains that Apple's apparently - according to this article - hooked to the tradition of subliminal market-speak.)  


     


    And for olives the obsfucations and acrobatics used to avoid words like "small" or "tiny" are truly inventive....



    Names, many apparently influenced by the American names, have become attached to some of these size grades. Note that a name may have a different meaning than it does in the United States, For example, in Europe there are between 121 and 140 olives in a kilogram of Colossal olives, while in the United States a kilogram of Colossal olives contains between 70 and 90 olives.
















































































    Size

    Number

    per Kilogram

    Approximate Number

    per Pound

    Bullets

    351–380

    159–172

    Fine

    321–350

    146–158

    Brilliant

    291–320

    132–145

    Superior

    261–290

    118–132

    Large

    231–260

    105–117

    Extra Large

    201–230

    91–104

    Jumbo

    181–200

    83–90

    Extra Jumbo

    161–180

    74–82

    Giants

    141–160

    65–73

    Colossal

    121–140

    55–64

    Super Colossal

    111–120

    50–54

    Mammoth

    101–110

    46–50

    Super Mammoth

    91–100

    41–45


     


    And given Apple's history, from the company now selling us "resolutionary" iDevices.....the next grade above "ultimate" would, of course be "Magical."  


     


    Nothing new under the sun here though.. ..as old as free markets and marketing and oxymorons.  Jumbo shrimp anyone?.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by focher View Post





    In the case of Apple, the best time to buy is at release. First, this will give you the longest period of time with that iteration of the product before the next version lands. Look at it like a longer period to amortize the cost. Second, Apple has almost never discounted existing models during their life cycle. The most you can hope for is a refurbished unit which will be discounted, and those will take some time to appear. Or Black Friday deals.


     


    I'd agree on a "step-upgraded" model if one is hot to trot - but I certainly have nothing against saving some bucks on Apple-backed refurbs - or taking into account seasonal promotions and other such events.  



    As for brand-new form factors - and especially when accompanied with a whole new OS version number, there's often some wisdom in letting the "real-world beta test" of a release play out so that any kinks - and there have been quite a few of these over the years - get worked out.  So in that case I'd amend your window to "a month or two after release."  



    For those who need to be close to, but not on, the bleeding edge, all of these are valid strategies for lowering TCO (and possible frustrations) over a several year period....  ...and given the uses most make of their digital devices, aside from status and ego needs, used Macs can be both very cost-effective and and satisfying user experiences.



    I just can't seem to kill my 2005 iBook (12", 1.33GHZ PPC).  It became my (small corp) corporate book-keeper - and when the "6" key died, I bought another on eBay for $100 as a parts bed.  Instead I received another fully-working machine, so one is for the books and iTunes (without bogging my main machine down while consuming media, as I tend to have numerous productivity programs and 20 browser tabs running), and the other's migrated to the bedroom as my late night podcast watcher and light-surfing/chatting use.



    So more than one optimal way to skin the OS X cats - depending on usage cases, budgets, etc.

  • Reply 126 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    If you wait for the latest and greatest, you'll end up never buying. I never advise people to wait, except maybe this week just because WWDC is next week. But other than that, buy what you need and do it now.

    If there's no need for a new iMac now, sure, wait. Otherwise, read above.

    They can also add .11ac to new computers now and introduce new Airports that support that at a later time.


    I always prefer to buy the outgoing hardware, as it's often discounted. I just got a low-end Mac mini for $568 at Best Buy this week. Last year I picked up an iPhone 4 16gb for $150 from AT&T. If you can live with being 1 year behind the bleeding edge you can save some money.

  • Reply 127 of 131
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,675member
    focher wrote: »
    That's incorrect. All generations of iPads support 802.11n at both 2.4GHz and 5GHz. 

    The iPhone only supports 2.4GHz.

    Oops! My bad, so big thanks for the correction.

    chris v wrote: »
    Why anyone would spend $1000.00 on an  Apple display is beyond me, buy you can get one if you want.

    I spent $ 1800 when the ACD was EOL'd in August 2010. Well, I got it discounted, I believe for € 1100 or something. To me, it's not the costs of products that count, rather the product itself. If it's something that I cannot afford I'll simply save up for it and must understand that I cannot upgrade to the latest version every single time, but that's ok.
    nitewing98 wrote: »
    I always prefer to buy the outgoing hardware, as it's often discounted. I just got a low-end Mac mini for $568 at Best Buy this week. Last year I picked up an iPhone 4 16gb for $150 from AT&T. If you can live with being 1 year behind the bleeding edge you can save some money.

    That certainly works for a lot of people and is a money-wise thing to do!
  • Reply 128 of 131

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chris v View Post


     


    They make a version of the exact same display with a mini-display port input:


     


    http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC007LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ


     


    Why anyone would spend $1000.00 on an  Apple display is beyond me, buy you can get one if you want.



    OK, this may be my ignorance showing, but isn't the Mini Display Port the same plug used by Thunderbolt? So aren't the two monitors actually the same, with one being repackaged as "Thunderbolt" compatible? I know my 2011 Mac mini has a TB port that I can use my DVI monitor with (using a DVI/MDP adapter).


     


    Am I nuts?

  • Reply 129 of 131
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nitewing98 View Post


     but isn't the Mini Display Port the same plug used by Thunderbolt? 



    It's the same connector. Computers with displayport or mini displayport can't use the thunderbolt specific display. You can supposedly plug mini displayport peripherals into a thunderbolt port although I'd want to verify a lack of obscure known bugs. You cannot plug a thunderbolt peripheral into a mini displayport port and have it work at this time. Thunderbolt is actually intel's thing. Apple mostly supplied the connector. 

  • Reply 130 of 131


    God... 15 inch MacBook Pro could cost AU$3199!? (AU$ is about the same as US$). I'm guessing that would be the top-end MacBook Pro...

  • Reply 131 of 131
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    God... 15 inch MacBook Pro could cost AU$3199!? (AU$ is about the same as US$). I'm guessing that would be the top-end MacBook Pro...

    The exchange rate is about equal but there are differences on goods imported to Australia that likely make it more than US price. I'd say the US version would be about $400 less expensive.
Sign In or Register to comment.