[Eug]

If they do release a quad core model, it's gonna be pretty hard for me to wait until the new Mac Pro is also released before deciding which to purchase. However, I think I should wait, just to be sure.

Tomorrow is a Tuesday...

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Incidentally: it is completely impossible to procure an Apple Wireless Mouse in Hamburg at the moment. Absolutely noone has them in stock.

I wouldn't be surprised if the new mouse looses the ball (and their awful failure rate) for a larger/more sophisticated touch surface. Something like the newer Blackberries that replace the ball with a small trackpad.

[Spheric Harlot]

From 2007:

AppleInsider | Next-gen Apple mouse may dump scroll ball for touch housing

[Eug]

AI: Apple warns of near-term iMac, Mac mini constraints

Apple this week began informing its direct sales channels that several of its desktop-based Mac offerings have entered a period of constraint, further hinting that Mac hardware updates are on the horizon.

P.S. I converted about 11 mins of 47 Mbps H.264 video to ProRes 422 yesterday for editing. It took over 40 minutes on my 2.33 GHz C2D iMac. Ouch. I don't know how much of it is my hard drive speed and how much of it is my CPU, but I'm only getting 130% CPU usage. It was roughly 3.8 GB of video clips --> 16+ GB, on the same hard drive.

[P]

Not knowing any details about your config, I'm going to guess that your problem is a combination of insufficient RAM bandwidth and high latency. Nehalem is known to improve video encoding speed significantly.

[Eug]

2.33 GHz iMac Core 2 Duo. It was the top-of-the line 24" from 2006, with the 7600 GT 256 MB.
iMac6,1 with 667 MHz DDR2, maxed out at 3 GB.
T7600 Merom

Maximum 500 GB hard drive, with Seagate ST3500641AS 7200.9. I think my hard drive (which is nearly full) is only getting about 40 MB/s write speeds, which is actually slower than my newest Compact Flash card.

BTW, Merom T7600's TDP is 35 Watts. And this thing is basically silent, even at full tilt.

[P]

The full hard drive might be a possible culprit. Full HDs have fragmented free space, which hurts video encoding. Archiving some things out to clear up some space should help.

[Eug]

Not much to go on but:

The Netherlands-based Google Ad Sense ads, which can be seen below along with their Dutch to English translations, cropped up on Google.nl earlier this weekend and direct shoppers to the localized version of the Apple Store, where the advertised products are not available.

In recent weeks, Apple has informed its direct and indirect sales channels of constraints on MacBooks, iMacs, and Mac minis. Many of the company's resellers are also sold out of iMacs and Mac minis and have been given restocking estimates of October 7th and 9th for those two products, respectively, suggesting a formal announcement regarding these Mac hardware refreshes could come as early as this Tuesday.

Some Apple retail stores also reportedly received new signage in the past 48 hours that's not to be opened or displayed until further notice.

Mac mini:

English: Apple's New Mac Mini. Faster and more affordable than ever. From only € 499. Order immediately.
Note: The cheapest Mac mini currently sells for € 599 on the Netherlands online store.

[Eug]

John Gruber sez no Blu-ray in new iMacs.

My updated if-I-were-a-betting-man wagers for upcoming Apple hardware announcements: all-new iMacs, all-new low-end (plastic) MacBook, new keyboard and mouse, speed-bump/price-cut Mac Mini update. Scratch that previous bet on Blu-ray in the iMacs, though — the old word on the street was that it was in; new word is that it’s out. Hope you like the iTunes Store if you like HD movies.

That might be another reason to go Mac Pro. I'd just put my own drive in the Mac Pro as the secondary optical drive (assuming it's easy to do). Can't watch movies, but it'd be good for backup... that is, if the media were cheaper.

[P]

Since I never believed we'd see Bluray anyway, I'm not surprised at all. I do think this means that the release is imminent, though - Gruber rarely posts those notes until just before launch.

More interesting were these:

MacBook: Thinner, lighter and faster! Free delivery. Order today.
iMac: Ultra Thin 20 & 24 inch models. From only €1099. Apple Store
Mac mini: Faster and more affordable than ever. From only €499. Order immediately.

The first is the most interesting. A case change for the Macbook? No rumors about that, so I think it will just mean that the 13" MBP will turn into a 13" MB again. Thinner and light could mean a netbook-ish computer, but not if you add faster into the mix.

The iMac is the most disappointing. Wouldn't they at least mention faster if we got Nehalem? There is some hope that it's only the 20" that is Ultra Thin, but I think we'll just get a new mouse and a thinner case. €1099 is the same price as today.

The Mac mini one pushes the price, so most likely we get something very similar to what we have today at a lower price.

[slugslugslug]

Actually, AppleInsider's been claiming for a while now that Apple's gonna keep the 13" plain-ol'-MacBook around and in plastic, with an imminent update to the case.

I'm kind of excited about the Mac mini. At $500, I might just buy one to use at work and just RDC into the Windows boxen when I need them.

[Simon]

Yeah, we're about to see a new plastic MB. Maybe they dropped the optical and then reduced the thickness. I hope they can push the price to $899. A low-end model at $799 would be even better, but that most likely won't happen.

[Eug]

My understanding is that although the Mac Pros are due for an update, the truly reasonable Xeon 5500 series processors are up to 2.93 GHz at 95 Watts TDP, which the Mac Pros already have. The W5580 and W5590 chips are 3.2 and 3.33 GHz, but have a TDP of 130 Watts.

There is a 32 nm update pending (Gulftown), which would give us slower clocked 6-core chips 5600 series chips (for up to 12-cores in a single machine), but those aren't due out until 2010 Q1.

Is that correct?

If so, then the most imminent release may just be that 45 Watt TDP Xeon L3426 quad-core iMac. If so, I would consider it, especially if it meant I could get it in October instead of having to wait until 2010 for a more expensive quad-core Mac Pro.

[mduell]

Yes.

If there is an L3426 iMac, I wonder if Apple will advertise it as a Xeon or just as an Intel Coresomething processor.

[Eug]

Hmmm... L3426 quad-core + Blu-ray + Firewire 800 (already on iMac) + eSATA would almost make it a no-brainer.

However, even if it didn't get Blu-ray or eSATA (as I'm guessing the next iMac will have neither), just having the L3426 quad-core might make me jump in.

[Eug]

I'm a little confused about the reported pricing.

Xeon L3426 1.86/3.2 GHz with 8 MB cache: $284
Core i7 Mobile 820QM 1.73/3.06 GHz with 8 MB cache: $546
Core i7 Mobile 720QM 1.60/2.80 GHz with 6 MB cache: $384

Whatever the case, the pricing for the Xeon is likely quite reasonable for iMacs.

[mduell]

Yea, the pricing by segment/tier has some weird results sometimes. Usually not so egregious at the same power level.

[Eug]

It was pointed out to me (again) that there is no low frequency mode on L3426.

So, for that reason it would make a poor MacBook Pro CPU, but it would still do very well in an iMac I think, and would actually advantageous to use because of the much lower cost.

[P]

I wonder how much that low frequency mode will do, though. Remember that inactive cores will still be disabled to give the possibility to turn on turbo, and turbo only turns on as required. In effect, that means that cores will be disabled as load drops. There is C1E and there is EIST, so the clockspeed will be adjusted downwards in any case. Not sure how far down it goes, and I guess the RAM won't be dynamically underclocked, but still: This is no desktop CPU from the nineties going full blast all the time.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

I wonder how much that low frequency mode will do, though. Remember that inactive cores will still be disabled to give the possibility to turn on turbo, and turbo only turns on as required. In effect, that means that cores will be disabled as load drops. There is C1E and there is EIST, so the clockspeed will be adjusted downwards in any case. Not sure how far down it goes, and I guess the RAM won't be dynamically underclocked, but still: This is no desktop CPU from the nineties going full blast all the time.

I think that low frequency mode would help a lot in a laptop. On battery, the max utilization might thus just become 37 Watts, as opposed to 55 Watts. A huge improvement, putting it almost on par as the lower clocked non-Extreme Core i7 Mobile chips (which are at 35 Watts when in low frequency mode).

However, in an iMac, it seems much less useful.

To utilize L3426 in Apple's top-of-the-line iMac model, that would mean it's an orphaned logic board in their lineup. However, that doesn't seem like a big deal to me. IIRC, Apple has no problem doing this, I assume because they ship a high enough of a volume of these consumer Macs to make that much less of a cost concern.

P.S. According to the Macrumors Buyer's Guide, we have now hit 225 days since the last iMac refresh, back at the beginning of March 2009. The average is 220 days.

---

More suggestion that there will be no Blu-ray in new iMacs:

Hardmac.com : Le "Macbidouille" in English - Native Blu-ray Playback in Mac OS X: Right Owners Block Implementation

After having struggled with implementing security (DRM) at the Kernel level, Apple keeps pressuring all patent owners of those technologies in order to obtain a one-for-all (understand unique) licensing contract covering all aspects related to Blu-ray technology.
This is far from being an easy task, as it implies several companies such as Sony, but also Microsoft (for the VC-1), and all right owners for the associated protections (DRM & Co).

[Eug]

There is a 32 nm update pending (Gulftown), which would give us slower clocked 6-core chips 5600 series chips (for up to 12-cores in a single machine), but those aren't due out until 2010 Q1.

It's almost as if someone over there is reading this thread.

Future Mac Pro: Apple to Enjoy Short-Term Exclusive Use of Future Xeon CPU?

According to one of our sources, Apple is finalizing the future Mac Pro models. They are currently testing the last evolution of Xeon CPU, known as Gulftown, that Intel only demoed a couple of times so far.

We currently do not know if all future Mac Pro models will be using this hexacore Xeon or if Apple will keep quad core XEon for the entry level model.

However, we know that the motherboard will be modified and especially sport a Ethernet 10 Gbits/s port, and those Mac Pro will support 8 and 16 GB RAM modules (vs. 4 GB today) to push the maximal memory that could be installed in the future Mac Pro to 128 GB. According to our source, the new models could be unveiled early 2010, giving Apple a short-term exclusive use of the new hexacore Xeon which should only be entering mass production for Q2 2010.

[Simon]

Next iMac to use Core i7 after all? | Electronista
Blu-ray pulled from new iMacs at last moment? | MacNN

Meh.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Blu-ray pulled from new iMacs at last moment? | MacNN

Translation: We have no clue, but mentioning Bluray brings more pageviews, and by first saying that it's in and then maybe out, we get twice the pageviews and can claim that we were right either way.

[Simon]

Indeed. "Rumors" sites hardly have anything worth writing about these days.

[Eug]

^^ Yeah. However, they still seem to pull in the readers... including the mainstream press nowadays. Mirror: New iMac: Blu-ray not included

BTW, I'm all backed up and was so close to putting up my iMac up for sale today. However, I just can't take the chance of being disappointed. I think it's rather likely the iMac will be getting a quad, but I get the sinking feeling that L3426 is a pipe dream, and the slower Core i7 will represent the high end chips. That wouldn't be so bad, except that I also think there won't be any Blu-ray (like the the rumours claim) and there won't be any eSATA either.

Plus, I don't like the chin on the iMacs anyway. It raises the screen height too high on the 24" iMac IMO.

[P]

There are VESA mounts available for that - in fact, I'll probably get one of those for the next iMac I buy.

Thing is, Apple seems to be focused on cost at the moment. If they're changing the chipset anyway, why not go for that Xeon? Or a special model - Intel has made specials for Apple before, for the iMac and the Macbook Air. There is also a certain amount of wishful thinking these, because if Apple doesn't go to for that, we'll get... what? Arrandale is looking less interesting the more I learn of it. The top model, Core i7 620, has:

• Memory controller still not on the die. We'll have to see for this does for latency.
• GPU is minor update to 4500MHD: Clocked to about the same as a desktop model and 20% more hardware doesn't make it into a 9400M, even.
• No nVidia chipsets, so no integrated GPU better than that ever
• Clockspeed peaks at a T9550 (ie, middling MBP)
• no word on whether there's an IOMMU at all, but likely not since not even all the desktop Lynnfields have it.
• AES new instructions. Couldn't care less.

With Clarksfield being essentially the upper echelons of the high-end and Apple pushing price, the best Platform for a future iMac or MB might be... Penryn+9400M. To tide us over until Sandy Bridge. Is this the old PPC curse again?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

There are VESA mounts available for that - in fact, I'll probably get one of those for the next iMac I buy.

Very good point. I might just have to get that, will a table clamp mount.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Thing is, Apple seems to be focused on cost at the moment.

Which is why I wouldn't be surprised to see the iMac remain mostly dual-core with maybe one high-end (BTO) Clarksfield model mainly for marketing purposes.

If they're changing the chipset anyway, why not go for that Xeon? Or a special model - Intel has made specials for Apple before, for the iMac and the Macbook Air. There is also a certain amount of wishful thinking these, because if Apple doesn't go to for that, we'll get... what?

Right on. While not entirely impossible, it does sound like a lot of wishful thinking. I was writing a lot about that gap ("white space") in Intel's mobile roadmap a few months ago here. Well, this is exactly what that white space means for Apple world. The iMac is the one Mac that will really suffer from this. The dual-core mobile options are meh, and the quads are either expensive or too hot for the iMac's anorexic design. Basically Intel's lackluster effort for 45nm quads and Apple's inability to use desktop CPUs for a desktop computer combine to make a really nice mess.

Arrandale is looking less interesting the more I learn of it. The top model, Core i7 620, has:...

But if we're honest Core i7 620M is actually a very likely candidate for the iMac. It's cool, inexpensive and will beat the current top-end Penryn at 3.06 GHz.

With Clarksfield being essentially the upper echelons of the high-end and Apple pushing price, the best Platform for a future iMac or MB might be... Penryn+9400M. To tide us over until Sandy Bridge. Is this the old PPC curse again?

Indeed sticking with Penryn could be an option albeit not very likely since it'll be tough to market. IMHO the current iMac line-up is too spread out anyway. Both in price and in minor feature differences. I think they should go back to two main models: a 20" model with a 9400M for the budget segment and a 24" model with a dedicated GPU on the higher end. Then let people BTO GPU, HDD, and clock to max out their 24" iMac. That would allow Apple to advertise low base prices and still let the iMac cover the segments it does today. With such a line-up keeping Penryn would be easier. Of course savvy buyers are still going to notice the fastest iMac has the same CPU as a BTO iMac did one and a half years ago.

IOW I don't think sticking with Penryn is any likelier than going with Arrendale. But the Xeon sounds likes a stretch and Clarksfield is so expensive, Apple doesn't have a whole lot of options if they need to lower the cost.

Of course in the end they only have themselves to blame. The fact that they made the iMac so thin w/o obvious reason apart from Steve's esthetics ideals, forces them to make a desktop with mobile parts. And right now that's one hell of an uphill battle with Intel. They have very fast and inexpensive desktop quads, but the mobile CPUs are either very expensive (and still very warm) or dual-core. In principle now would be the perfect time for the iMac to become a true desktop in terms of CPU and chipset. Not that I believe that will actually happen though.

[Eug]

I really don't understand why an iMac must be so thin, esp. since the base adds so much depth to it anyway. I don't think anyone (except Steve and Jonathan) would complain much if the machine (not including the base) were 1 cm thicker.

That said, I'm not sure having a 1 cm thicker box would make significantly higher power CPUs that much more feasible. Definitely not 95 Watt chips anyway, without increasing noise.

However, I do winder if a thicker box could mean a smaller chin. I still long for the ergonomics of the lampshade iMac...

[P]

We don't need 95W, but 65W would be nice. 65W is the desktop Conroe TDP, and also that of the newer energy-efficient quads like the Q9550S. Intel generally sets the same TDP for all CPUs in the same family, but that's bullshit. TDP scales linearly with clockspeed, and if the L3426 Xeon is 45W at 1.867 GHz, 65W puts us at almost exactly 2.67 GHz. It's not quite that easy, as higher clocks often mean slightly higher voltage, and TDP scales with the square of the voltage, but it's close. 2.67 GHz happens to be the clockspeed of the Core i5 750, the current sweet-spot of Nehalem performance.

The thin iMac was a great eye-opener, but the effect you get from making it even thinner is minor by now. This is why I think that maybe you could make edges thinner but keep the thickness (or even increase it) in the center. This effect could be much more pronounced on the 24", obviously. Maybe that's the the way forward - ultra-thin 20" with Penryn+9400M to be replaced with Arrandale down the line somewhere, and a 24" with a Lynnfield or Clarksfield and discrete graphics.

[Simon]

More speculation...

HardMac: Event-free update tomorrow, iMac will most likely remain powered by a Core 2 Duo

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

More speculation...

HardMac: Event-free update tomorrow, iMac will most likely remain powered by a Core 2 Duo

Yeah, I was about to post that. However, the point of the article was that there may be an iMac update tomorrow, not that they knew anything about what would be in the update. Their C2D comment was pure speculation.

[Simon]

I'd go so far as to say their entire article is speculation. Hence my comment.

[P]

Cook as much as confirmed that there will be an update before Christmas, though: Projected air freight costs are way up, and that was stated to be due to getting products in place before Christmas. Combine this with a record quarter for Mac sales, three quarters of which was portables, and the iPhone and iPods already updated, the obvious one to update is the iMac or the mini and preferably both - or something completely new. Cue tablet speculation.

[slugslugslug]

I think Gruber nailed it (too lazy to link, see rumors thread in the lounge) and new iMacs are due tomorrow (as well as minis and MacBooks and mice). I just wonder if his ‘impressive’ w/r/t the iMac means Quad-core or just a really cool new design…

[Eug]

He seems rather peeved:

Dan Lyons Apparently Thinks Yours Truly Hasn’t Heard About the Redesigned Plastic MacBooks, Redesigned (‘Impressive’) iMacs, Updated Minis (Including One That Ships With Mac OS X Server), the Multi-Touch Magic Mouse, and, as the Wildcard I’m-Not-Sure-I-Really-Believe-It-Myself Out-There Rumor, Maybe Even Some Sort of Mentioned-Nowhere-Else-But-in-This-Very-Headline Multi-Touch Trackpad Gadget for Desktop Macs That Apple Is Set to Release Tomorrow Morning

Unseemly for the Fake Steve character to be so wrong (or, frankly, even to care) about what I know.

[slugslugslug]

Maybe because he keeps linking favorably to Fake Steve posts lately, but Lyons only mentions him by way of mockery…



You know, I’m not all that embarrassed to keep such close track of everything Apple does and is rumored to do. But when I realize how much I’m aware of the arcane personal dynamics of people who write about Apple, I feel a little silly.

[Eug]

[P]

There is an AppleInsider post mentioning a 21.5" iMac with 3.06 GHz CPU (Penryn dualcore then, presumably) and a Radeon 4670. That is actually an attractive machine at the right price.

Also mentioned are new base stations/TC and speedbumped minis.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

There is an AppleInsider post mentioning a 21.5" iMac with 3.06 GHz CPU (Penryn dualcore then, presumably) and a Radeon 4670. That is actually an attractive machine at the right price.

Also mentioned are new base stations/TC and speedbumped minis.

MC207LL/A - K84 BEST BTR- USA
MC238LL/A - MAC MINI 2.26/2x1GB/160/SD/AP/BT-USA
MC239LL/A- MAC MINI 2.53/2x2GB/320GB/SD/AP/BT-USA
MC340LL/A - AIRPORT EXTREME (SIM DUALBAND) - USA
MC343LL/A - TIME CAPSULE 1TB (SIM DUALBAND) -USA
MC344LL/A - TIME CAPSULE 2TB (SIM DUALBAND) - USA
MC408LL/A - MAC MINI 2.53/2x2GB/1TB/NO ODD/AP-BT-USA
MC413LL/A - IMAC 21.5"/3.06/2x2GB/1TB/4670-256MB-USA
MC434LL/A - APPLE VESA MOUNT ADAPTER
MC461LL/A - MACBOOK 60W MAGSAFE POWER ADAPTER - USA

If real, I hope the 21.5" is just the base model iMac. BTW, 21.5" is a common 1920x1080 screen size. However, the pixel pitch is a bit on the small side for a desktop, at least with an OS that is not resolution independent.

P.S. It's sure taking a long time for the Apple Store site to get back up. This better be good.

[Simon]

Yeah, that better be the low-end model at no more than $1299. A $1099 it would actually be a very decent iMac.

[Eug]

LOL

isapplestoredown.com

[JayPaulie]

Can I replace the Nehalm processor to another one? In other words, the highest one Apple offers is a 2.8GHZ i7, I want to replace it with a 3.33 i7. Think it's possible?

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by JayPaulie 

Can I replace the Nehalm processor to another one? In other words, the highest one Apple offers is a 2.8GHZ i7, I want to replace it with a 3.33 i7. Think it's possible?

Possible. Does it use the same socket as the iMac?

[Eug]

No. Wrong socket.

The fastest for the iMac's socket is 2.93 GHz... which would be a pointless upgrade from 2.8 GHz (assuming it even worked).

[JayPaulie]

Ahhh, I see. Fair enough. I'll just settle for the 2.8 I guess. :/. Man if only iMacs were customizable...I would probably squeal of exitement. Haaaa.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'm due (maybe) for a new iMac in 2009, and the 45 nm i7 Nehalem chips seem like those will be in the new iMac then.

However, I'm wondering if it might just be 4-core. It seems from the various descriptions that quad-core will considered mainstream with this CPU. Still, it does seem like a big jump for the iMac line. Whaddya think?

I'm guessing 2-core for the base models, and then higher-end quad-core models. If so, a higher end quad-core be perfect for me. I use some CPU-heavy multi-threaded apps (like video encoding) so having the extra Hz would be great, and having the extra cores would also improve system responsiveness when using these apps (assuming the hard drive and bus are fast enough). I'm also quickly outgrowing my 500 GB internal drive. 1 TB would be nice. (I already have three external desktop hard drives, but I use one as a general backup drive, and another as a Time Machine backup drive. The third one is a small one I just use for specific backups, etc.)

A 10+ GHz 1 TB 24" consumer desktop with 4 GB RAM sounds pretty good.

Originally Posted by mduell 

Eh, make it 2TB and 8GB.

Heh. You called it.

[mduell]

16GB man... didn't see the 4 memory slots coming.