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.
Possibility of new iMacs for Leopard?
- Thread starter iBunny
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say around April 2007, maybe May.
that should coincide with the release of the Santa Rosa platform and the 800MT/S FSB version of Merom.
that should coincide with the release of the Santa Rosa platform and the 800MT/S FSB version of Merom.
If your point is to buy a new iMac that comes with Leopard, then I would wager to guess the gap between next iMac and Leopard release date would not be that great. Getting a late-spring/early-summer new mac with Leopard and iLife '07 seems like a good idea.
Will there be a big price gap? Seeing as that will be the time when I should have enough money saved for one, and I don't want to add like another month on of saving.
I'm not sure what to do, I'm thinking of purchasing the 24" iMac Intel Core Duo 2 with 2GB RAM but shall I wait for the next one?
Will leopard be able to run SMOOTHLY and QUICKLY with the Intel Core Duo 2.33GHZ and 2GB RAM - Surely it must be able to.
Will leopard be able to run SMOOTHLY and QUICKLY with the Intel Core Duo 2.33GHZ and 2GB RAM - Surely it must be able to.
Of course it will. Buy one now, and if something new and wonderful comes out halfway through 2007, you can trade up. All this waiting around is silly.wasimyaqoob said:
wasimyaqoob said:
You will always be waiting with this approach. They just got refreshed. Buy now. Leopard will run fine on these, and older Macs (my wife's G3 350mhz tower was running 10.2 before we gave it away). There's no reason to think otherwise.
i have one, its a great machine. It depends on how much you need the computer, they just got an update so their won't be an updated for a while.
Since this big kicker that merom needs is the new chipset, which is available or will be very soon, it might be possible to see an iMac update to this in time for the 10.5 release. However, it isn't a guarantee. Regardless, the current model will run 10.5 without any hesitation at all. Would Apple really release something like this that couldn't be run on it's current machines? It will most likely be slower on a G3, but nothing far from terrible.
A late spring update might hold more weight, as the specs for SR will be out, but I don't see Apple actually using the entire platform as released from Intel either. They will most likely, in my best guess, use the specs and for lack of a better term "think different" with something better.
When you have the cash, get one. It will be fine for years to come, or you can always resell and upgrade if you prefer. Going that route, and given Apple's nice resell value, the cost of upgrading is much less overall. You can pay a few hundred a year, or $1500 (or more) every 3 or 4 without reselling the old one. Just depends on how you approach it.
Overall, you would be able to run the next few versions of the OS as well on the same machine. Just look at people that are running 10.3, and 10.4 on G3's still. Granted it will perform better on the latest and greatest, but it is far from unusable.
In terms you might be more familiar with, XP runs ok on a PIII 733 w/ 512MB of RAM, but it would obviously run better on the newest machines. Although who would actually want to run windows at all still confuses me, unless they have absolutely no choice (like because of job, etc.)
But hey, somebody'd going to run it, I'm just glad it isn't me.
A late spring update might hold more weight, as the specs for SR will be out, but I don't see Apple actually using the entire platform as released from Intel either. They will most likely, in my best guess, use the specs and for lack of a better term "think different" with something better.
When you have the cash, get one. It will be fine for years to come, or you can always resell and upgrade if you prefer. Going that route, and given Apple's nice resell value, the cost of upgrading is much less overall. You can pay a few hundred a year, or $1500 (or more) every 3 or 4 without reselling the old one. Just depends on how you approach it.
Overall, you would be able to run the next few versions of the OS as well on the same machine. Just look at people that are running 10.3, and 10.4 on G3's still. Granted it will perform better on the latest and greatest, but it is far from unusable.
In terms you might be more familiar with, XP runs ok on a PIII 733 w/ 512MB of RAM, but it would obviously run better on the newest machines. Although who would actually want to run windows at all still confuses me, unless they have absolutely no choice (like because of job, etc.)
But hey, somebody'd going to run it, I'm just glad it isn't me. 
Who knows really...
The new chips are 64bit the new OS will be 64bit.. no need for new chips... but perhaps some new design... my advice... if you need now buy now...
iBunny said:I know the iMacs just got refreshed, however leopard is due out sometime in the Spring - Possibly april.
I was wondering if we might see an iMac update by then?
I know no one knows, but what do you think?
The new chips are 64bit the new OS will be 64bit.. no need for new chips... but perhaps some new design... my advice... if you need now buy now...
no new design... the only thing i would change is the speakers go on the side and are meash like so you see them... this way it can loose its chinvansouza said:
I'm going with May 2007. Just like 2005. Leopard will either get a drop-in or just come preinstalled.
I personally think it would be neat if they would simply put in the Merom, thereby making machine run cooler so cooling could be more passive ie less noisy fan action.
Also, another revision to accompany Leopard that I think wouldnt be too big but still be very useful would be upgrading the graphics a little bit. Like giving all X1600 256MB standard rather than 128MB and maybe reducing the underclock relative to non-apple X1600s, if not just giving them plain new graphics. I mean, the iMac is a consumer PC (ie lotta kids and moderate gamers in target market) and it would take relatively little to have them play many FPS games much more competitively.
Either of these two revisions wouldn't outwardly constitute a major update of iMac (which it'd be to soon for), yet would elevate its desirability considerably in a low-key way.
Also, another revision to accompany Leopard that I think wouldnt be too big but still be very useful would be upgrading the graphics a little bit. Like giving all X1600 256MB standard rather than 128MB and maybe reducing the underclock relative to non-apple X1600s, if not just giving them plain new graphics. I mean, the iMac is a consumer PC (ie lotta kids and moderate gamers in target market) and it would take relatively little to have them play many FPS games much more competitively.
Either of these two revisions wouldn't outwardly constitute a major update of iMac (which it'd be to soon for), yet would elevate its desirability considerably in a low-key way.
Chundles said:
Please forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Core 2 Duo in the iMac a mobile chip, hence less speedy than the desktop version? If this is the case, why isn't Apple using the desktop version in the iMac?
Because the iMac is 2 inches thin!mdelaney123 said:Please forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Core 2 Duo in the iMac a mobile chip, hence less speedy than the desktop version? If this is the case, why isn't Apple using the desktop version in the iMac?
nitynate said:Because the iMac is 2 inches thin!
Why is this a limitation? Couldn't a heat Sync just be flattened and made wider?