Apple launching new Mac Pros, speedbumped iMac, new Cinema Display and maybe the Magic Trackpad tomorrow?
By Nilay Patel 
posted July 26th 2010 3:06PM
posted July 26th 2010 3:06PM
[Thanks, Travis]
posted July 26th 2010 3:06PM
Apple Magic Trackpad
Apple Mac OS X Lion
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.
I hope this turns out to be true. I would take an iMac over a custom built PC anyday
@EnergyPigeon
these things are so powerful and so sexym but way too much money for what they're giving you. Apple has always been behind when it comes to video cards.
@EnergyPigeon
lol, i hope you are being sarcastic.
@John Stathakis
I agree with the fact that they are WAAAAAY more expensive though. Not a fanboy, but just apple preference.
@John Stathakis eh.. we use mac pros at work doing vfx and motion graphics. they've always held up really well. maybe if youre a gamer or something but you could always just buy the card you want i guess..well.. unless you go imac - then i guess yeah - youre right.. a lil stuck. haha.
@system22
I hear if you put your finger over that gap towards the top it slows down the cpu
@John Stathakis
I don't think they have been behind because they don't know what's up. The company is an engineer company through and through. I think they just play their game differently.
Apple knows computer like a motherfucker.
IMHO, the issues lies with the progressive geeks who want everything all the time.
But that's my 2 cents
@EnergyPigeon
You're kidding right. An iMac is essentially a desktop laptop.
@EnergyPigeon
Seriously? You would rather buy an epic Mac desktop over having the joy of building your own little bad boy from scratch?
@rutter9 That's a problem for the whole industry.
@EnergyPigeon
This would be awesome, because I am quoting new Mac Pros at work.
This would just be in the nick of time to get the latest stuff.
@rutter9 Wow.. you're so original.. how much time it took you to come up with that one?
@EnergyPigeon
Touchscreen iMac? Let it be!
@TheMrE yeah - that jokes getting pretty tired these days.
@shoman24v
Not really. Full desktop i5 or i7, 3.5" 7200RPM 1 or 2TB drive, 21" or 27" LED backlit H-IPS panel. Laptops don't have those.
@John Stathakis
The problem is that they are absolutely NOT that fast. The Intel V8 platform was a dud, hence the lack of mainstream adoption.
There are inherent memory limitations, and everyone else figured out that you were much better off with a single faster quad-core, especially one that could be overclocked.
They were further seriously lacking on the GPU front.
If it were available for bargain basement pricing, one could overlook these issues, but when you're paying such a huge premium you should have premium expectations.
@Jack
I saw a tear down of one and they didn't look like desktop components to me. Maybe the HD, and CPU, but that's it.
http://guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/UZQRO2ARtsvgaDkP.huge
@shoman24v
HD, CPU and screen. Aren't those the main bottleneck components of laptops?
@John Stathakis Expensive compared to what? Until someone else comes out with another iMac, Apple can price them what they please.
I think the argument that Mac's are expensive and/or just for artists kinda died out years ago. Go into any Apple store and you'll see that most people purchasing a Mac are the average person that does not want to mess with all the hassle that comes with a Windows machine.
Cheap is expensive when your time is wasted fighting with your machine.
@Ducman69 my 8 core here at work seems pretty damn fast. its pushing all my graphics/3d apps pretty well. running two dell 24" widescreen monitors at full hd. can run 4 copies of after effects at the same time with no trouble. what are you comparing to?
im honestly just curious (by no means trying to flame or be negative, promise!) cuz i've never really got the impression of slow with it and you probably know what you are talking about. in fact i was impressed enough to want to buy one for home to replace my win7 box. cheers.
@Ducman69
Yes, actually, they are that fast. I'm not sure what memory limitations you're talking about, but OS X has no problem using all 8 cores. This ain't Windows we're talking about here. As far as GPUs, Apple offered a GTX 285 as soon as it was available. Not sure how that qualifies as "being behind".
Furthermore, these Xeons were very, very expensive. I know it's popular to think Apple overcharges people for the hell of it, but Intel was charging over $1,000 PER CHIP for these. You don't actually expect Apple to lose money on Mac Pros, do you?
Now whether they should have used i7s or not is a separate argument. They used Xeons = Xeons are super expensive.
@EnergyPigeon Lol take an imac with last years hadware over a custom built pc you have full control over? Not to mention you can build an imac for 1000 bucks less and with all the bells and whitles.
You are a MORON of epic proportions.
@EnergyPigeon
this is the kind of news i like!! Need a new iMac for my office.
@pspitts No offence but Apple is a marketing company first; engineering a distant second.
@lerxst
Really? How are they marketing the Mac Pro? Please provide examples.
@EnergyPigeon STHU Noob, You can build an even more powerful system with about half the price. You just go ahead and get ripped off.
@FrankDTank
Unless you are an expert engineer and craftsmen, that custom built pc will be an ugly box running crappy PC software. You might be able to put similar components in a box for $1000, but that isn't an iMac.
@system22
Don't misunderstand me, its not some netbook, but its a poor performer for its class, THAT is the issue.
Intel worked with Apple to create the motherboard design that the Mac Pro has been using all this time, and then offered a near identical clone up for sale. Wonder why almost no one uses it? IT SUCKS!
The reviews and benchmarks on it from a performance, cost, and efficiency standpoint were piss poor. Simply put, they found that a higher clocked single quad-core processor offered far better performance in every real world condition a desktop could be placed under, save for a few artificial benchmarks. If its true for the near identical clone, its true for the Mac Pro.
Apple needs to abandon this failed motherboard design and switch to a single faster quad or six core processor that doesn't suffer from the shared memory issue between the two processors and locked low clocks.
Get 64bit support for CS5 and FCP in OSX ASAP, get some gdamn TRIM support and SSD optimizations in Snow Leopard (these are mainstream now, get with the program) to host the OS, and at Apple's pricepoint they could easily offer a very reliable single i7 980 six core running 4.5Ghz in an updated silent watercooled chassis, and please PLEASE opt for a nice PSU and GPU combination out of the box.
Other than the fact that you can run OSX legally on the Mac Pro, there is NO reason to buy that hardware at that price for a power desktop user.
Engadget: We will review these when they come out and give them the standard apple 9/10 scores.. so stay tuned!
@Ducman69
Considering the world's biggest 3D development houses, Pixar notably, seem perfectly happy with them, I doubt it's an issue for lower prosumers.
@Almo Final Cut Pro is their software of choice for some time. What possible alternative did they have unless they completely abandoned the software platform?
What, they are going to switch to iMacs? I don't think so.
And this total stagnation in the FCP and Mac Pro platform is part of the reason that Adobe has gained such tremendous ground in the last year.
For example, the popular hit movie Avatar was edited entirely in the Adobe CS5 suite.
@lerxst
wow, stupid statement of the week!
Dirk & Pratt are asking you shut up now so you don't embarrass them further.
@EnergyPigeon Custom PC = Powerful. It would cost more money to make is more aesthetically pleasing PC. An Imac is damn sexy.
@Bacchus027
I have a Macbook Pro, 2 Mac Minis and 2 iPhones, and I decided to try building my own Mac Pro, since I've always felt that Mac Pros are overpriced, and I have a couple of cinema displays to use with it. It was very easy to build and install osx, cost me less than a grand, and the case, while not as beautiful as a real Mac Pro, is simple and clean. Snow Leopard runs great on it, and it is FAST. I've come to the conclusion that I'll stick to laptops when buying Mac hardware. Building "hackintoshes" for the desktop is the way to go!
@John Stathakis
Actually the latest 27" iMacs have pretty sweet graphics cards.
The thing about the iMac is that you're getting a giant, LED-backlit, IPS display, the highest quality in the industry, which would easily cost $1000 on its own, and then an awesome computer inside it to boot. Then the bluetooth keyboard and mouse, and the added convenience of having only one wire for your entire setup, not to mention the thing is fucking sexy.
There's a reason why it costs more than Jo Blo's custom PC, and it's not the Apple logo.
@Ducman69
Agreed. And this false argument about "fighting" your Windows machine is just that: false. Generalizing against every single Windows machine doesn't help the argument.
The Apple buyer believes that they're purchasing a system that won't require them to think, is easier to use, and more reliable than a Windows PC. However, all three of those assumptions are incorrect. Windows is just as easy-to-use and reliable as OSX. For every hardware issue a PC has, there is an identical issue for a Mac.
Here's what you're paying for: the brand name. You're paying into an ecosystem that is designed to make it easier for you to buy Apple products and harder to buy independent products. Example: iTunes runs slow as hell on a Windows machine. You're paying an exorbitant amount for a Mac (like the Mac Pro) that does LESS than a comparable Windows machine.
@pspitts
"the issues lies with the progressive geeks who want everything all the time."
False. We progressive geeks want to get the most bang for our buck, and won't settle for anything less. We want a computer that is relatively future-proof, not one who is behind the curve already at the time of purchase.
"Apple knows computer like a motherfucker."
FTFY: "Apple knows how to manipulate consumers like a motherfucker."
@Almo Don't get me wrong, i like touchscreen and all but i think that for a touchscreen computer to really work the design of the hardware should be rethought. If the screen i placed the way screens are in regular computers (that is aprox. 90 degrees or near 90 degrees to the desk -perpendicular-) the strain to the user's hand is too much and it feel unnatural for one to interact with the screen, therefore i believe thats the reason why touchscreens are not being used more widely. So in order for this type of displays to have a greater mass appeal the display should be located at a maximum of 30 degrees facing the user on his/her desk so that images in the screen can be manipulated in a more comfortable way.
@EnergyPigeon wow, that is really only closing yourself to better machines. Running multi quad cores (i7) as a plat for Post, 3d and rendering I could never go for middle of the road apple stuff.
@mikehenriquezsv
Anyone remember that hybrid capacitive/resistive touch screen interface video? I can't seem to find it anywhere, but that's exactly what you're talking about. It solves all the problems you've just listed.
@shoman24v Actually iMacs are not just laptops in desktop cases. The current iMacs use the P55 desktop chipset with the core socket 1156 Core i5/i7 processors, not the lower power Arrandale chipset and mobile version of the Core i5/i7 chips. There is a decent performance difference between the two. The Core i7 iMac keeps pace with a current entry level Nalahem 4 core Xenon Mac Pro. The Core i7 laptop chips/chipsets can't do that.
@John Stathakis The mac pro is not really expensive. No company can sell dual quad xeon at this price.
@Ducman69
Unsurprisingly, most of what you're saying is, again, utter nonsense.
1. It's no surprise that a single quad-core at a higher clock speed beats 2 quad-cores at a lower speed for all typical desktop jobs, just like throwing in 2 more quad-cores wouldn't magically make stuff run faster. You need an atypical application that benefits from all that parallelism, for example rendering and video edting. Surprise, surprise: that's what Mac Pro's are mainly used for. That a single quad-core at a few 100 Mhz more is marginally faster for 95% of all applications is completely irrelevant if you're machine is already plenty fast, and you're main bottleneck is 10+ hour render jobs.
2. The GPU's in Mac Pros might not be at the cutting edge like high-end gaming rigs, but they're not 'slow' either, you can upgrade them, and for professional use other factors are often much more important than performance in typical gaming scenario's. There's a reason Quadro and FirePro cards are still around and it's not raw performance, similar arguments can be made for the choice of Mac Pro GPU's.
3. While I can only guess why TRIM is not in Snow Leopard yet, I do know that it's not a big deal at all. You don't need TRIM to get the most out of your SSD, since all proper ones have garbage collecting firmwares now that actually show better performance and less degradation in the long run. TRIM might be a more elegant way to maintain SSD performance but it's not a requirement.
4. If you want 64-bit CS5, go complain to Adobe. They're probably still too busy getting mobile Flash to work on more than 1 handset, but maybe they'll get to it in 2020 or something like that.
5. You're suggestion to use a 6-core 980 might very well be honoured tomorrow if there's an update, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if the high-end model might even go to 2x 6-core. You're going on about how the current Mac Pro doesn't use the fastest possible hardware today, well hey: that's why they're upgrading it! Using you're logic they can use the fastest possible hardware available today, and within a month you'd be complaining again, because there's something faster on the market.
@EnergyPigeon
my Win7 computer at home (i7 920) renders about 30% faster out of after effects than my dual quad v8 MacPro at work, and cost a quarter ($1,200 vs $4,500).
just saying
@asus389 meh "Nelahem" not "Nalahem" and "Xeon" not "Xenon" - spelling FTL
What would be real funny is if nothing happened. If I was in control at Apple, that's what I'd do. Just toy with people to let everyone see who's in control. They've done it before.
The biggest surprise this time round is that it will use an AMD CPU and it'll have a black Apple logo on the side. The black Apple looks evil. USB 3, SD slot etc.
No big deal, just another update that's long overdue in lazy Apple land and still very expensive. Not overpriced - check similar spec Xeon machines and they come out about the same - but expensive nonetheless.
@drange
"completely irrelevant if you're machine is already plenty fast, and you're main bottleneck is 10+ hour render jobs."
It's made even more irrelevant due to the fact that most rendering takes place on the GPU, which PCs have Macs beaten on. And if you're in a business doing 10+ hour render jobs on a Mac, why not hire out a server farm?
"for professional use other factors are often much more important than performance in typical gaming scenario's"
Performance is performance. We have never stated (although it is implied) that we are talking about gaming performance. Indeed, Quatro GPUs are available for PCs too. Only specific types of GPUs can be used for Macs, however.
"TRIM might be a more elegant way to maintain SSD performance but it's not a requirement."
Hey! It's just like the iPhone! We don't have a standard bit of operating system utility, so it's not a requirement. Who needs cut and paste, amirite?
"If you want 64-bit CS5, go complain to Adobe. They're probably still too busy getting mobile Flash to work on more than 1 handset, but maybe they'll get to it in 2020 or something like that. "
Who mentioned 64-bit CS5? lol. Good job with the irrelevant jab at Adobe. Still pissed that Apple has snubbed what is already world-class software? Oh, there are plenty of phones that can do flash, just not the one you own. (Which I'm guessing is a wonderful iDevice)
"current Mac Pro doesn't use the fastest possible hardware today, well hey: that's why they're upgrading it!"
The current Mac Pro didn't have the fastest possible hardware even when it was newly upgraded! lol This is just speculation on your part.
@FrankDTank oh really? good luck finding a chunk of aluminum and a fucking machine to cut it. asshole. after that, good luck not getting a problem at start up, heat problems, or a 1000€ brick that doesn't do shit because you screwed up installing osx.
not an apple fanboy, i just hate dicks who don't use their nuts to think.
@giulio
JUST FOR ARTISTS!!!!! haha, not a chance in hell I'm afraid, a LOT of students use them, normal folk use them, I use a MacBook Pro and I have as much to do with art as Hitler did with the Spitfire and the P51 Mustang!!!
Snow leopard, beautiful design, durable design, the BEST trackpad on ANY laptop. That's why people love Macs.
And I am hoping for a new case for the Mac Pro cause the current one is old now, still nice etc but it's several years since it was launched.
@drkztan
Here's the question. Why on earth do you NEED a giant piece of aluminum? Does it do anything special more than the usual plastic case? Does it morph into a robot? WHY? A DESKTOP case is just that: a case! It doesn't have to be moved. Do you need a constant reminder that you purchased an overpriced desktop that does the exact same thing as any other computer?
@SirNoDroin
Doubtful.