When are Apple going to properly update the iMac?

[Lexlee]

As for the comments someone made about the iMac screen being crap - nothing could be farther from the truth! The screen is gorgeous! And I say this as someone who never thought they could ever use a glossy display until I went to view the iMac prior to buying it... Some people just can't accept glossy displays ( I thought I was one of them) but after seeing it in the flesh I was sold on it.

So, in summary, now is as good a time as ever to buy an iMac. It is very unlikely to be upgraded in the near future (maybe same time next year) so if you want one then just buy it now - you won't regret it!

I laughed out loud when I read that my 24' iMac screen was crap. I just walked through Best Buy and thought how much more gorgeous my screen was then the majority of other monitors.

The average consumer like me does not need Quad Core. I can rip a dvd with handbrake, watch a movie on iTunes, have Hulu full screen, mail app, safari and firefox, VLC, and video chat all at the same time with out making my 24' iMac stutter. I did all this just to test the system and it's a beast.

 

[Mike in Kansas]

Guys - no need to get all defensive and uptight. This inflammatory post was the OP's first post on here and he has yet to reply. He's just out there to stir the pot, then step back and watch us all jump over ourselves trying to prove him wrong. Just move along...

 

[Lexlee]

Guys - no need to get all defensive and uptight. This inflammatory post was the OP's first post on here and he has yet to reply. He's just out there to stir the pot, then step back and watch us all jump over ourselves trying to prove him wrong. Just move along...

His post reminded me of Kramer from Mad Money explaing how he started Apple rumors to try and effect the price of the stock.

 

[belvdr]

Guys - no need to get all defensive and uptight.

Who is doing that? All I see are some opinions and comments.

 

[pinchy]

For some reason I thought the iMac display was the same as the ACD. Dang it! How do the two displays really compare?

 

[Lexlee]

For some reason I thought the iMac display was the same as the ACD. Dang it! How do the two displays really compare?

I went to my local Bestbuy and played with every Mac in the store. I was blown away by the 24' iMac screen. I would find some place to test out the machine before you laid any money down. You can't go by these forums. Most people around here have agendas that have little to do with the quality of Apple products.

 

[iMacmatician]

when are we going to see an iMac with Quad-Core processing

Early 2011. Earlier if we're lucky.

If Apple could have released a quad core iMac and still be within the same heat envelope and at the same price point, they would have done it by now.

They'll probably be dual core since quad cores in laptops generates too much heat and take up too much space(you can google quad core laptops and you'll realize they are all 2"+ thick).

Quad-cores are 45 W, cooler than the previous iMac's 3.07 GHz dual-core (55 W). And while the 2.27 GHz and 2.53 GHz versions are expensive ($851, $1038), the 2.0 GHz version is only $348, cheaper than a few dual-cores.

For comparison, the CPUs the iMac is using are 2.67 GHz ($316 for 35 W, $348 for 25 W), 2.93 GHz ($530), and 3.07 GHz ($851). (I don't know if they're using the 25 W CPUs or the 35 W ones.)

I think that if Apple really wanted to put quad-core in the iMacs, they would have upgraded the cooling for the 65 W desktop CPUs, or used the mobile ones even as options. But it almost seems like they're holding off on quad-cores for the consumer segments for as long as possible - hence my "early 2011" prediction. Snow Leopard might change things, but as my signature says, I won't be optimistic on that (for now).

If I went slightly more optimistic, I might say quad-core iMacs with 32 nm versions of Clarksfield in mid-2010.

 

[Whackintosh]

I went to my local Bestbuy and played with every Mac in the store. I was blown away by the 24' iMac screen. I would find some place to test out the machine before you laid any money down. You can't go by these forums. Most people around here have agendas that have little to do with the quality of Apple products.

The 24 inch Imacs have beautiful screens, but I do find the LED ACD screen is even more impressive. In all likelihood, calibration can make them both look close enough to one another that the differences shouldn't be deal breakers.

 

[RemarkabLee]

Early 2011. Earlier if we're lucky.

Quad-cores are 45 W, cooler than the previous iMac's 3.07 GHz dual-core (55 W). And while the 2.27 GHz and 2.53 GHz versions are expensive, the 2.0 GHz version is only $348, cheaper than a few dual-cores.

I think that if Apple really wanted to put quad-core in the iMacs, they would have upgraded the cooling for the 65 W desktop CPUs, or used the mobile ones at least as options. But it almost seems like they're holding off on quad-cores for the consumer segments for as long as possible - hence my "early 2011" prediction. Snow Leopard might change things, but as my signature says, I won't be optimistic on that (for now).

If I went slightly more optimistic, I might say quad-core iMacs with 32 nm versions of Clarksfield in mid-2010.

Perhaps they are waiting to replace the entire consumer range with quad cores so it will be easier for consumers to get a relative understanding of performance by looking at the GHz number alone.

 

[iMacmatician]

Perhaps they are waiting to replace the entire consumer range with quad cores so it will be easier for consumers to get a relative understanding of performance by looking at the GHz number alone.

Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know if I've posted this before, but I think that by 2011, quad-cores will be cheap enough and each core will have enough performance (probably 2.0 GHz is too slow) for Apple to get them into all the iMacs, and they'll do one big change then.

But I just realized that the 2.67 GHz dual-cores are already $3xx. Maybe it's because of the big gap in price between the 2.0 GHz and 2.27 GHz, most of the line would be 2.0 GHz.

Hopefully the 32 nm Clarksfield will help here.

 

[RemarkabLee]

Exactly what I was thinking. I don't know if I've posted this before, but I think that by 2011, quad-cores will be cheap enough for Apple to get them into all the iMacs, and they'll do one big change then.

But I just realized that the 2.53/2.67 GHz dual-cores are already $3xx. Maybe Apple is getting discounts on the 2.53 GHz? (The 2.0 GHz in the 2007 iMacs was $241.)

I guess they'll need to sort out any cooling issues on the Macbook range first and then follow up with the Mac mini and iMac. Consumers will invariably compare the performance between the two so they'll want to make the switch as close together as possible. 2011 is a long way off though, by then I'd have thought Corei7 in the consumer range!

I'm sure Intel would want this new tech out as soon as possible to distance themselves away from AMD.

 

[iMacmatician]

I guess they'll need to sort out any cooling issues on the Macbook range first and then follow up with the Mac mini and iMac. Consumers will invariably compare the performance between the two so they'll want to make the switch as close together as possible. 2011 is a long way off though, by then I'd have thought Corei7 in the consumer range!

I'm sure Intel would want this new tech out as soon as possible to distance themselves away from AMD.

First of all sorry for the edits, I keep having to clarify/correct myself.

I agree with the MacBook comparison in that when it first got dual-core, its clock speeds were the same as the iMac's (to the surprise of many).

Core i7 is for the high-end desktop market, if you meant Nehalem, then it'll be here in Q3 2009 for mobile quad-core (Clarksfield, 45 nm) and Q4 2009 for mobile dual-core (Arrandale, 32 nm). But the thing is that Clarksfield doesn't seem to help (much) in price or TDP compared to quad-core Penryn. The lowest-end Clarksfield will reduce its TDP by 10 W, although that would probably make it more expensive if anything. I'm hoping the 32 nm shrink of it will help with both prices and TDPs, opening the door to quad-core iMacs and MacBook Pros. My guess of 2011 is on the pessimistic side.

I think that if the MacBook can handle 35 W (currently it uses 25 W), the switch would be fairly close together. If it can only handle 25 W, then who knows.

 

[TTTT]

Not iMac Pro but Mac Pro Lite

What is really needed ia a lower end machine in the Mac Pro Line
with fewer features. This would allow the use of quad core NON-MOBILE processors which are readily available, and allow power gamers, and animators, such as myself a good machine they could actually afford to buy.
Apple is also hurting their business market by failing to meet the needs of the mid-level user who needs customization without a workstation price.

Pricing could be shaved by using a smaller tower, one network card, fewer drive bays and ports, but allow for upgradeable video. Price it around 1700, with no monitor and you have a machine that can be customized and upgraded(..how big will the displays get in two years??) and also keeps the machine usable for longer and doesn't put the machine in the landfill when the display tanks.

 

[GoCubsGo]

What is really needed ia a lower end machine in the Mac Pro Line
with fewer features. This would allow the use of quad core NON-MOBILE processors which are readily available, and allow power gamers, and animators, such as myself a good machine they could actually afford to buy.
Apple is also hurting their business market by failing to meet the needs of the mid-level user who needs customization without a workstation price.

Pricing could be shaved by using a smaller tower, one network card, fewer drive bays and ports, but allow for upgradeable video. Price it around 1700, with no monitor and you have a machine that can be customized and upgraded(..how big will the displays get in two years??) and also keeps the machine usable for longer and doesn't put the machine in the landfill when the display tanks.

You're never going to get a smaller tower. Sorry, but between the iMac and Mini I'm pretty sure Apple thinks they have it nailed.

 

[TTTT]

I don't think it's likely either, but I think the people complaining the most about the new imacs are gamers and people who I would classify as pro-sumers, or small-medium enterprise users, who actually know the hardware in the imac they are not buying belongs in a laptop. Apple seems to have made the decision a long time ago not to give their customers that choice. I just think they are wrong, imho.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I don't think it's likely either, but I think the people complaining the most about the new imacs are gamers and people who I would classify as pro-sumers, or small-medium enterprise users, who actually know the hardware in the imac they are not buying belongs in a laptop. Apple seems to have made the decision a long time ago not to give their customers that choice. I just think they are wrong, imho.

Sorry but even though I am a mac user at home I still believe a PC (aside from PS3 and Xbox) is where it is at for gaming. I know ... flame away.

 

[TTTT]

I agree, the PC has an edge on gaming right now. I'd have to pay the price for a workstation to get a serious gaming machine on the mac. Personally, I'm into 3D animation not gaming, but the needs are similar, we both need good graphics, and processor speed and I think a moderately priced desktop box or tower would fill a lot of needs. A lot of design companies I deal with have complained that they want more flexible machines but don't have the budget for Mac Pros