Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > What do you expect from upcoming update of the iMac

What do you expect from upcoming update of the iMac
Thread Tools
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2010, 06:34 PM
 
The news of the drivers found in 10.6.4 increases expectations about an iMac update.

Mac OS X Radeon HD 5000, GeForce GTX 480 drivers leak out | Electronista

So there will be new graphics cards.

What else?

Maybe a change of design? Or adding a design without dropping the "old" one? (will there ever be two different designs on sale of the same iMac generation?)

I would love to see a kind of stealth design, an all matte and black iMac with an equally matte screen. You wouldn't even know where the screen is and where the housing is when it's turned off. It would also eliminate all the problems photographers have with the glossy screen.

How about a high end iMac with a wide gamut screen (non glossy).
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2010, 04:12 AM
 
If you read that article closely, the new drivers are for the desktop 5000 series - ie, they're for the MP. Might as well - Mobility 5000 is a minor update over Mobility 4000.

The biggest change is likely Clarkdale (desktop i5) in the low-end iMac. There is space enough in there to fit 3 chips, so Core 2 can go. The top iMac is likely to change little, except for a speed bump (i5-760 launches in two weeks, and faster i7-800 series are available).

A black aluminium pro iMac would be awesome.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 5, 2010, 09:38 PM
 
Anyone think there is any truth to the "touch screen iMac" patent that Apple filed?
I heard about that a while ago, so it may not happen anytime soon.
I personally do not see a big need for it, but I also did not think that I would use an iPad, but it get the most use out of any of my computers
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 04:00 AM
 
I think the "touch screen iMac" was the iPad with a stand.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
ajprice
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 04:27 AM
 
i5 and i7 processors for all of them. And in dreamland, a 4k resolution 'Retina Display' .

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 05:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
Anyone think there is any truth to the "touch screen iMac" patent that Apple filed?
I heard about that a while ago, so it may not happen anytime soon.
Unless it's an iMac that lies directly on your tabletop, it's not going to happen, as such a device is completely unusable beyond an initial gimmick factor.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Unless it's an iMac that lies directly on your tabletop, it's not going to happen, as such a device is completely unusable beyond an initial gimmick factor.
I agree. I think that it would be too far to be usable.
I know that on the PC side of things, they exist. I know I also never see one

One thing that I would love to see is a truly up to date desktop graphics card.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 10:37 AM
 
Desktop graphics cards are HIGHLY unlikely. The latest desktop 58x0 and GTX470-480, respectively, run extremely hot. The top mobile cards are like the 57x0 and GTX465 cards, except lower voltage and thus cooler, plus they can be added to the existing motherboard designs with zero modification. That's quite good.

The current 27" iMac uses a Radeon 4850 Mobility. That card is actually the same as the desktop 4850, except clocked slightly lower. The performance is very similar (check the binning in the table).

Valve recently published the latest hardware survey from Steam. The results are always interesting, because they present a wide snapshot of what the average gamer has in his box. The most common card is the Radeon 4800 series, which includes the 4850 as well as the more powerful 4870 and 4890, but also the weaker 4830. The next 4 cards (GF 8800, 9800, 9600 and 8600) are either equal or weaker than the 4850. Those top 5 cards include 25% of Steam customers. In fact, cards faster than the 4850 only represent 9,3% of the population, by my reckoning. There is a certain margin of error here, as the 4870, 4890 and 5770 should be included and aren't, but even if we're very generous and include half of the 4800 series and 5700 series, it still only sums up to 14% of the total. In other words, only 14% of gamers have cards significantly faster than the 4850 in the iMac. That means that a game that the iMac won't run, will also exclude 86% of gamers. I'd call that unlikely.

That doesn't mean that there isn't room for complaint. The default 4670 in the main iMac is beaten by 8 of the top 9 cards (all but the 8600, by my reckoning), and we don't know if the rate of graphics card evolution is going to pick up again, but it's looking better than it has in years.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 12:51 PM
 
Anyone think there is any truth to the "touch screen iMac" patent that Apple filed?

Unless it's an iMac that lies directly on your tabletop, it's not going to happen, as such a device is completely unusable beyond an initial gimmick factor.
I respectfully disagree. The market for touch screen displays for kiosks and POS (Point of Sale) systems is very significant.

During the last decade I managed the installation and operation of half a dozen POS setups in different store types. Over that decade observation of and interwiews with users led to touch-screen installations becoming the dominant choice.

All medium to large and some small retail and restaurant entities use POS systems that are increasingly becoming touch-screen based. Unfortunately that large market space is Windows-dominated, but IMO the market is growing and there is room for Macs.

I for one am developing such a Mac POS solution (hindered of course by lack of capital ). Existence of a touch-screen iMac choice would allow folks like me to competitively sell turnkey all-Apple POS or kiosk solutions. Such solutions being commercial solutions that are right in the public's faces every day, Apple should very much want to facilitate the concept to help grow the Apple brand into the commercial arena.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 6, 2010 at 01:19 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 01:17 PM
 
That's a pretty specialized market, and I see no indication that Apple wants to "grow the brand in the commercial arena".

Also, it's been known since the 70s that working directly on a vertical screen with your outstretched arms is simply impossible for any longer stretch of time.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
That's a pretty specialized market...
Agreed it is a specialized market, but POS plus kisoks comprise a HUGE market. And especially at the smaller-entities size range, fairly amenable to Mac-based solutions; and growing.

...I see no indication that Apple wants to "grow the brand in the commercial arena".
That may or may not be the case. What I said is that Apple should want to grow in the direction of such a large market space. IMO Apple marketing should consider any time Apple can put its logo and its obviously-superior-hardware constantly in the public eye to be a good thing.

...it's been known since the 70s that working directly on a vertical screen with your outstretched arms is simply impossible for any longer stretch of time.
Kiosk and POS activity is normally very brief data entry performed intermittently by users whose special expertise is in sales rather than data entry, which is ideal for touch-screen application. In a decade of managing POS I have heard a plethora of complaints but never one related to touch screen display ergonomics. Issues related to working directly on a vertical screen with your outstretched arms for a long stretch of time are irrelevant.

High end POS systems are normally networked, commonly with touch screen displays at the points of sale and regular keyboard input in the back office.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 6, 2010 at 02:01 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Agreed it is a specialized market, but POS plus kisoks comprise a HUGE market. And especially at the smaller-entities size range, fairly amenable to Mac-based solutions; and growing.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Apple.

The in-car stereo market is HUGE as well, but Apple only builds pocketable audio devices. So?

Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
What I said is that Apple should want to grow in the direction of such a large market space. IMO Apple marketing should consider any time Apple can put its logo and its obviously-superior-hardware constantly in the public eye to be a good thing.
I disagree entirely.

Apple is a cool, omnipresent CONSUMER brand. (It's used in professional media for many reasons that don't so much have to do with its image.)

Almost everything Apple has done in the last ten years has served to focus that target.

Apple's enterprise work has been starved, because in that market, as in any corporate market, it's not Apple calling the shots as it sees most fit, but arcane and often completely obsoleted requirements that dictate what machines must look like.

If Apple computers were to become successful in PoS devices and corporate use, this would be completely incidental.

What on earth would an Apple PoS in every other store do for the public perception but bring the company in line with HP, Sanyo, Siemens-Nixdorf (here in Germany), TI, and whatever other fugly grey box is used to punch in numbers at department stores, thus tremendously diluting the brand by causing nothing but a huge headache for the company?

Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Kiosk and POS activity is normally very brief data entry performed intermittently by users whose special expertise is in sales rather than data entry, which is ideal for touch-screen application. In a decade of managing POS I have heard a plethora of complaints but never one related to touch screen display ergonomics. Issues related to working directly on a vertical screen with your outstretched arms for a long stretch of time are irrelevant.

High end POS systems are normally networked, commonly with touch screen displays at the points of sale and regular keyboard input in the back office.
Other than a touch-screen interface on top of an ENTIRELY CUSTOM (and OS-independent) back-end (often enough running through Citrix or a local Java client), there is absolutely nothing that connects Apple with this market.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
I respectfully disagree. The market for touch screen displays for kiosks and POS (Point of Sale) systems is very significant.
Absolutely, but the market for POS systems 22" and up is probably nothing. IIRC, Apple used iMac G4 as a POS terminal - now that is a size I can see working as a POS, but not much larger. In fact the 10" iPad is probably a much better choice - smaller, cheaper, sharper image, interface made for touch to begin with... Make a POS app and bundle it with a nice stand and you're done.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 02:41 PM
 
Note too that almost 100% of existing POS systems (a market measured in $billions) are currently on XP or earlier Win versions. The upcoming mandatory major OS upgrade to Win7 means that POS vendors will be going to their customers asking them to buy major hardware/software upgrades to the POS over the next 5 years or so. When end-use clients are faced with expensive major hardware/software changes that makes potential opportunity for new platforms (Mac) to sneak in.

However IMO the biggest Mac opportunity is in first-time POS buyers which are by definition smaller businesses and hence less Win-centric.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 6, 2010 at 02:51 PM. )
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Absolutely, but the market for POS systems 22" and up is probably nothing. IIRC, Apple used iMac G4 as a POS terminal - now that is a size I can see working as a POS, but not much larger. In fact the 10" iPad is probably a much better choice - smaller, cheaper, sharper image, interface made for touch to begin with... Make a POS app and bundle it with a nice stand and you're done.
Agreed. I would expect a touch screen to be a smaller 17"-21" size. Our sales folks gravitate to 17'-19'" size range. And yes the iPad is part of my personal development plan, but many small entities start out with a single multiuse terminal and an iPad does not stand alone well if at all.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 6, 2010 at 03:29 PM. )
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 03:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Yes, but that has nothing to do with Apple. The in-car stereo market is HUGE as well, but Apple only builds pocketable audio devices. So?
So Apple does address the HUGE in-car stereo market via third-party adapters, and even folks like BMW building iPod connectivity into their cars. I assure you that when Apple was developing the iPod thinking about how such a device might gain access to the HUGE in-car stereo market was part of Apple's thinking.

Apple is a cool, omnipresent CONSUMER brand. (It's used in professional media for many reasons that don't so much have to do with its image.)
Again I disagree. IMO Apple's perceived "top-quality high-end design-pros-favorite-choice" for tower computers adds significantly to Apple's overall brand perception.

What on earth would an Apple PoS in every other store do for the public perception but bring the company in line with HP, Sanyo, Siemens-Nixdorf (here in Germany), TI, and whatever other fugly grey box is used to punch in numbers at department stores, thus tremendously diluting the brand by causing nothing but a huge headache for the company?
What it would do is (a) add sales (supported by third party entities not by Apple) and (b) put the logo and visually superior Apple hardware more in the public eye, helping in the long term to dispel the notion that "Macs do not work for business." And (c) introduce all those sales clerks to seeing the Mac OS GUI rather than the Win GUI all day long at work, which has some impact on what box gets purchased for home or for the kids.

Other than a touch-screen interface on top of an ENTIRELY CUSTOM (and OS-independent) back-end... there is absolutely nothing that connects Apple with this market.
Agreed. What connects Apple with the market is developers, who in POS typically present a complete package to clients. There are Mac POS systems now but they are specifically significantly constrained by lack of an available Apple touch-screen display. Given Apple's great expertise in iPod/iPhone/iPad touch-screen displays it is IMO an obvious value-add to developers for Apple to make a cool-looking touch screen display available. I would like to see standalone as well as iMac touch-screen displays.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 6, 2010 at 03:54 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 04:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
What it would do is (a) add sales (supported by third party entities not by Apple) and (b) put the logo and visually superior Apple hardware more in the public eye, helping in the long term to dispel the notion that "Macs do not work for business." And (c) introduce all those sales clerks to seeing the Mac OS GUI rather than the Win GUI all day long at work, which has some impact on what box gets purchased for home or for the kids.
a) add sales. Sure. This isn't what drives Apple, though, especially not if it comes at the expense of building "uncool" hardware, which a dedicated cashier terminal undoubtedly would be.

b) put the logo and hardware in the public eye, doing stuff that bears absolutely no relation to the daily reality of the people supposedly enticed into buying it.
I think a poster of an iPad on a lap, from the user's perspective, being used to check facebook, or a YouTube video, or a webpage, goes MUCH farther towards making a device relevant to my life, than a cash register.
Apple doesn't need brand awareness. They already have the highest brand awareness worldwide of ALL tech companies. What they need is to show potential customers why they're relevant.
And businesses are, for reasons I outlined above, NOT Apple's potential customers, except incidentally.
Business customers are the reason Microsoft is stuck with IE6. Business customers are the reason Windows' basic security structure is unfixable. Business customers are the reason Microsoft is stuck providing backwards-compatibility for hardware and software dating back to the primordial soup.
Apple doesn't WANT business customers apart from those who can make Apple's model work for themselves.


c) Store clerks will buy Macs for home. What the iPad/iPhone and WinCE have taught us is that the only real choice for a touch interface is a touch OS, which means an iPad derivative, not an iMac.
Also, having a custom interface running on top of a custom back-end from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. has absolutely no bearing on deciding what it's like to actually use a computer. I work at a Mac-based store that uses iMacs running PoS software through a Java client. If that were my only contact with Apple computers, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would EVER consider buying one for at home.

Really.

Never.

(yeah, that bad)
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 04:37 PM
 
... iMacs running PoS software through a Java client. If that were my only contact with Apple computers, there is NO WAY IN HELL I would EVER consider buying one for at home.
Interesting, and I do not doubt you for a moment. One thing that I have learned is that there are an awful lot of sucky POS systems out there. Generally IMO they try to do too much and then fail at everything.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 04:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
there are an awful lot of sucky POS systems out there. Generally IMO they try to do too much and then fail at everything.
Yes, but that's the point:

One system customizable to all sorts of different clients, rather than a separate custom solution from scratch for each client.

Keeps cost down and makes for a much broader client base.

The employees operating it have no choice, anyway, so they don't enter into the equation (see also Lotus Notes).
     
-Q-
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 05:30 PM
 
I think the other strong indicator that Apple has no interest in an iMac-based POS system (and never likely will): they don't use them in their own stores. Everyone uses a hand-held terminal to process payments at the Apple Store, and with more and more credit card swipers available, I think the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is the way a lot of POS solutions will head.

But I think Spheric is dead on with his thoughts about the market. It's one Apple won't mind getting some ancillary sales from, but I don't think they'll ever strongly target niche business products. Although I'm not sure Apple is entirely writing off the business market, as the last few times I've been in my local Apple Store, they've reminded me of their Business Services that my agency can take advantage of. But I don't know how much outside their traditional strengths they're targeting (as an ad agency, we are in their wheelhouse).
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 07:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by -Q- View Post
I think the other strong indicator that Apple has no interest in an iMac-based POS system (and never likely will): they don't use them in their own stores. Everyone uses a hand-held terminal to process payments at the Apple Store.
Apple does have a POS system. The nature of the Apple store model uses handhelds for POS data entry rather than fixed-location POS terminals, but that does not mean that fixed-location POS terminals are no longer appropriate for other firms (especially small ones).

...with more and more credit card swipers available, I think the iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is the way a lot of POS solutions will head.
Like I said earlier the iPad is part of my personal development plan, but iPhone/iPad/iPod cannot stand alone as any kind of complete POS solution. iPhone/iPad/iPod can be data entry terminals but need a back end. Large entities like Apple can jump directly to towers and full-time IT on the back end supporting handhelds but small firms newly entering POS usually can only afford to start with a single less expensive fixed terminal like an iMac.

E.g. a good friend owns Uncorked, a great wine bar in Squaw Valley USA. She is generally pleased with her single-terminal iMac-based POS, but it lacks touch-screen capability. If the iMac was touch screen and she wanted to expand to two terminals an iPad as a second terminal could fit right in, but the way it is now a total rewrite of the POS would be required to add an iPad, and employees would have to shift bewteen two different data entry formats.

But I think Spheric is dead on with his thoughts about the market. It's one Apple won't mind getting some ancillary sales from, but I don't think they'll ever strongly target niche business products. Although I'm not sure Apple is entirely writing off the business market, as the last few times I've been in my local Apple Store, they've reminded me of their Business Services that my agency can take advantage of. But I don't know how much outside their traditional strengths they're targeting (as an ad agency, we are in their wheelhouse).
You are correct that they may never strongly target niche business products, but Apple does not have to strongly target POS, all Apple has to do is make touch screen displays available and developers will do the targeting. Since it appears Apple may have the best touch screen display capability on the planet I think that they should make it available in something like 17"-21" size.
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 6, 2010 at 08:12 PM. )
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2010, 08:24 PM
 
I think I agree with your logic, Sierra, but if Apple were to release such an iMac they should not call it a iMac. Call it an iDisplay or something like that.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Desktop graphics cards are HIGHLY unlikely. The latest desktop 58x0 and GTX470-480, respectively, run extremely hot. The top mobile cards are like the 57x0 and GTX465 cards, except lower voltage and thus cooler, plus they can be added to the existing motherboard designs with zero modification. That's quite good.

The current 27" iMac uses a Radeon 4850 Mobility. That card is actually the same as the desktop 4850, except clocked slightly lower. The performance is very similar (check the binning in the table).

Valve recently published the latest hardware survey from Steam. The results are always interesting, because they present a wide snapshot of what the average gamer has in his box. The most common card is the Radeon 4800 series, which includes the 4850 as well as the more powerful 4870 and 4890, but also the weaker 4830. The next 4 cards (GF 8800, 9800, 9600 and 8600) are either equal or weaker than the 4850. Those top 5 cards include 25% of Steam customers. In fact, cards faster than the 4850 only represent 9,3% of the population, by my reckoning. There is a certain margin of error here, as the 4870, 4890 and 5770 should be included and aren't, but even if we're very generous and include half of the 4800 series and 5700 series, it still only sums up to 14% of the total. In other words, only 14% of gamers have cards significantly faster than the 4850 in the iMac. That means that a game that the iMac won't run, will also exclude 86% of gamers. I'd call that unlikely.

That doesn't mean that there isn't room for complaint. The default 4670 in the main iMac is beaten by 8 of the top 9 cards (all but the 8600, by my reckoning), and we don't know if the rate of graphics card evolution is going to pick up again, but it's looking better than it has in years.
Thanks a ton "P" that information is truly helpful. I guess I could have gone MacPro and gotten a desktop card, but I soooo love the iMac. I am not 100% sure about my next machine, probably a core i7 for overkill in the classroom. In the desktop space, I think that my i7 iMac will be around for a long long time. I just think that the one thing that I would like to see is much faster graphics cards as I think that is the only slight weakness of such a powerful system. I would also love to see the build to order option of an SSD for the iMac. I have seen videos of people that modded their systems with SSD and the speed difference is incredible. I cannot see myself taking my iMac apart at all, though I would love the speed bump. Oh, and my iMac/Mac setup is featured in MacFormat this month. My first time in a mag, I am so happy. Yes, I look goofy in the picture
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 12:34 PM
 
ps I know I need a new desk
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 01:03 PM
 
I find the 4850 and i5 quite OK, but I'd love an SSD option and the other iMacs really need new CPUs as well.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I find the 4850 and i5 quite OK, but I'd love an SSD option and the other iMacs really need new CPUs as well.
Which new CPU's are you talking about? The 6 core?
I have yet to stress my i7 iMac just yet. I keep iStat running to see what the cores are doing.
On the mac side of things, the 4850 is more than enough for everything that I do.
The only hiccups are in iPhoto. I have rebuilt the library and such, so I have no idea what that is about.
Aperture runs much smoother, but as a new user, I have a really tough time figuring out how to equate the stuff that I do in iPhoto to Aperture.
Where I have "issues" is when going over to Windows 7 64-bit to play games. I just think that a better card would be welcome to take cull advantage of the i7/8gb of ram and such. But I agree the heat maybe the thing that Apple looks at most.
Funny thing about the chip, when I use my MacBook Pro C2D it runs fine most of the time and the fan is low. When I open Safari 5, the fan go full blast even when I am not surfing.

I am truly hoping for SSD options on the iMac. Those videos are crazy!
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I think I agree with your logic, Sierra, but if Apple were to release such an iMac they should not call it a iMac. Call it an iDisplay or something like that.
Apple can call it whatever they like!
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 02:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
You are correct that they may never strongly target niche business products, but Apple does not have to strongly target POS, all Apple has to do is make touch screen displays available and developers will do the targeting. Since it appears Apple may have the best touch screen display capability on the planet I think that they should make it available in something like 17"-21" size.
Whatever they put a touch screen on will be running iOS, not Mac OS X.

BTW, on the subject of not needing to target business customers, this was very apropos:

iPad Taking Hold in Corporate Settings - Mac Rumors

Apple has done exactly ZERO marketing for the iPad towards business customers.
I doubt they'll change their approach and their focus, but it's fascinating to see their success and desirability *despite* this explicit NON-focus on business.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 02:17 PM
 
Here is the link to the article about my rig/iMac:
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
Which new CPU's are you talking about? The 6 core?
No, I was talking about the lower end iMacs. They need Clarkdale, the desktop dualcore Core i5 600 series instead of the current Core 2. The hexacore (Core i7-980X is the lovely name - and a Core i7-970 coming. Yes, that's a 6-core, but 960, 975 and 965 are quads. I really love Intel's new scheme) likely won't fit.

Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
I have yet to stress my i7 iMac just yet. I keep iStat running to see what the cores are doing.
On the mac side of things, the 4850 is more than enough for everything that I do.
I have the same experience. Add in the fact that it's so quiet at idle that I literally can't tell if it's sleeping or just has turned off the screen - and I have excellent hearing.

Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post
Where I have "issues" is when going over to Windows 7 64-bit to play games. I just think that a better card would be welcome to take cull advantage of the i7/8gb of ram and such. But I agree the heat maybe the thing that Apple looks at most.
There are precious few to chose from. The Mobility 4870 or 5850 add GDDR5, which is nice and brings it almost up to par with the desktop 4870. The Mobility 5870 adds some more clockspeed as well, but nothing major. I think we'll see the 5850 at some point though.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
No, I was talking about the lower end iMacs. They need Clarkdale, the desktop dualcore Core i5 600 series instead of the current Core 2. The hexacore (Core i7-980X is the lovely name - and a Core i7-970 coming. Yes, that's a 6-core, but 960, 975 and 965 are quads. I really love Intel's new scheme) likely won't fit.



I have the same experience. Add in the fact that it's so quiet at idle that I literally can't tell if it's sleeping or just has turned off the screen - and I have excellent hearing.



There are precious few to chose from. The Mobility 4870 or 5850 add GDDR5, which is nice and brings it almost up to par with the desktop 4870. The Mobility 5870 adds some more clockspeed as well, but nothing major. I think we'll see the 5850 at some point though.
Thanks again "P" you are the chip naming convention master.
I finally saw the i7 stressed today. I was encoding a video and all of the CPU's were topped out.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by solofx7 View Post

I am truly hoping for SSD options on the iMac. Those videos are crazy!
I'm curious about SSDs coming to the Mac Pro and the iMac as well.

Which videos are you talking about?

PS: What problems did you have with the graphics processor regarding iPhoto ?
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
I'm curious about SSDs coming to the Mac Pro and the iMac as well.

Which videos are you talking about?

YouTube - i7 930 @ 4.2Ghz Hackintosh on an SSD opening 56 apps in 7 seconds. (SL 10.6.3)
This is not the video that I was talking about, but this is one that I found fast. I know that it could be altered, and that it is a "Hackintosh" which I personally despise. But it opened 56 apps in 7 seconds! Yes, I know that it is overclocked and such. There are other videos floating out there with i7's and SSD's that open a ton of apps super fast. I know there is a reason that it is not offered currently, but seeing stuff like this, I would have bought it when I got my i7

PS: What problems did you have with the graphics processor regarding iPhoto ?
Well this one is a tough one to explain, sort of. Basically I put all of my photos in there, roughly to the tune of 10k or so. Basically out of nowhere it started acting funny scrolling. Skipping and such. Not sure why, I have not been able to figure out what the problem is. I have done everything under the sun that I can think of other than format - reload. I have rebuilt the library and tons of other things that I have forgotten. Nothing has made a difference and I do not think that I need to format reload and a brand new i7 27 imac with 8gb of ram... So I figured since Aperture is significantly newer I would give it a shot. Unfortunately I have not been able to figure out many of the things that I do in iPhoto in Aperture easily.
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
solofx7
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2010, 10:03 PM
 
ps. I only assumed that the issue with iPhoto was the graphics processor, but I know it could be other things...
iMac 27inch 3.4 i7 16gb ram, MacBook Air 11 inch i5 128gb, iMac 27inch 2.8 i7 8gb ram, MacBook Pro 17 inch 2.66 i7, 4gb ram 500gb HDD Seagate XT,
iPhone 4 - Time Capsule 2tb, Apple TV - iPad 2 64gb
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 04:38 AM
 
This doesn't sound like a hardware problem, solo.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 04:40 AM
 
By the way: I would welcome the option to put really good speakers into the 27" iMac.

It's generally time to give users more options in design, screen, speakers, etc.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 01:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Whatever they put a touch screen on will be running iOS, not Mac OS X.
That comment has me confused. Ignoring the rumors that Apple may rename the whole Mac OS area iOS, is not iOS a sort of subset or offshoot of Mac OS X anyway?

I would envision an Imac touch screen having touch+mouse+external keyboard entry options much like many Win POS systems. That way a manager can do keyboard inventory mods on the same workstation that a sales person does touch-screen sales on.

-Allen
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 01:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
That comment has me confused. Ignoring the rumors that Apple may rename the whole Mac OS area iOS, is not iOS a sort of subset or offshoot of Mac OS X anyway?
Wait - you're designing client solutions, and you haven't realized that the iPad/iPhone just threw overboard the foundation for the last 25 years of human-computer interaction?

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
I would envision an Imac touch screen having touch+mouse+external keyboard entry options much like many Win POS systems. That way a manager can do keyboard inventory mods on the same workstation that a sales person does touch-screen sales on.
That's perfect for a completely ordinary iMac with an aftermarket touchscreen add-on.

Why Apple should build something like that is a complete mystery to me.

Apart from that - either the poor sales person has a machine that's at a completely unusable angle for touchscreen work, or the manager has a machine that's at a really unergonomic angle for keyboard/monitor work. Take your pick. Or, you put the screen in a sliding cradle.
That concept is working so well for the HP Pavi
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
By the way: I would welcome the option to put really good speakers into the 27" iMac.
This strikes me as counterproductive. A really good speaker needs space, and lots of it. An iMac is all about being flat. The current 27" has decent speakers - certainly better than those in the last gen model - and I don't think that an upgrade will make much difference in the current space.

What I'd love to see is iSub 2010 - with aluminium styling and a PSU that doesn't boil over. Something like that could really help the audio. Another step is to separate the tweeters, put them facing the operator with those really tiny holes they have at the mic, but maybe that is taking it too far.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Wait - you're designing client solutions, and you haven't realized that the iPad/iPhone just threw overboard the foundation for the last 25 years of human-computer interaction?

Are you serious?
Yes I am serious. From the Apple Developer Center:

"In iPhone OS, the underlying system architecture, and many of the technologies, are similar to those found in Mac OS X. The kernel in iPhone OS is based on a variant of the same basic Mach kernel that is found in Mac OS X.

"The iPhone OS architecture is similar to the basic architecture found in Mac OS X.

"The basic technology stack in iPhone OS is identical in many respects to the one found in Mac OS X."


Both Mac OS X and the iPhone OS include SQLite, which means that relational database work (my particular emphasis) can be performed at a high level on both platforms. UI mods for the iPhone are not necessarily that big a deal.

Very seriously, I am interested in hearing more about why you think the iPad/iPhone just threw overboard the foundation for the last 25 years of human-computer interaction. We have had touch input and mobility for years (albeit kludgy) and to me Cocoa does not seem that different from Cocoa Touch. But I hate it when I am missing something, and recognize that other folks often have insight that I lack.

-Allen
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Jul 8, 2010 at 04:17 PM. )
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 04:27 PM
 
I'm talking about the foundation of human-computer interaction, not the underlying system architecture.

You cannot operate regular OS X through a touch interface. It'll work in a pinch (as via VNC from an iPhone/iPad), but it is impossible to actually *work* with it for any useful stretch of time, mostly due to the fact that the idea of a "cursor" is meaningless to your index finger.

You actually have to redesign EVERYTHING for touch use. This is what iOS is. It uses the underlying system architecture, but the ENTIRE userspace/interface is COMPLETELY redesigned from the ground up for cursor-less operation.

The only other option is to have a mouse-based interface, with a layer of touch interaction for certain applications, like on the HP Pavillion.
That approach fails completely, though, as it is impossible to set up and continually operate those machines without reverting to the mouse on occasion.
This is a complete failure because that doesn't *simplify*; on the contrary, it actually adds ANOTHER layer of abstraction to an already overly complex system of symbolic interaction.

This is fine if you have a "regular computer" and just fire up the touch-based app for cash register operation or something, and that's all you see during the day. But it's useless as a general (as opposed to application-specific) interface concept, and as such, I don't see why/how Apple should/could implement it in a non-broken way. Best to leave it to third parties and touchscreen accessories.

This is pretty off-topic, as it's been discussed to death in the "is the iPad revolutionary" threads, but I'll just briefly quote an explanation I made of this distinction a few months back:

[iPad] almost completely removes about four layers of abstraction between the user and the content he's consuming/manipulating.

We, sitting here discussing this, can all deal with this, as we've had to.

But it astounds me every time that people completely fail to see HOW ****ING COMPLEX even the simplest computer interfaces are - "files" (little abstract symbolic representations of the stuff I actually care about) in "folders" (little abstract symbolic representations that work nothing like real folders) in hierarchical structures (which is not how people actually think or work with personal objects), manipulated by a "cursor" (an abstract little collection of pixels that changes its look and functionality, sometimes completely, depending on context) that's moved virtually on screen by analogous movement of a plastic box on the table. "Windows" (WTF is a "window"? This room has two, and I can look through them to see other things), "menus", etc.

This is all second nature to people who grew up with it and learned it out of necessity.

We take it as a given.

Up until about 1993, all Macintosh computers came with a "Macintosh Basics" training floppy that started off with mouse-pointing exercises, moving on to clicking, and then explaining the very basic concept of the desktop metaphor.

We learn all this stuff out of necessity. (And many don't - my dad never got the hang of it, ever.)

But why should we have to?

iPad says we don't.

Apple has removed the lowest underpinnings of computing experience as we know it - the basics so fundamental that you, as a technology nerd, can't even *see* them.

That's a Big Thingâ„¢, even if it's utterly incomprehensible to most geeks.
Apple will not rename the Mac OS to iOS, because they are FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
I'm talking about the foundation of human-computer interaction, not the underlying system architecture.

You cannot operate regular OS X through a touch interface. It'll work in a pinch (as via VNC from an iPhone/iPad), but it is impossible to actually *work* with it for any useful stretch of time, mostly due to the fact that the idea of a "cursor" is meaningless to your index finger.
Now I get your point. From my personal standpoint designing database user interaction it has always been to give (generally DB-illiterate) users just a few point-and-click choices, i.e. buttons to push. Cursors have actually always been an impediment, so the UI of iOS is ideal. Also note that with intentional DB design frequently you can operate regular OS X database screens through a touch interface.

-Allen
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2010, 05:24 PM
 
That's specifically tailored application interface, though, not OS functionality.
     
Veltliner  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
This strikes me as counterproductive. A really good speaker needs space, and lots of it. An iMac is all about being flat. The current 27" has decent speakers - certainly better than those in the last gen model - and I don't think that an upgrade will make much difference in the current space.

What I'd love to see is iSub 2010 - with aluminium styling and a PSU that doesn't boil over. Something like that could really help the audio. Another step is to separate the tweeters, put them facing the operator with those really tiny holes they have at the mic, but maybe that is taking it too far.
I guess Apple can't bend the space-time continuum just yet and put high end speakers into the iMac.

But there are technologies that can improve sound even on rather tiny speakers. Aren't Bose's wave radio and some of their speakers built to that respect?

For an as good as possible sound even from a thin and flat iMac I'd pay extra.

I think your good idea of separating the tweeters would be a step into that direction. It could improve the simulation of space in audio.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 05:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
But there are technologies that can improve sound even on rather tiny speakers. Aren't Bose's wave radio and some of their speakers built to that respect?

For an as good as possible sound even from a thin and flat iMac I'd pay extra.

I think your good idea of separating the tweeters would be a step into that direction. It could improve the simulation of space in audio.
1. No.

2. You're already paying extra for an as good as possible sound even from a thin and flat iMac.

3. No.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 06:46 AM
 
1. Agree. Bose is all marketing and little action.

2. The thing is that speakers for different frequencies are different sizes. If you look at a well-built full range speaker, it often has a tiny tweeter placed on top of a bigger midrange speaker. This adds depth that doesn't necessarily need to be there. Separating the two lets you add more depth the the midrange.

3. Actually, yes. High frequencies are easiest to locate, which is why many cars have tiny tweeters hidden high up on the dashboard (I have some in the side mirror housing) with the bigger midranges down in the doors. The current iMac design has the speakers pointing down, reflecting off the desktop. If you keep the midranges there, put the tweeters in the top corners facing the operator, and add an optional external woofer, you would improve things immensely. You run the risk of the Bose effect, where the midrange gets the worst speakers, but if it's designed with the idea that you might need to cover the entire bass range as well (like it does today) if the woofer isn't present, I think it could work.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 07:57 AM
 
On 3., I meant to say "Not necessarily".

Just adding a tweeter means much more complex design, as you need a decent crossover, resonant space/insulation, plus the actual space to *put* these speakers. In addition, if you spatially separate the mids from the tweeters, you run into all sorts of phasing issues. If you're Bose, you compensate for basic design flaws or inferior material or failed concepts by adding psychoacoustic trickery, but thankfully, Apple aren't Bose.

If you intend to just stick tweeters down in where the current speakers reside, you're probably better off keeping the current (decent) full-range speakers as they are.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 08:32 AM
 
Tweeters are less important, but an iSub-like solution would help a lot.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
kylef
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2010, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I find the 4850 and i5 quite OK, but I'd love an SSD option and the other iMacs really need new CPUs as well.
Your wish has been granted.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2010, 02:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Tweeters are less important, but an iSub-like solution would help a lot.
BassJump Subwoofer - BassJump Subwoofer - Twelve South

Got one of these for my MacBook. Works fine, works with iMac too.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:28 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,