Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple iMac 2010 - What would you like to see changed?
- Thread starter MacAndy74
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Have you heard of reading posts??
My point is why should a very expensive computer be so lacking in fundamental inputs. Apple make great play of their design, but this is immediately undermined if you have to plug in loads of powered hubs just to be able to use external devices.
The iMac is starved of ports. Fair enough if it was a cheap and nasty piece of kit but it isnt.
I ended up buying Iomega external drives which has USB ports built in, but once you start plugging even more external drives into those, then copying files becomes very slow indeed. I have terabytes of HD video recorded off BBC HD and backing these up, or editing and then copying off to other drives is a major drag via shares USB ports.
It's simple it's because USB is designed to scale out with Hubs. Adding a bunch of ports just means Apple has to punch more holes in the metal casing. I think the response to your posting was probably more in part spurred by the incredulity you displayed.
I prefer a hub approach because it's cleaner and you can run a single cable to hub which then becomes the central area for USB peripherals rather than having 6 USB devices each with a longer cable coming right back to the computer.
You know us Mac users ...overly concerned with clutter
1) LED Screen wider and higher resolution, 30" for high end and 24" for the rest
2) Two Hard drive bays, one for SSD and other for HD. SATA 6.0Gbps support pls, no 1.5gbps crap they pulled off with the mid 09 laptops.
3) HDMI 1.3+ inputs, USB 3.0, eSATA 2.0, FW3200/1600
4) Upgradable graphic cards, probably won't happen
5) Blu-ray (it is possible with the new single licensing body)
6) 8GB+ RAM (many of us would like to run VM machines at same time)
2) Two Hard drive bays, one for SSD and other for HD. SATA 6.0Gbps support pls, no 1.5gbps crap they pulled off with the mid 09 laptops.
3) HDMI 1.3+ inputs, USB 3.0, eSATA 2.0, FW3200/1600
4) Upgradable graphic cards, probably won't happen
5) Blu-ray (it is possible with the new single licensing body)
6) 8GB+ RAM (many of us would like to run VM machines at same time)
Hm....
I think it would be better if they kept the stand that they are using now, but they made it so the screen could go up, down, and tilt. (like the iMac g4)
Also, maybe they could put a FireWire 800 port and a FireWire 400 port, for those of us still using FireWire 400.
I hate the idea of the touch screen. That is kind of odd.
I think it would be better if they kept the stand that they are using now, but they made it so the screen could go up, down, and tilt. (like the iMac g4)
Also, maybe they could put a FireWire 800 port and a FireWire 400 port, for those of us still using FireWire 400.
I hate the idea of the touch screen. That is kind of odd.
HDMI cannot be used in all in one computers folks.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-988B-4F50-AF3A-C2FF1E62180F/GRA-T583_WH08.pptx
Nor can you funnel it through laptop hinges. There "is" a reason why Apple went DisplayPort and it wasn't to frustrate people.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/E/6/5E66B27B-988B-4F50-AF3A-C2FF1E62180F/GRA-T583_WH08.pptx
Nor can you funnel it through laptop hinges. There "is" a reason why Apple went DisplayPort and it wasn't to frustrate people.
Thanks for clearing that up I've always wondered about that. Would there a way to connect a PS3 to iMacs? I wouldn't need to buy a new TV if a 30" model was available.
Hmmm I'll take a look and see if anyone has found a way to funnel video into a Mac from HDMI.
HDMI output is allowed, just not the HDMI input.
Many of us wants to play our PS3/Xbox thur iMacs.
Oh gotcha. It was worded above in such a way I thought the guy was saying no HDMI is allowed on all in one's or laptops, period.
It's simple it's because USB is designed to scale out with Hubs. Adding a bunch of ports just means Apple has to punch more holes in the metal casing. I think the response to your posting was probably more in part spurred by the incredulity you displayed.
I prefer a hub approach because it's cleaner and you can run a single cable to hub which then becomes the central area for USB peripherals rather than having 6 USB devices each with a longer cable coming right back to the computer.
You know us Mac users ...overly concerned with clutter
But isnt a more elegant solution to build the hubs into the computer, thus avoiding separate power cables and the need for more electrical sockets?
Again, people seem desperate to make apologies for the lack of basic functionality. It's like trying to justify the use of combi drives when the rest of the computing world moved to DVD burners only about five years ago...
Simple question - why have 5 USBs on a Mini and only 4 on an iMac - as I've said before keyboard USBs dont count - who wants a wired keyboard or mouse anyway?
I have 6 external drives plugged into my iMac along with four TV tuners - and whilst I would concede this isnt necessarily "standard", once you add in the iPhone, a printer, a card reader and a port for a USB drive, then the lack of onboard USBs becomes a major issue.
Anyway moving on, I'd like to see quad core asap and a decent graphics card to enable future usage of GPU and multi-core to be credibly available for all new iMacs from Q4 2009 onwards or Q1 2010.
Sadly all of the hardware launches this year have been laughable - slimmed down specs and through the roof pricing.
LED screen
Cheaper $999 model, if Apple wants to stick around in the desktop market.
Quad Core optional
ATI 5*** mobile on high end models, dedicated Nvidia on lower models, no integrated.
Firewire 3200.
USB 3
Same design.
Easy access hard drive.
Cheaper $999 model, if Apple wants to stick around in the desktop market.
Quad Core optional
ATI 5*** mobile on high end models, dedicated Nvidia on lower models, no integrated.
Firewire 3200.
USB 3
Same design.
Easy access hard drive.
Now, when you say "What would you like to see changed?" do you mean within logical reason, or in a fantasy world?
'Cause most of what you guys are predicting... eh, any idea how economics work and what the target consumer of the iMac is?
This is why people are always up in arms when Apple releases an updated product, they're just not realistic with themselves.
Asking for Quad Cores, possibly LED display, and some other minor changes such as additional/better USB ports or an SSD slot... OK, that may happen.
Expecting a 30" iMac, expecting desktop GPUs... not gonna happen.
Even Quad Core CPU is unlikely.
The iMac has, and continues to, fill its roll very nicely the way Apple equips them. There are always some minor gripes, such as the 9400M on the lower end models this time around, but that's life.
For the vast majority of iMac users (I.E.- Not us crazy fanatics who post on MacRumors) the iMac is more power than they'll ever use.
Apple will not do anything that is going to make the iMac more expensive or anything that will make it "uglier" by Apple standards. That means, it will never be thicker (for desktop parts or more RAM slots) or contain a plethora of ports.
If you want to have a realistic guess, take a look at what the current CPUs/video cards in an iMac cost. Whatever is around next year at the same price point/form factor will be something that Apple will consider.
'Cause most of what you guys are predicting... eh, any idea how economics work and what the target consumer of the iMac is?
This is why people are always up in arms when Apple releases an updated product, they're just not realistic with themselves.
Asking for Quad Cores, possibly LED display, and some other minor changes such as additional/better USB ports or an SSD slot... OK, that may happen.
Expecting a 30" iMac, expecting desktop GPUs... not gonna happen.
Even Quad Core CPU is unlikely.
The iMac has, and continues to, fill its roll very nicely the way Apple equips them. There are always some minor gripes, such as the 9400M on the lower end models this time around, but that's life.
For the vast majority of iMac users (I.E.- Not us crazy fanatics who post on MacRumors) the iMac is more power than they'll ever use.
Apple will not do anything that is going to make the iMac more expensive or anything that will make it "uglier" by Apple standards. That means, it will never be thicker (for desktop parts or more RAM slots) or contain a plethora of ports.
If you want to have a realistic guess, take a look at what the current CPUs/video cards in an iMac cost. Whatever is around next year at the same price point/form factor will be something that Apple will consider.
trose
Apple can do what they want. If they want to continue to sell consumers a laptop on a stick then that's fine.
I'll continue to buy used Macs and non Apple monitors. You don't deliver what the power users want they don't buy your equipment.
Mobile Quad Core chips come at a premium. The 2Ghz Clarkfield chip is going to be a cool $1000+. Contrast that to a 2.9Ghz Lynnfield which will probably be in the $600-800 range and it's clear to those of use who actually want to get our work done faster without regard to "looking good" doing it.
Frankly if Steve Jobs has one major foible that he is a "form over function" guy. I don't need a pizza thin desktop with a cavern of empty space behind it.
Apple can do what they want. If they want to continue to sell consumers a laptop on a stick then that's fine.
I'll continue to buy used Macs and non Apple monitors. You don't deliver what the power users want they don't buy your equipment.
Mobile Quad Core chips come at a premium. The 2Ghz Clarkfield chip is going to be a cool $1000+. Contrast that to a 2.9Ghz Lynnfield which will probably be in the $600-800 range and it's clear to those of use who actually want to get our work done faster without regard to "looking good" doing it.
Frankly if Steve Jobs has one major foible that he is a "form over function" guy. I don't need a pizza thin desktop with a cavern of empty space behind it.
But who wants to pay over 1000$ for computer that is way too overkill and 400$ PC laptop does the same?
They are quite powerful but still, I can build high-end quad-core PC for price of an iMac
That's why Apple will likely use Arrandales. Lynnfields are too hot for current iMac's design and Clarksfield are too expensive and slower than Arrandales.
I would love to have thick iMac with desktop CPU and GPU or "xMac" but I'm doubt we will see one...
The only problem there is that the iMac is going to be competing with cheap Lynnfield systems from Q3 of this year on. I like the iMac and think it's an ideal system but consumers aren't going to buy a Dual Core $1499 iMac with a 24" when a Lynnfield system with 24" monitor is going to be $1099 in every store.
By the time Arrandale hits in Jan 2010 you'll have lower wattage Lynnfield coming.
http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,671997/Intels-65-Watt-quad-cores-on-the-way/News/
65W is still too hot. Wikipedia says 65W or 45W for low-end one, 2.13GHz. Arrandales are still faster than Lynnfields and Arrandales high-end Arrandale is 35W only. Arrandales are quite cheap too, should be in same price range as current Penryns
Not if rumors that the iMac 3.06Ghz Core2 is custom and 55watt TDP. Arrandales won't be faster than Lynnfield if they don't have Turbo Boost which I haven't been able to confirm.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3570
It's clear that Apple needs to redesign the iMac case and move to desktop CPU. Arrandale is a buzz kill.
Current 3.06GHz is 44W, '08 model's 3.06 was 55W. 65W Lynnfield is way too hot for current design. Arrandales are 32nm and Lynnfields are 45nm, they have difference in speed.
I would still love to have thick iMac, but I doubt we will see one
Yeah I'm kind of doubting we'll see it as well. Though the darkhorse is that Apple finally has an OS in Snow Leopard that makes multi-core programming easy easy easy. We'll see if they deliver easy to own imac computers.
If I can buy an iMac Quad Core for less than $1499 by tax return 2010, I'm in.
If I can buy an iMac Quad Core for less than $1499 by tax return 2010, I'm in.
The 1.6 GHz Clarksfield is $364, but you're still seeing a good premium.
Pretty much. Apple may be avoiding lower-clocked quad-cores in the same lineup as higher-clocked dual-cores. However, Clarksfield can turbo boost up to 2.8/3.06/3.2 GHz for one core. That might mean that Apple is more willing to put those CPUs in the iMac (and the MacBook Pro).
Maybe Apple will use the Core i3/i5/i7 branding to their advantage. Something like "Every iMac comes with a new Intel Core i3 [Arrandale] processor. For additional performance for intensive applications, you can upgrade to a Core i5 [Arrandale] or a Core i7 [Clarksfield] processor" and skip the whole clock speed and core count issue completely.
Or maybe not. I still expect Arrandale for the next iMac and quad-core in 2011.
Supposedly all iMac CPUs are 55 W.