Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Blu-ray actively competes with AppleTV and iTunes. That's why it will not be included for a very, very long time (whatever SJ says publically).

SJ has always been anti-gaming, and gaming capacity has never been anything but a ephemeral desire with Apple. Apple wants gaming in the sense that gaming should come to Apple on Apple's schedule. And having a high-end card gives the Mac Pro another selling point to the hardcore (note the occasional poster on Macrumors saying they got the Mac Pro instead of an iMac).

Apple has always had Firewire, as a holdover from it's graphic artist days. It's starting to drop Firewire to save money in a recession, not because it's an inferior protocol.

Quad-core is a pretty big selling point to the average consumer however.
 
Ok, so even though Tallest Skil keeps being quite the sarcasm bastard (really its annoying), he has a point. F*ck the whole idea of anybody putting any pressure on Apple any time at all. Netbooks; Apple chills. Monteniva? Apple just gives a semi update. And you know what, its working out just fine, 'caus, you can say whatever you like about their strategy, everybody is still buying their stuff.

I'm truly sorry that what I say just happens to be reality.

No, seriously, I am. I want them to be pressured into actually being innovative and ahead of the curve on things other than just design again. They focused on EVERYTHING with the original iMac. They were incredibly forward thinking with that thing; no floppy, no legacy ports, crazy design...

They just need to catch the "bleeding-edge hardware" wave again, is all.

Get us some USB 3.0 before anyone else, give the Mac Pro FireWire 3200, pop some eSATA on the pro products...

But not Blu-ray. That's just dumb. :cool:
 
It is completely possible that Apple puts an i7 in there. The i7s are scheduled for gaming laptops in the summer of 09, so putting it in something bigger than a laptop is completely feasible, and Apple getting an intel product before hand is completely possible also.

These updates using an nVidia board aren't speculation, they are fact, and chances are that the nvidia tech in the iMac will use something like SLI when it is used. If I had to guess the "low end" 24 in will replace the lowend 20 specs, and the highest end iMac will be at least an i7 with a nVidia chipset, and probably a nVidia 9800GT 512MB. It is incredibly possible to do this, especially at the price of the highend iMac.

Now I don't think they will use nothing but i7s, but I also don't think they will go to the lowerend quadcores iNtel has been using either.

As for Blu-Ray, Apple will have to comply and put Blu-Ray burners in at least the Mac Pro. It will probably be incredibly costly, but it will happen this year.
 
Is some variant of quad-core still the most likely processor to end up in this next iMac rev? Or is there really nothing else they can get but a small Penryn speed bump? I'm not too up-to-speed on the current Intel lineup.

Also, Tallest Skil- why are you so certain Nehalem won't be put in an iMac until next year? I thought Calpella / Clarksfield is still due to be shipping in Q3/Q4 '09. Wouldn't that be the iMac-friendly flavor of Nehalem?

Maybe I'm just hoping against hope, but I really was counting on that for 2009...
 
Is some variant of quad-core still the most likely processor to end up in this next iMac rev? Or is there really nothing else they can get but a small Penryn speed bump? I'm not too up-to-speed on the current Intel lineup.

Also, Tallest Skil- why are you so certain Nehalem won't be put in an iMac until next year? I thought Calpella / Clarksfield is still due to be shipping in Q3/Q4 '09. Wouldn't that be the iMac-friendly flavor of Nehalem?

Maybe I'm just hoping against hope, but I really was counting on that for 2009...

The quadcore in the speedbump is unlikely, I can see them putting quadcores (none-i7) in the lower end models once the iMac goes i7 but not before, such an architecture change would be too much work for a bump.

Nehalem could be in 6 months, it could be in 12, it could be in 18, the only thing that suggests they'll come sooner rather than later is how the current iMac doesn't have much life left in it in way of upgrades.

They could put true Montevina chips in the current iMac (Right now they're Penryn's overclocked to pretty much the same spec) with a bit of a ghz boost and better consumption, that combined with a memory upgrade up to a max of 6 or 8gb, and 9xxx graphics cards would be a decent bump.

They'll either speedbump then wait till the end of 09/first half of 2010 or ignore the speedbump and get those i7's in late summer/autumn.
 
The i7s are scheduled for gaming laptops in the summer of 09...

Q3 2009.

and Apple getting an intel product before hand is completely possible also.

They got Woodcrest two weeks early. That's it. I don't see why they would get anything else early.

As for Blu-Ray, Apple will have to comply and put Blu-Ray burners in at least the Mac Pro. It will probably be incredibly costly, but it will happen this year.

They don't have to comply with anything. It won't happen until 2015. Don't question me; I have a logical argument.

Also, Tallest Skil- why are you so certain Nehalem won't be put in an iMac until next year? I thought Calpella / Clarksfield is still due to be shipping in Q3/Q4 '09. Wouldn't that be the iMac-friendly flavor of Nehalem?

Yeah, Clarksfield is due for Q3/Q4, but I take it that it will be Q4 before production, so it would be a late Q4 release if it's this year.
 
thanks for the info. i guess i'll just keep my fingers crossed that intel can start pumping out clarksfields in time for a holiday 09 iMac refresh... COME ON INTEL!!
 
If I had to guess the "low end" 24 in will replace the lowend 20 specs,
I'm assuming you mean the other way around? Although I'd say that's a fairly optimistic spec bump.

and the highest end iMac will be at least an i7
No Core i7. Too hot.

Now I don't think they will use nothing but i7s, but I also don't think they will go to the lowerend quadcores iNtel has been using either.
We'll be lucky if we get any quad-core in any iMac besides the highest-end one.

Is some variant of quad-core still the most likely processor to end up in this next iMac rev? Or is there really nothing else they can get but a small Penryn speed bump? I'm not too up-to-speed on the current Intel lineup.
Either one will work, depending on what Apple wants to put in there. Quad-core prices I believe are similar or lower than equivalent GHz dual-cores. But we may not see quad-cores in the 20" iMacs for heat reasons.
 
Oh joy, how I remember the arrogance of being a 19 year old:p:p:p

Apple doesn't like the licensing and HDCP. While I haven't read too much into it, I don't see a change in the Blu-ray DRM policy any time soon. Perhaps it won't even happen until the 400GB Blu-ray disks are mainstream and we're watching Super Hi-Vision movies with them. Little segue here: Super Hi-Vision compressed to MPEG-2 is 600Mb/s. I don't want to get into all the conversions and size changes here, but this will be available as a release on Blu-ray disks FAR before the U.S. broadband network can manage something of this nature for downloads (much less STORAGE on a computer as Apple wishes!); heck, FIOS maxes out at only 50Mb/s right now! Now, when our televisions are 7680x4320 (Super Hi-Vision resolution), 1080p video downloads in iTunes will have just become available to everyone (available in terms of the affordability of broadband speeds fast enough to handle such a download in a reasonable amount of time, in addition to having computers with the storage to hold said videos in iTunes... We'll have seen the demise of the 20" iMac by then, because it would be bad marketing in Apple's eyes to make a screen below 1920x1200 resolution). But, as I said, the availability of 1080p for download on the fly (hard to imagine now) will be made somewhat insignificant by the onset of 7680x4320 movies on disks and such a download would take over 10x the time needed to go to Wal-Mart and buy a 400GB Blu-ray disk with said resolution movie on it.

So, in a roundabout way of saying it, when Super Hi-Vision is the new standard for video resolution, that is when we will see Blu-ray in Macs, because nationwide broadband will NOT be able to catch up in time barring the discovery of a true room temperature superconductor. And not the one they have right now. That thing just barely hits what scientists call "room temperature" (room temperature to them is "above the liquefaction point of nitrogen" so that the material–a ceramic, in this case–can be cooled to the point of superconductivity very cheaply).

Wait... where was I going? Okay, Super Hi-Vision... 400GB Blu-ray disks... a room-temperature superconductor for nationwide broadband infrastructure... oh, yeah.

We'll see Blu-ray in Macs around 2015. :D This date is based on the first adoption of Super Hi-Vision as a broadcast format (Japan in 2012 for TV), a cheapening of those 400GB Blu-ray disks (because of mass production), and TV manufacturers' greed toward the American people, because once we ALL have HDTVs, they'll break out the "Oh, 1080p sucks! Here! Look at 4320p!" argument and we'll start to see that resolution of TV come out. Of course, the first 7680x4320 Blu-ray movies will have to have 1920x1080 copies on the disk as well, for backwards compatibility for people without Super Hi-Vision TVs yet.

But... we MIGHT see it earlier. I just think my argument has a decent level of merit. I hope it wasn't too confusing! :eek:



Whoo! More typing! Okay, Blu-ray isn't the "little guy". Blu-ray is the next majority. Blu-ray is the next tyrant. Blu-ray is the next DVD. Blu-ray will be the format for disks for YEARS to come, thanks to its continued expandability. Sure, we have 25 and 50GB disks now, but there are 400GB disks (read the above for more) in the works, as well as a 1TB version later on (for those longer Super Hi-Vision movies :D).

Happy?
 

I'm very happy thank you for asking;)

However quoting your own previous posts doesn't actually justify your conjecture and you really need to learn to edit an argument more concisely to prevent it bordering on a rant - the point you are trying to make gets lost in the word count.

Also, why is it that when ever any one mentions Blu-Ray people immediately assume we all want it for HD video. In the hear-and-now Blu-Ray is pretty handy for archiving data of any description such as, in my case, FCP projects.

spcdust
 
No, they dont. They did perfectly fine before the latest and greatest was released.

Not even games have been pushing the limits of todays latest and greatest hardware.

1. There is no such a computer that can run GTA IV smoothly. Not even the latest can run it at high graphics.

That's the cruel truth man
 
Also, why is it that when ever any one mentions Blu-Ray people immediately assume we all want it for HD video. In the hear-and-now Blu-Ray is pretty handy for archiving data of any description such as, in my case, FCP projects.

People assume we want it for HD video because that would be the deciding factor in getting Apple to give it to us. They care about the consumer–the home user.

In case you hadn't looked around recently, Apple couldn't care less about the professional scene. I talked briefly in another thread about how important backups are still done on magnetic tape cartridges. An 800GB/1.6TB cartridge runs around $40. How much do those just-beginning-to-be-produced 400GB Blu-ray disks run?

The deciding factor here is still cost. Apple is operating under the impression that anyone who needs to be doing important backups will be using magnetic tape drives connected to their local server (the data being backed up over the network) and not using 25GB Blu-ray disks. It will be easy for them to keep this idea going even after 400 and 500GB Blu-ray disks are produced en masse because of their continued high cost. I kept the full content of my other post because each of those points is important for its own reason. Now I'm even having to add information regarding tape cartridges. I could trim transitions, but it doesn't flow as well that way.

The point is, Apple is looking at more than just HDCP in their decision to exclude Blu-ray from their machines. I'm not saying that they're right in not just giving it to us, but rather that they're thinking about it... perhaps even too deeply.
 
Mhmm... well, I suppose this goes back to that old addage: "All your carefully researched arguments based in fact can be easily ignored."

They wouldn't if you spent a little care on trying to come across as nice as possible.
 
They wouldn't if you spent a little care on trying to come across as nice as possible.

You've confused being nice with being an Apple Realist. Years of nothing but disappointing computer updates either makes you jaded to the idea that Apple might actually release anything that some people deem "good" or it makes you into a "kool-aid drinker", constantly defending Apple on their decisions.

I try to deliver the truth as flatline as possible, but if people refuse to see that Apple no longer cares about computers, then it's best to keep them from getting their hopes up for no reason based on fact.
 
Years of nothing but disappointing computer updates either makes you jaded to the idea that Apple might actually relese anything that some people deem "good" or it makes you into a "kool-aid drinker", constantly defending Apple on their decisions.

It shows ;)
 
IMHO the iMac will disappear. It's never been anything more than a Macbook in a bigger enclosure. Now that the MacBook/Pro and the 24" screen are available the iMac is redundant. Glad I didn't buy one.
 
IMHO the iMac will disappear. It's never been anything more than a Macbook in a bigger enclosure. Now that the MacBook/Pro and the 24" screen are available the iMac is redundant. Glad I didn't buy one.

So... they're going to get rid of the computer that saved them from bankruptcy in exchange for a more expensive, convoluted, not-all-in-one-and-therefore-against-Steve's-wishes system?

Oh, and in the process remove a desktop from their line?

Mhmm.

The Mac Mini is a desktop MacBook. The iMac is a desktop MacBook Pro.
 
what is going on

Well new iMac set to arrive in feb or jan.. no body knows except APPLE.

and yes needs an update on that but it wont be huge update on imac in terms of design wise .. yeah nvidia chip set to be in imac but lets not forget.. just the macworld conference just finish and if imac is close to released they would have released in the conference on the 6th Jan or talk about it and tell us about the changes.. well there is was no talk about imac and inside news is imac wont be coming out very soon as apple have released their notebooks just little while ago and as a financial point of view its not good time to released any more product..

and imac the high spec is fantastic with speedy processor with speedy video card 24" LCD... great machine!


there will no imac update very soon as last update was in April 2008 and it will be in mid of this year now

there will be always new imac new macbook pro new macbook .. we wont be able to decide ever if we keep thinking that way.. get your self a machine what you need for

at this point i think 3.06 imac is fantastic machine with 4 gb ram nvidia video card for games, video editing and other hard core work you want to do.

thanks..
PS.. just generally speaking.. whats wrong with current models anyway that user are can;t go to sleep to get their hands on new imac?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.