New iMac in Sept or Jan?
Like a few others people here on the forum, I'm a little disappointed that Apple didn't update their iMac or their MB(P) machines. While I'm a little surprised by that decision it made sense to have focused the WWDC on the Dev community (Intel transition complete, OS preview, etc).
So, my question to you folks is whether the current thinking/speculation is a September launch for an updated iMac and/or MB(P), or whether the timeline is more realistically something like January at the MacWorld Expo? My personal opinion is that Apple will aim for a January update (is there really a compelling reason for them to release a 64-bit based system until Leopard gets closer to release?).
I'd be curious to hear other thoughts on this - especially since I'm about ready to pull the trigger on a new iMac!
--DotComCTO
So, my question to you folks is whether the current thinking/speculation is a September launch for an updated iMac and/or MB(P), or whether the timeline is more realistically something like January at the MacWorld Expo? My personal opinion is that Apple will aim for a January update (is there really a compelling reason for them to release a 64-bit based system until Leopard gets closer to release?).
I'd be curious to hear other thoughts on this - especially since I'm about ready to pull the trigger on a new iMac!
--DotComCTO
Comments
1. Does it seem logical to release an update prior to Paris on Sept. 12? Would Apple want to take the spotlight off the new Mac Pro so soon?
2. I spoke with Apple both via chat and phone yesterday. Here's the quote from the chat, "I reassure you that the processor which the iMac is running on, the Intel Core Duo is fantastic and I do not foresee and immediate change in processors as we have just switched all of our Macs to Intel." Here's one more quote from the same chat, "If you are having reservations about the processor currently running on our Macs, I cannot push you to buy. I can only reassure you that our current machines are amazing and I do not foresee an immediate switch." Granted, the people taking orders are most certainly not "in the know" as to when Apple will release a new product, but it is a little more food for thought.
Does that change anyone's mind about a September versus a January release?
FYI - I personally need to purchase before mid-November as my machine is being partially paid for by a home owners insurance claim (lightning damage that took out my entire ham radio station as well as my computer).
--DotComCTO
I have a Rev a G5 imac with a power supply problem - the 4th problem that has had to be fixed - and I'm going to ask Apple for a replacement. Now I have to decide if I'm going to wait until Paris before asking for one! Might just stay with the office PB until Paris, but even the current version would be a nice upgrade.
OK. So, let me add some other thoughts:
1. Does it seem logical to release an update prior to Paris on Sept. 12? Would Apple want to take the spotlight off the new Mac Pro so soon?
2. I spoke with Apple both via chat and phone yesterday. Here's the quote from the chat, "I reassure you that the processor which the iMac is running on, the Intel Core Duo is fantastic and I do not foresee and immediate change in processors as we have just switched all of our Macs to Intel." Here's one more quote from the same chat, "If you are having reservations about the processor currently running on our Macs, I cannot push you to buy. I can only reassure you that our current machines are amazing and I do not foresee an immediate switch." Granted, the people taking orders are most certainly not "in the know" as to when Apple will release a new product, but it is a little more food for thought.
Does that change anyone's mind about a September versus a January release?
FYI - I personally need to purchase before mid-November as my machine is being partially paid for by a home owners insurance claim (lightning damage that took out my entire ham radio station as well as my computer).
--DotComCTO
Who knows when iMac will be updated. It definately needs one IMO. As important as when is what processor. If iMac goes Merom you might as well get an iMac now. Merom isn't much faster than Yonah.
thats another thing. Why would Mac allow that? They need to stay current. This is a prime example of the difference with intel. Instead of powerpc where apple only updated systems every 9months or so, now they need to stay with everyone else who is getting new intel's in thier systems. They need to stay current.
...i dont know your sources so we all just have to go by what we all think, plus apple doesnt let people know anything.
My sources are the same as everyone else's, that's for sure! I was just intrigued by the response from a few Apple online sales reps.
--DotComCTO
If iMac goes Merom you might as well get an iMac now. Merom isn't much faster than Yonah.
My thought exactly. The only consideration is that the Merom is a 64-bit architecture that uses the Core microarchitecture.
--DotComCTO
"According to the MacWorld posting about the Core 2 Duo chips this morning, Intel expects most systems carrying the Core 2 Duo chips to be available next week. (The article focused on HP systems)."
thats another thing. Why would Mac allow that? They need to stay current.
I thought about that many times before...Apple needs to stay current. Then I looked at it differently and wondered why? I mean, Apple is the only game in town if you want the Mac OS. If that's what you want that you have to work on Apple's schedule, no? It seems unlikely that a majority of current Mac users are going to abandon the platform just to get more current hardware. So...why does Apple need to update sooner (other than the fact that we want them to)?
Just trying to stir things up and hopefully gain some insight.
--DotComCTO
Yonah was faster in general than the G5 it replaced. Rumors on Leopard are that the performance difference will increase as OS X gets better optimised for Intel. The other major thing it brought to the iMac was that it made it almost silent.
Staying with Merom will obviously maintain that level of quietness. Conroe being a desktop chip and running hotter will require more cooling. From benchmarks that can be found on the net, at a given clock speed the performance of the two processors is almost identical. The question is do Apple want to keep the iMac quiet. Probably yes and so would a lot of owners. Therefore Apple stick with Merom or design the iMac so that it can better cool Conroe. Could mean a new iMac design from the current form. Conroe also has other advantages - its cheaper and its available at faster clock speeds. I believe the 2Ghz Merom is about the same price as the 2.4Ghz Conroe. Sticking with Merom will make the iMac look expensive and underperforming in comparison to other desktop computers.
I think that if the iMac gets a lazy update to Merom in the next up date (should be no later than the Paris show I'd have thought), then perhaps the iMac will get a complete overhaul for Macworld in January.
Because they want to lure switchers like me, and I'm sorry but Mac OS or no Mac OS i want the newest hardware if I'm gonna shell out my hard-earned cash from my part-time summer job before I start uni. If this means getting a dell, then so be it.
You'll be sorry.....
Think it through very carefully before you lock yourself into the lock-step. What are you waiting to see that you can get better in a Dell now?
"According to the MacWorld posting about the Core 2 Duo chips this morning, Intel expects most systems carrying the Core 2 Duo chips to be available next week. (The article focused on HP systems)."
Could you post a link on that, perhaps? I checked Macworld.com and .co.uk and couldn't find the article you were talking about.
On another note: Apple will update the iMac when the current model stops selling well (assuming that there a feasible upgrade available from Intel). Also, if the Core 2 Duo comment is true, then perhaps we'll see an updated iMac next week... you know how Steve likes to say "shipping today."
Edit: also, consider that Apple is, to some extent, Intel's new poster-child. Intel's going to push new processors and technologies on them hard.
To answer the topic starter's question — September 12th.
While that seems most likey, I find it hard to believe Apple will wait 6 weeks to debuit a computer using chips that competitors will be shipping in 2 to 4. We'll see though. I'm hoping for sooner, but either way I think the next iMac is going to scream.
I'm still not 'feeling it' for September 12th. I'm not sure why, but I have this crappy feeling that it'll be MacWorld Expo in January. I'm really hoping for 9/12 or sooner, but...we'll see.
--DotComCTO
It's very interesting. So many people think it'll be September 12th or sooner (which I find *really* hard to believe). OK - here's a follow on question: will Apple release the iMac with the ATI X1600, or do you think they'll move to the ATI X1800? Oh, and one more: Core 2 Duo with 2MB or 4MB L2 cache?
I'm still not 'feeling it' for September 12th. I'm not sure why, but I have this crappy feeling that it'll be MacWorld Expo in January. I'm really hoping for 9/12 or sooner, but...we'll see.
--DotComCTO
Apple can't wait until January, are you kidding? The iMac is Apple's most important computer and if they leave a Core Duo chip in there for six more months while HP/Dell/etc put a Core 2 Duo in, they'll get killed in sales, comparisons, benchmarks, etc. You saw in yesterday's keynote how Apple compared the Mac Pro and the Xserve to the Dell counterparts and the price difference there in. Just think if Dell did that. "For $2000 you can get a state of the art system with a Core 2 Duo chip, or for $1699 you can get an iMac with a chip that is outdated and obsolete." It'd be a really bad marketing move to wait past September 12.
Eh, I just ordered a 17" MBP...had to in order to make sure we got it in hand before the end of the year. I waited as long as I could but can't delay any further.
Vinea