You forgot to mention that it allows Apple to avoid those pesky pc comparissons.
Not really. People will just compare the merom machines to conroe PC's...and I doubt the macs will look good in those comparisons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hasapi
The merom imacs will be a compromise of style over performance value, compared to similar priced Conroe PC's.
Bingo, you nailed it. It will be a real shame if Apple doesn't use Conroe at all. It's intel's best bang for the buck in a single CPU system. I'd much rather see them make the iMac a tiny bit bigger so the cooling system doesn't require a notebook CPU.
Using merom adds hundreds to the cost of the iMac, while the only benefits are case size and power consumption (neither of which should be a priority in a desktop machine). I hope this rumor turns out to be not true, it would be a shame.
Woodcrest is not really a higher-performing chip, and should not be positioned as such (though some of them include extra cache compared with Conroe, any increase is offset by the much slower real-world throughput in the RAM used by Woodcrest), it's just intended for multi-CPU server and workstation implementations.
Huh?
The Xeon 51xx has a third faster FSB and more L2 cache. 533Mhz FB-DIMMs which are error correcting and more reliable than non-ECC 667Mhz DDR2 whallop the old technology in many tests.
If you've an application for that then it'll beat a Conroe.
Using merom adds hundreds to the cost of the iMac, while the only benefits are case size and power consumption (neither of which should be a priority in a desktop machine).
Though noise should. You get that by not requiring fans. So no stupid gamer GPUs and overly hot CPUs that the majority of people don't care two toffees for.
No, but it will look like a joke against similar priced Conroe PC's and while a quiet machine should never but underestimated, its not a feature at the top of the list when considering a purchase. People want biggest bang for their buck from a longevity point of view.
I hope this rumor turns out to be not true, it would be a shame.
Shame is not what drives Apple in such decisions. Avoiding expenses by using the same design as for Yonah, while retaining the heat and noise levels under control, is actually what drives them.
If you want a rational explaination, the "chin" breaks the Golden Ratio, used as a design tenet since the ancient Greeks. If the monitor had an even border all the way around, it would be close, but it's not.
The first G5 iMacs do have an even border but it's still not a Golden Ratio on the 17" where it gets closest if you also include the gap to the desk. Imagine how big the chin+gap would have to be on a 23" to be golden!
Personally, I like the chin. It'd otherwise be way to low without it ,or there would be a big gap. And without it you'd need an external power brick.
With a 23" though, I hope they bring back VESA display mountability from the first G5 iMac. Heck, just bring back the first G5 iMac design - it was better externally.
No, but it will look like a joke against similar priced Conroe PC's and while a quiet machine should never but underestimated, its not a feature at the top of the list when considering a purchase. People want biggest bang for their buck from a longevity point of view.
Similar priced? or similar priced AND same features?
You've only got to go look at other manufacturers all-in-one systems to see that Apple are usually ahead on price, features, design...
Yes, it'll get whupped in benchmarks by some beige/silver/black/neon encrusted gamer box. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
Are you suggesting they'll get rid of the 17" iMac, cause I highly doubt that if you are?
The 17" should stay, but not at the $1299 price point. 20" LCD pannels are about the same price point today that 17" pannels were whend the 17" G5 iMac was intoduced. 17" displays are about the price that 17" CRT's were when the 17" eMac was intoduced. They should be able to offer a 17" iMac in the $999 price range, though they might have to cut the HD size.
Apple Computer in September plans to unveil a new line of iMac computers with faster processors and a little surprise to boot, AppleInsider has learned.
It will be the third time the Cupertino, Calif.-based company has introduced upgrades to its flagship, all-in-one consumer desktop line in less than twelve months.
Apple selects Merom
People familiar with the Mac maker's plans say it will sidestep Intel Corp's Core 2 Duo desktop processors, formerly code-named Conroe, in favor of adopting the mobile variant of chips, previously known as Merom, throughout the entire line. The company will also add a new member to the iMac family, a stunning 23-inch model, those same people say.
Apple's decision to forgo the use of Conroe in both its iMac and Mac Pro desktops suggests the chips are unlikely to find their way into the company's Mac computer line this year. It also explains why the Mac maker has yet to introduce new iMac models despite widespread availability of Conroe for several weeks. By contrast, Intel has only begun to ship Merom in production quantities within the last few days.
Conroe, the unpopular kid in class
While many Apple followers had initially projected Conroe to find a seat in the recently introduced Mac Pro high-end desktops, AppleInsider was first to report this past July that the company had selected Intel's higher-performance Xeon server processors instead.
Speculation immediately turned towards Conroe making an appearance in the iMac line, but insiders say Merom's lower power requirements and reduced heat dissipation are better suited for the iMac's sleek and ultra-compact industrial design.
Up to 40 percent speed increases
Still, preliminary tests indicate that Merom will offer up to a 40 percent speed increase over the Yonah chip it replaces -- the same chips found in the existing line of iMacs. Merom is available in speeds of 2.0GHz, 2.16GHz and 2.33GHz.
Third time's a charm
For Apple, September will mark the third time it has updated the iMac line in less than a year. Last October, it debut the iMac G5 with built-in iSight. Almost immediately, it followed up with the iMac Core Duo this January -- the first Mac to make the transition to Intel processors.
The first G5 iMacs do have an even border but it's still not a Golden Ratio on the 17" where it gets closest if you also include the gap to the desk. Imagine how big the chin+gap would have to be on a 23" to be golden!
You mean vertically? Weird, I never considered that, but it looks like the width of the iMac is the same as the height, making it roughly square. This is true for the current models, ~17"x~17" or ~19"x~19"
I don't see where you say even border all the way around because there was a very wide border on the bottom edge of the original G5 iMac too:
Shame is not what drives Apple in such decisions. Avoiding expenses by using the same design as for Yonah, while retaining the heat and noise levels under control, is actually what drives them.
Apple sells so many iMacs that they can probably more than pay for the redesign in less than month with just the difference in chip costs alone.
You mean vertically? Weird, I never considered that, but it looks like the width of the iMac is the same as the height, making it roughly square. This is true for the current models, ~17"x~17" or ~19"x~19"
Original G5 is 42.5cm x 36.5 case + about 6cm gap. So yes, square.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't see where you say even border all the way around because there's a very wide border on the bottom edge of the original G5 iMac:
The top borders and side borders are all 28mm on my Rev A G5 17. Only the chin is bigger. From the top of the iMac to the bottom of the screen v bottom of screen to the table it's nearly the Golden Ratio. If they'd made the border narrower and shoved the screen up about 1cm they'd pretty much have got the ratio spot on.
The 17" should stay, but not at the $1299 price point. 20" LCD pannels are about the same price point today that 17" pannels were whend the 17" G5 iMac was intoduced. 17" displays are about the price that 17" CRT's were when the 17" eMac was intoduced. They should be able to offer a 17" iMac in the $999 price range, though they might have to cut the HD size.
The iMac G5 when introduced also didn't have wifi, bluetooth, webcam. It had half the ram, a small HD, a 1.6Ghz G5. Maybe there's some room to wiggle but not $300.
Finally the whining will stop about the Mac not supporting Core 2 Duo. And the part numbers for the faster Meroms are higher (T7600, T7400, T7200), which will lead people to believe that Apple's Core 2 Duo machines are faster, even though the lower numbered Core 2 Duo (Conroe) is the faster one. Probably the same people who promulgated that Woodcrest is inferior just because its name isn't Core 2 Duo.
I still expect to see a mid-range, Conroe powered Mac Pro or xMac. It will be too late for me because I just received a case, motherboard, CPU (E6600) and PSU today, so this weekend will be dedicated to building my own Conroe machine. It won't be a Mac, unfortunately, but I will be able to overclock it to my heart's content, something that Apple doesn't allow. I got a high-end motherboard, a high-end case, a high-end CPU and it all cost me less than $800. The rest of the components (video card, memory, optical drives) will be recycled from my current setup. Maybe next year I'll buy a MacBook but a desktop Mac is out of the question for the next few years. I waited for over a year to see if Apple would offer me an expandable machine within my price range ($1200 to $1800). I was looking forward to switching back to Mac since it's the platform that got me interested in computers in the first place, back in 1985. I was a Mac evangelist then. But it just wasn't meant to be this time around. During this last year I visited many forums like AI and was generally treated with contempt by some of the pompous asses who spend their time here. I know they're a minority, but it was shameless nonetheless. Someone even called me a PC fanboy. Nice way to attract switchers, eh? Then there was the distasteful Microsoft bashing at a conference dedicated to developers. Microsoft happens to be one the Mac's biggest developers. Very tacky. I don't blame MS for pulling support for VBA in their next version of Office for Mac. I'm also not at all happy about Apple's neglect for the environment, the iMac's unrecyclable monitor, the sweat shops, Jobs' attempted demolition of the Jackling House, etc. The Apple has lost its luster. As much as I hate Microsoft, Apple doesn't seem to be doing much better. At least Bill Gates gives substantial amounts of money to worthwhile charities. Steve Jobs is just happy being a prick. I will continue to have an open mind about the Mac, and recommend it to people for whom I feel it is a better platform, but after a year of careful consideration I just don't feel it's the best platform for me.
Comments
You forgot to mention that it allows Apple to avoid those pesky pc comparissons.
Not really. People will just compare the merom machines to conroe PC's...and I doubt the macs will look good in those comparisons.
The merom imacs will be a compromise of style over performance value, compared to similar priced Conroe PC's.
Bingo, you nailed it. It will be a real shame if Apple doesn't use Conroe at all. It's intel's best bang for the buck in a single CPU system. I'd much rather see them make the iMac a tiny bit bigger so the cooling system doesn't require a notebook CPU.
Using merom adds hundreds to the cost of the iMac, while the only benefits are case size and power consumption (neither of which should be a priority in a desktop machine). I hope this rumor turns out to be not true, it would be a shame.
A laptop cpu and laptop ram in a high end desktop is a joke
iMac is not a high-end desktop.
Woodcrest is not really a higher-performing chip, and should not be positioned as such (though some of them include extra cache compared with Conroe, any increase is offset by the much slower real-world throughput in the RAM used by Woodcrest), it's just intended for multi-CPU server and workstation implementations.
Huh?
The Xeon 51xx has a third faster FSB and more L2 cache. 533Mhz FB-DIMMs which are error correcting and more reliable than non-ECC 667Mhz DDR2 whallop the old technology in many tests.
If you've an application for that then it'll beat a Conroe.
For most users though, even a Yonah is overkill.
Using merom adds hundreds to the cost of the iMac, while the only benefits are case size and power consumption (neither of which should be a priority in a desktop machine).
Though noise should. You get that by not requiring fans. So no stupid gamer GPUs and overly hot CPUs that the majority of people don't care two toffees for.
iMac is not a high-end desktop.
No, but it will look like a joke against similar priced Conroe PC's and while a quiet machine should never but underestimated, its not a feature at the top of the list when considering a purchase. People want biggest bang for their buck from a longevity point of view.
I hope this rumor turns out to be not true, it would be a shame.
Shame is not what drives Apple in such decisions. Avoiding expenses by using the same design as for Yonah, while retaining the heat and noise levels under control, is actually what drives them.
If you want a rational explaination, the "chin" breaks the Golden Ratio, used as a design tenet since the ancient Greeks. If the monitor had an even border all the way around, it would be close, but it's not.
The first G5 iMacs do have an even border but it's still not a Golden Ratio on the 17" where it gets closest if you also include the gap to the desk. Imagine how big the chin+gap would have to be on a 23" to be golden!
Personally, I like the chin. It'd otherwise be way to low without it ,or there would be a big gap. And without it you'd need an external power brick.
With a 23" though, I hope they bring back VESA display mountability from the first G5 iMac. Heck, just bring back the first G5 iMac design - it was better externally.
No, but it will look like a joke against similar priced Conroe PC's and while a quiet machine should never but underestimated, its not a feature at the top of the list when considering a purchase. People want biggest bang for their buck from a longevity point of view.
Similar priced? or similar priced AND same features?
You've only got to go look at other manufacturers all-in-one systems to see that Apple are usually ahead on price, features, design...
Yes, it'll get whupped in benchmarks by some beige/silver/black/neon encrusted gamer box. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
Are you suggesting they'll get rid of the 17" iMac, cause I highly doubt that if you are?
The 17" should stay, but not at the $1299 price point. 20" LCD pannels are about the same price point today that 17" pannels were whend the 17" G5 iMac was intoduced. 17" displays are about the price that 17" CRT's were when the 17" eMac was intoduced. They should be able to offer a 17" iMac in the $999 price range, though they might have to cut the HD size.
Apple Computer in September plans to unveil a new line of iMac computers with faster processors and a little surprise to boot, AppleInsider has learned.
It will be the third time the Cupertino, Calif.-based company has introduced upgrades to its flagship, all-in-one consumer desktop line in less than twelve months.
Apple selects Merom
People familiar with the Mac maker's plans say it will sidestep Intel Corp's Core 2 Duo desktop processors, formerly code-named Conroe, in favor of adopting the mobile variant of chips, previously known as Merom, throughout the entire line. The company will also add a new member to the iMac family, a stunning 23-inch model, those same people say.
Apple's decision to forgo the use of Conroe in both its iMac and Mac Pro desktops suggests the chips are unlikely to find their way into the company's Mac computer line this year. It also explains why the Mac maker has yet to introduce new iMac models despite widespread availability of Conroe for several weeks. By contrast, Intel has only begun to ship Merom in production quantities within the last few days.
Conroe, the unpopular kid in class
While many Apple followers had initially projected Conroe to find a seat in the recently introduced Mac Pro high-end desktops, AppleInsider was first to report this past July that the company had selected Intel's higher-performance Xeon server processors instead.
Speculation immediately turned towards Conroe making an appearance in the iMac line, but insiders say Merom's lower power requirements and reduced heat dissipation are better suited for the iMac's sleek and ultra-compact industrial design.
Up to 40 percent speed increases
Still, preliminary tests indicate that Merom will offer up to a 40 percent speed increase over the Yonah chip it replaces -- the same chips found in the existing line of iMacs. Merom is available in speeds of 2.0GHz, 2.16GHz and 2.33GHz.
Third time's a charm
For Apple, September will mark the third time it has updated the iMac line in less than a year. Last October, it debut the iMac G5 with built-in iSight. Almost immediately, it followed up with the iMac Core Duo this January -- the first Mac to make the transition to Intel processors.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I was hoping for a conroe and a 23". I will settle for the badest 23" I can buy the day they are released.
I haven't been this excited in some time. The second they are released, I am preordering or ordering.
Similar priced? or similar priced AND same features?
You've only got to go look at other manufacturers all-in-one systems to see that Apple are usually ahead on price, features, design...
Yes, it'll get whupped in benchmarks by some beige/silver/black/neon encrusted gamer box. THAT'S NOT THE POINT.
But it will not be compared to other AIO's it will be compared to Dell and HP Conroe desktops, that's the point.
The first G5 iMacs do have an even border but it's still not a Golden Ratio on the 17" where it gets closest if you also include the gap to the desk. Imagine how big the chin+gap would have to be on a 23" to be golden!
You mean vertically? Weird, I never considered that, but it looks like the width of the iMac is the same as the height, making it roughly square. This is true for the current models, ~17"x~17" or ~19"x~19"
I don't see where you say even border all the way around because there was a very wide border on the bottom edge of the original G5 iMac too:
http://apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac_g5
Shame is not what drives Apple in such decisions. Avoiding expenses by using the same design as for Yonah, while retaining the heat and noise levels under control, is actually what drives them.
Apple sells so many iMacs that they can probably more than pay for the redesign in less than month with just the difference in chip costs alone.
You mean vertically? Weird, I never considered that, but it looks like the width of the iMac is the same as the height, making it roughly square. This is true for the current models, ~17"x~17" or ~19"x~19"
Original G5 is 42.5cm x 36.5 case + about 6cm gap. So yes, square.
I don't see where you say even border all the way around because there's a very wide border on the bottom edge of the original G5 iMac:
http://apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=imac_g5
The top borders and side borders are all 28mm on my Rev A G5 17. Only the chin is bigger. From the top of the iMac to the bottom of the screen v bottom of screen to the table it's nearly the Golden Ratio. If they'd made the border narrower and shoved the screen up about 1cm they'd pretty much have got the ratio spot on.
Where were you measuring?
But it will not be compared to other AIO's it will be compared to Dell and HP Conroe desktops, that's the point.
Which is of course plain stupid.
But it will not be compared to other AIO's it will be compared to Dell and HP Conroe desktops, that's the point.
The iMac is selling fine as it is. The real growth rates are in laptops these days anyway, so that's what Apple should be (and is) focusing on.
Original G5 is 42.5cm x 36.5 case + about 6cm gap. So yes, square.
The Golden Ratio isn't square. It's actually very close to the current standard for widescreen computer displays, about 1.6:1
I didn't measure the borders, but I was remarking that they aren't all the same because the bottom edge is a lot thicker than the rest.
The 17" should stay, but not at the $1299 price point. 20" LCD pannels are about the same price point today that 17" pannels were whend the 17" G5 iMac was intoduced. 17" displays are about the price that 17" CRT's were when the 17" eMac was intoduced. They should be able to offer a 17" iMac in the $999 price range, though they might have to cut the HD size.
The iMac G5 when introduced also didn't have wifi, bluetooth, webcam. It had half the ram, a small HD, a 1.6Ghz G5. Maybe there's some room to wiggle but not $300.
I still expect to see a mid-range, Conroe powered Mac Pro or xMac. It will be too late for me because I just received a case, motherboard, CPU (E6600) and PSU today, so this weekend will be dedicated to building my own Conroe machine.