Totally agree. I have 700GB of HD space, and I'm pretty sure I'm a consumer, AND I don't really have enough space to get into using my video camera very much.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the HDs remained the same.
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.
iMac (aluminum) Hardware Updates for Spring 08 Speculation
- Thread starter takeabyteoutta
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Totally agree. I have 700GB of HD space, and I'm pretty sure I'm a consumer, AND I don't really have enough space to get into using my video camera very much.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the HDs remained the same.
LED display (making the case even thinner)
optional matte display
available 30"
maybe available black aluminum case?
Newest processors
maybe an optional x16 superdrive?
at least an available 3.0 GHZ processor
ability to adjust the angle of the screen
maybe faster hard drive
optional matte display
available 30"
maybe available black aluminum case?
Newest processors
maybe an optional x16 superdrive?
at least an available 3.0 GHZ processor
ability to adjust the angle of the screen
maybe faster hard drive
LED display (making the case even thinner)
optional matte display
available 30"
maybe available black aluminum case?
Newest processors
maybe an optional x16 superdrive?
at least an available 3.0 GHZ processor
ability to adjust the angle of the screen
maybe faster hard drive
matte and 30" are unlikely. maybe 22" to get 1080 HD resolution and 26" to keep the gap consistent. 3 ghz isn't going to happen if the update is to penryn (aka in the next month). Montevina on the other hand.
i think its time the update the graphics as they are now behind the Mac Pros and MacBook Pros...idk about a matte option, seems kind of silly on something that isn't portable...a 30" model, although unlikely, would be awesome!!! My bet is that we see Penryn soon because Intel is phasing out everything else
Gfx has always been behind the MP and the MBP and will probably continue to be behind
Wrong time for an update Apple.
I dont think theres going to be an update tomorrow. It just doesnt make sense.
Why would Apple update the iMac in March with the Penryn if they are going then upgrade them again in June for Montevina?
I think Apple will hold out on the iMac update until June. Makes more manufacturing sense.
June Release i can see.
Better CPU
Addition 1GB RAM
Better GPU
Matte Screen Option
30" Model Option
I dont think theres going to be an update tomorrow. It just doesnt make sense.
Why would Apple update the iMac in March with the Penryn if they are going then upgrade them again in June for Montevina?
I think Apple will hold out on the iMac update until June. Makes more manufacturing sense.
June Release i can see.
Better CPU
Addition 1GB RAM
Better GPU
Matte Screen Option
30" Model Option
Why is everyone so sure that the iMac will be updated in June? I'm not having a go, or saying you are wrong, I've just seen so many people saying it will happen yet nothing to suggest why beyond Montevina coming out around then. I fail to see why the release of Montevina is a sre sign the iMac willl be updated.
As for things like LED screens, or 30" screen, I'd be very very surprised if that happened (especially the 30") before the next major update, i.e. new style like when the alu came out.
As for things like LED screens, or 30" screen, I'd be very very surprised if that happened (especially the 30") before the next major update, i.e. new style like when the alu came out.
Thin is OUT
I don't think an LED screen will debut until the next iMac design refresh. When Montevina iMacs are released, they'll likely retain the current design with upgraded internals. When Nehalem comes, we'll probably see a modified exterior with more substaintial updates (~Jan '09). Realistically, if I can wait until August/September for Montevina, I can't wait till January for Nehalem. My G5 is running like a champ and I need the additional pixels of the 24" more than the extra speed of the CD2. Besides, until the bus speed improves it remains a huge bottleneck in the system. The G5s have 667 vs 800 for the CD2- and no flaming as I know the Intels handily whip the G5's butt in testing. That said, the CD2s need to be freed from their laptop restrictions so they can truly achieve their potential
I'm against this thin at the expense of performance trend as well. I continue to believe that iMacs deserve desktop internals but Steve thinks iMacs are supposed to be sculptures instead of computers. When using your computer, you're looking at it directly from the front so you can't even perceive the depth of the enclosure. I have never looked at my G5 and said, "darn, if only this thing was thinner." Unfortunately, we know the next design will no doubt be slimmer (due to cooler chips) and will again receive a half a$$ graphics card. It's hard being a OSX fan when our desktop hardware is intentially crippled for no apparent reason. After all, OSX is the most important aspect of using a Mac, not the fancy aluminum casing. Jobs only cares about one thing, be the smallest in each class.
I don't think an LED screen will debut until the next iMac design refresh. When Montevina iMacs are released, they'll likely retain the current design with upgraded internals. When Nehalem comes, we'll probably see a modified exterior with more substaintial updates (~Jan '09
). Realistically, if I can wait until August/September for Montevina, I can't wait till January for Nehalem. My G5 is running like a champ and I need the additional pixels of the 24" more than the extra speed of the CD2. Besides, until the bus speed improves it remains a huge bottleneck in the system. The G5s have 667 vs 800 for the CD2- and no flaming as I know the Intels handily whip the G5's butt in testing. That said, the CD2s need to be freed from their laptop restrictions so they can truly achieve their potential I'm against this thin at the expense of performance trend as well. I continue to believe that iMacs deserve desktop internals but Steve thinks iMacs are supposed to be sculptures instead of computers. When using your computer, you're looking at it directly from the front so you can't even perceive the depth of the enclosure. I have never looked at my G5 and said, "darn, if only this thing was thinner." Unfortunately, we know the next design will no doubt be slimmer (due to cooler chips) and will again receive a half a$$ graphics card. It's hard being a
OSX fan when our desktop hardware is intentially crippled for no apparent reason. After all, OSX is the most important aspect of using a Mac, not the fancy aluminum casing. Jobs only cares about one thing, be the smallest in each class.The introduction of Montevina makes the current generation iMac's outdated and the timeframe works.
Remember when the iMac had a graphics option? The 7300 was standard, but you could upgrade to a 7600. I thought that was a great idea, but if Apple hasn't done it since I'd guess that people didn't take advantage of the option. Based on that speculation I think it's safe to say that they won't offer two cards again.
The 9600GT that was just released is a good piece of hardware, a solid jump. Unlike the 8600GT of today, which is close enough to the 7600. With any luck Apple will ditch ATI in the iMacs and go with the 9600m in the future.
On DDR3 with Montevina: Go check some benchmarks. DDR3 performance matches DDR2, because the latencies are much higher. Don't expect anything special because of DDR3.
I think WiMax is going to be part of the Centrino 2 package (Centrino is Intel's complete mobile networking solution, which Apple has never used).
The big thing about the Montevina board is that it's going to be much smaller than the current Santa Rosa board, which may allow Apple some "creative license" to make laptops thinner, or smaller if they like. iMacs won't become thinner because that would mean messing with the case, which they won't do so soon.
The 9600GT that was just released is a good piece of hardware, a solid jump. Unlike the 8600GT of today, which is close enough to the 7600. With any luck Apple will ditch ATI in the iMacs and go with the 9600m in the future.
On DDR3 with Montevina: Go check some benchmarks. DDR3 performance matches DDR2, because the latencies are much higher. Don't expect anything special because of DDR3.
I think WiMax is going to be part of the Centrino 2 package (Centrino is Intel's complete mobile networking solution, which Apple has never used).
The big thing about the Montevina board is that it's going to be much smaller than the current Santa Rosa board, which may allow Apple some "creative license" to make laptops thinner, or smaller if they like. iMacs won't become thinner because that would mean messing with the case, which they won't do so soon.
I would like to see:
$999 20" 2.1GHz/1GB/250GB/128 ATi3450
$1399 22" 2.4GHz/2GB/320GB/256 ATi3650
$1799 24" 2.5GHz/2GB/500GB/256 nV8600
$2499 24" X9000/2GB/750GB/512 nV9600*
Oh, and we can't forget this one:
$6666 30" X9000/4GB/1TB/4xnV8800Ultra
*Highly unlikely
$999 20" 2.1GHz/1GB/250GB/128 ATi3450
$1399 22" 2.4GHz/2GB/320GB/256 ATi3650
$1799 24" 2.5GHz/2GB/500GB/256 nV8600
$2499 24" X9000/2GB/750GB/512 nV9600*
Oh, and we can't forget this one:
$6666 30" X9000/4GB/1TB/4xnV8800Ultra
*Highly unlikely
the system bus increase is the main advantage of montevina, and DDR3 is an important jump over DDR2.
Exactly.
I don't care what my drill looks like. It's not a fashion statement. It's a tool. I could care less about Apple's anorexic design fixation. That's why I passed on the new MBP to go with my Power Mac.
Exactly.
I don't care what my drill looks like. It's not a fashion statement. It's a tool. I could care less about Apple's anorexic design fixation. That's why I passed on the new MBP to go with my Power Mac.
Well, one of the selling points of all mac's is that they are stylish/ascetically pleasing. All I'm saying is, the iMac already achieves the most ascetically pleasing design by placing everything behind the screen in a simplistic case, thereby minimizing the amount of desk space it covers. The thinness of the case isn't really an important factor.
I would like to see:
$999 20" 2.1GHz/1GB/250GB/128 ATi3450
$1399 22" 2.4GHz/2GB/320GB/256 ATi3650
$1799 24" 2.5GHz/2GB/500GB/256 nV8600
$2499 24" X9000/2GB/750GB/512 nV9600*
Oh, and we can't forget this one:
$6666 30" X9000/4GB/1TB/4xnV8800Ultra
*Highly unlikely
Most of these configurations are highly unlikely. Apple will stick with two screen sizes (20 and 24 or if they can keep the same price points, 22 and 26) and at least 256 GPU's.
That's true. When I was selling puters at Best Buy I would take my customers over to the Apple display and show them the iMacs and they would be absolutely astonished at the beauty and size of them. "Where's the computer?".
I sold quite a few on looks alone.But like you say, if it was an inch or two thicker, you could have the ventilation and room for a desktop mobo with a quad core cpu and a Radeon 3870 X2. Maybe in the next revision.
That's true. When I was selling puters at Best Buy I would take my customers over to the Apple display and show them the iMacs and they would be absolutely astonished at the beauty and size of them. "Where's the computer?".
But like you say, if it was an inch or two thicker, you could have the ventilation and room for a desktop mobo with a quad core cpu and a Radeon 3870 X2. Maybe in the next revision.
Did you see today's rumor mill on the front page. They're working on an even thinner enclosure. Shame. Maybe they'll do something radical once montevina drops.
I hope thats just a rumor. whats the point of a thinner imac? what good would that do?
I can understand it with an macbook air - its portable and has to be carried around, so it makes sense to make it thin and slim.
but imac? why? why not just bundle it with more power? its about goddam time, that it became at least as good as a macbook pro, now when it got an 8800 CardO_O
Yeah, and I understand the design philosophy behind it, but I feel it needlessly hampers the functionality of an otherwise wonderful computer. I hope you're right. I don't see why a company the size of apple can't offer two types of iMac chassis. iMac Pro and iMac Air.
The Pro with upgradeable desktop components and the Air with the mobile bits.
ummm...which screen to I have?
I've got a imac c2d 2.16 white imac. How do I tell if I've got a matte or glossy screen? It doesnt' seem especially bright or glossy, so i presume it's matte. But how do I tell?
I've got a imac c2d 2.16 white imac. How do I tell if I've got a matte or glossy screen? It doesnt' seem especially bright or glossy, so i presume it's matte. But how do I tell?
it's a matte screen. the alum imacs are the first to incorporate glossy displays.
Yeah, and I understand the design philosophy behind it, but I feel it needlessly hampers the functionality of an otherwise wonderful computer. I hope you're right. I don't see why a company the size of apple can't offer two types of iMac chassis. iMac Pro and iMac Air.
Well, Apple's profitability comes from streamlining the product line up. I certainly like the idea of the iMac Pro and iMac air, but I've got an idea that one ups it... the iMac (your iMac Pro with expandability) and the Mac Touch (your iMac Air). The Mac Touch would have all the mobile components, integrated touch screen and would sit on a base station similar to the iMac's stand for charging/connection to peripherals. Combines portability with a functional home setup.