A few new rumors point to two new NVIDIA-packing iMacs
By Tim Stevens 
posted February 24th 2009 8:03AM
posted February 24th 2009 8:03AM
[Thanks, iB3nji]
posted February 24th 2009 8:03AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
hurry up already, I want a new iMac
second!!
The only thing that makes me go "ooh" is the price.
Also, what exactly is "new" about those "specs"?
(C2D, lol)
'The only thing that makes me go "ooh" is the price'
Did you think that over? You mean the price is attractive? Nice.
Me myself however can live with it.
It makes me go "Ohhh damn it!"
I just bought a 24" iMac 3 days ago!
Just sell it a week before they release the new ones, there are plenty of people not aware of that and you can charge 'full' price.
My question now isn't necessarily when we will start to see more NVIDIA Macs popping up. My question is how legal action between Intel and NVIDIA may have affected such things as a larger Core i7 iMac and any possible hardware updates to the Mac Pro.
The issue is going to be resolved. Trying to shove nVidia out of the game would hurt them in the long run. Consider it like a much larger game of "Well, if I buy Product A cheap at Wal*Mart, then the guys making Product A get less money, so they can't spend as much at my plumbing business." and pretty soon AMD has all the money while Intel and nVidia look at each other going "It's YOUR fault!" These companies have economic advisers for a reason, and I REALLY doubt they're being ignored in this economy.
Core i7 in an imac will never happen.. The current Core i7 platform draws TWICE the power as the current C2D iMac. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a quad-core "Lynnfield/Clarksfield" (nehalem) iMac later this year...
No quad core?
No core i7?
probably an old nvidia...
"make everyone go "ooh." "
ooh well.
iMacs use Intel mobile chips, and there's no mobile Core i7 yet, so...
A "high-performance" graphics isn't going to help the fact that most decent video games aren't released for OSX.
That's OK. Most Mac users are busy working or doing real life stuff like working with photos and movies of their real life friends and family, burning home DVDs, etc.
It will make all of the graphic designers and video editors happy though...which is one of Apple's main demographics.
Yeah, it's a shame they can't fit an Xbox 360 inside an iMac.
Shame that Macs can't run Windows...
Oh wait.
/Facepalm
Trizz,
Get real.
What self-respecting designer (and by designer I am referring to CAD based designer) worth his weight in 3ds Max, Blender 3D, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, Maya, Houdini, XSI, AutoCAD 3D, would ever in their wildest dreams prefer to use an iMac to get the job done?
You do know that the NV cards that come with these are not even the Quadro models, and whatever NV cards they do get will already have been out for the PC at least half a year ago.
Late as always to the game and yet having the audacity to charge people a premium for their tardiness and inadequacy -- Apple
Kizorblade,
Shame that Mac hardware still plays catchup to PC hardware, and that more powerful hardware can always be had on the PC side of things.
Shame that on top of having already spent more than you should have for an Apple logo, that you now have to go out and spend another $150+ for a Windows license.
Shame that you could have just built your own PC or purchased one and saved hundreds upon hundreds in the process and had more up to date hardware and officially supported parts that are made to run Windows most efficiently.
Trizz... no it wont because they still insist on only using those horrible glossy screens which are a pain in the neck in every day use unless you work in a dark room, and even more of headache when you try and use it for any kind of colour critical design work - unless of course your ok with the extra expense and hassle of hooking up a decent external display.
@Takamalak
Working? Editing photos? Burning DVDs? Sounds dull. I'd rather be having fun playing games with my friends.
I don't even understand the point you were trying to make, Hamidxa. Most of those programs you mentioned are available for Macs.
Uh, Blender 3D, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, and Maya are all available for OS X.
And let's not forget Vectorworks, SketchUp, ZBrush, ArchiCAD, PowerCADD, Cinema4D, Avid Media Composer, Adobe After Effects, Ableton Live, Audacity, and Reason are all available for the Mac.
Of course PowerCADD is only available for Macs, are well as all these apps below.
Final Cut Pro, Shake, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Color, DVD Studio Pro, Cinema Tools, Compressor, Logic Pro, Main Stage, Studio Instruments, Studio Effects, and Aperture.
Also, let's forget that most sound studios use Macs because CoreAudio gives them better sound latency than Windows is able to do.
Just saying. Stop exaggerating. It makes you look like a liar.
PAC Man,
The point is obvious, every single one of those multi-platform apps runs FASTER on a PC (since we get the hardware first and many a time hardware that doesn't see the light of day on a Mac for 1+ year if that) and no self-respecting developer would ever use an iMac as his primary CAD system, period.
Where is the Quad Core on this?
Where is the i7 on this?
Where is the Quadro FX on this?
Get the picture now?
hamidxa,
You're talking about very niche software. Some are so niche that they're more likely to be run on *nix than Windows.
The number of graphics professionals that rely on Adobe products vastly outnumbers those doing cad, so why do you narrow the term "designer" to that category?
These people don't need workstation graphics, but they do need a stable OS and a consistent platform to ensure accurate color.
Many, if not most, self-respecting designers use Apple products.
awholeian,,
Not as many "designers" as before.
The trend has for several years been moving towards the PC.
Ask yourself this question for starters,
Why is there a 64 bit Photoshop available only for the PC/Windows but not for Mac/OSX?
@ Hamidxda
Been a professional designer for over 10 years. Been a Mac user for over 15 years.
No self respecting designer uses Windows.
Period.
Some of the programs may technically run faster on Windows, but then you've got the OS itself slowing down productivity.
hamidxa,
I'm not sure where you're getting your info about the trend towards pc for designers. Apple's market share is growing but I'll concede that this is mostly due to home users.
As for 64 bit, this was because at the time Apple wasn't done making a 64 bit version of their carbon api. Adobe had every intention of released it on both platforms at the same time.
Hamidxa is just trolling. He knows that Apple is moving Adobe toward using the Cocoa API for the next version of Creative Suite. He just depends on most readers of Engadget not doing the proper research. In other words, he thinks everyone is so ignorant of the facts that he can just say anything nasty about Apple and get away with it.
He's been doing that for several weeks now. The last time I was here, he lied and said that Spacetime 3.0 wasn't available for the iPhone.
Dude, we're watching you and we know you lie.
Maybe he's just jealous because his home built PC sucks teh ass?
Allow me to refer you iFans to this article:
Why use a Windows PC for web design? Five reasons: 1) Internet Explorer, 2) Visual Studio.NET, 3) Adobe Photoshop 64 bit, 4) lower price and 5) additional software. Each of these items are unique to Microsoft Windows.
Internet Explorer versions 6 and 7 have a combined market share of over 52%, with Firefox consuming another 39% of the market, according to April 2008 data from http://w3schools.com . In other words, during the month of April 2008, over 91% of people who browse the web use either Internet Explorer or Firefox, both of which are available in Windows. While your website design should not be browser-dependent, when designed for users of Internet Explorer and Firefox, it should meet the needs of 91% of your audience.
Visual Studio.NET is a tool that is used by web designers who are not only designing 1) the front end of a website, but may also write 2) the logic that provides functionality to the website, and 3) the database where content and user data is stored. Visual Studio.NET provides a set of tools that not only allows a single user to design all three parts of a complex website, but to allow that user to collaborate with others on the same website project.
Adobe Photoshop 64 bit is the next version of Photoshop that front-end web designers will use to create web graphics. The 64 bit version will allow users to manipulate larger graphics with shorter processing times. The 64 bit version of Photoshop will be available exclusively for Windows Vista 64 bit.
Price should also weigh in your decision to buy a Windows PC. PCs are available from a wide variety of vendors, the competition helps keep the costs of hardware down. The cost of a robust Hewlett-Packard desktop PC (model a6414f with a 22 inch LCD monitor and a 3.0 GHz processor) would cost just over $700, while a comparable iMac would cost about $2,200 (model MB324LL/A with a 20 inch LCD monitor and a 2.66 GHz processor).
PCs have always been known for the vast amounts of free and paid software. Professional web designers will tell you that they have a virtual tool belt of software that they use to do their job. Many of these pieces of software are essential to their daily work. Items in their tool belts include software that may only be available on a PC.
There are many more compelling reasons to use a PC for web design. Some of those reasons were presented here. Do your research, and you will be compelled to purchase a PC.
Google: hamidxa troll
@Hamidxa: I don't know what site your looking at, but an iMac with 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duo w/4 Gigs of RAM and 750GB HDD costs 1799 which is $400 less than what you posted. Also considering that they are about to be updated, the specs will be even more improved.
Children must play, adults must work.
Oooh, look at me. I'm a gamer and I killed a bazillion virtual zombies today. World, here I come. Haha.
"Why use a Windows PC for web design? Five reasons: 1) Internet Explorer, 2) Visual Studio.NET, 3) Adobe Photoshop 64 bit, 4) lower price and 5) additional software. Each of these items are unique to Microsoft Windows."
I don't even use a Mac, but this argument is stupid
- it is very simple to run windows XP in a VM for browser testing, Visual studio (if ASP.NET is your thing) and other windows only software.
- 64-bit Photoshop is completely unnecessary for web design unless you are very odd and need 5 million files opened simultaneously.
- price-wise, iMacs and Mac Pros are certainly a rip-off when they near the time before an update, but they are quite competitive in cost when newly spec'd.
The only thing that held me back from buying the last gen iMac is the fact you can't use the monitor for anything else. There are zero inputs and that makes it an expensive paper weight when the computer specs go out of date..
If they'd just throw in a couple inputs they'd also be able to sell the thing as a TV/Video game screen for the kids' bedroom.
When the computer spec go out of date this (current iMac) will be the only computer I will ever be keeping from all the computers i have ever had.... Imagine it sitting in your kitchen, with only the power cord coming out and the little remote to use it as a stereo through frontrow..... perfect!
So much for "all-in-one." I agree, some sort of AV input would be helpful, maybe not for everyone, but in systems where you have more than one device to display, it would be. The glossy display is ridiculous where you don't have excellent light control, which is in most places, and what is with no VESA mount? I'm not an Apple hater either; I'm typing this on a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo 15" MacBook Pro, with a matte screen. I won't be replacing it if glossy is the only option.
"that doesn't take up your desk space" Yeah.... no totally not Apples way of wording things LOL.
Whats the big deal with this? I mean I have had an NVIDIA iMac for nearly a year why do people keep going on about a supposed minor spec bump like its some kind of innovation, Apple have had NVIDIA iMacs for ages what is the big deal, I mean sure its nice to get a bump but people go on about it like its going to revolutionise the iMac by having the exact same graphics manufacturer as it did for the last 10 months?
I gotta ask:
Where's the 30" model?
The only reason I didn't pull the trigger on an Imac last year was the lack of a matte option. If the new Imac's continue to have glossy screens then it's a damn shame.
I don't get it either. Cue Lo Pan. . . .
Saw this exact sticker at the mac stand in John Lewis in Edinburgh yesterday, YES the present iMacs have Nvidia graphics.
THIS IS NOT NEWS.
I hope they do update the imac with some new and exciting. I the new intel chip i7 will be install instead of the old core 2 duo processor. In addition, if the display screen is causing problems for customers apple should consider their needs and if its an help issue it should be dealt with as soon as possible. I also hold apple design a better wireless keyboard with an number pad as well as a new mouse that click's or better technology that detects when the right or left is click without the scroll ball, because it tens to get dirty. I know there's the mighty mouse but it doesn't look like its works when it comes to right and left click. But i am still planning on buying a Imac whether or not they update it or not I need an new computer for school. Although Apple computers still need improvements I still will buy and Mac over an windows machine that's not saying that Mac's are better then PC I just prefer a Mac. But you got to admit Apple computer's are expense but they are worth it because of the design and technology that apple has put into it. furthermore, Imacs price have drop a little and hopefully in the future it will drop again.
New nvidia cards!?! Let me guess: the 20inch has the 9400, the 24inch has the 9600, and the most expensive 24" has the 9700.
Whatever. Where's the new mini?
Something just doesn't ring true about that leaked image. I certainly hope it's fake. If Apple really does go ahead with another dual core iMac it'll push me over the edge into hackintosh territory. I have two friends who've been running Leopard on quad core PCs for over a year now. One of them has a pair of 30" displays and develops Mac software on an old Intel Q6600 based PC. The other runs Leopard Server on rack mounted Dell.
For those who are commenting, but don't pay attention to basic physics, the Core i7 cannot be put into the current iMac case because there simply isn't any way to cool such a hot chip in such a tiny space. Apple is all about "thin" even when it doesn't make any sense.
What I expect in the iMac is the new 9550s and the lower clocked members of that low power family of chips.
Don't they already have this in their imac's. Example: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 1GB memory 250GB Hard-drive 8x double-layer SuperDrive ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory. So what's the differences, its doesn't say anything about what type of processor or new chip is going to be put into this Imac. And another thing when is apple going to upgrade their SuperDrive to 16x because 8x is way to slow. In addition, they also need to see about investing in Blu-ray if they can some how come up what an quiet and easy solution to making the drive fit and as well not slow your computer down. I don't think they could do this for their laptops at this moment but may be with the Imac they could. Blu-ray disk can hold so must data from music to video and will be great when it comes to backing up your HD. I just hope they update what the latest technology and new advance displays and intel chips. I Just hope its very soon, I know june is just around the corner.