Analyst: New iMacs could be around the corner

At least one analyst thinks Apple has new iMacs on tap but is mulling whether to include two cores or four.

Shaw Wu of Kaufman Brothers put out a research note Monday saying his latest run through Apple's supply-chain vendors indicates that new iMacs will be out sometime before March, or at most before June. It's been awhile since Apple tweaked the iMac in any substantial way, dating back to September 2007.

New iMac with updated processor may be out by June.

(Credit: Apple)

The changes this time around would mostly be under the hood: Wu believes Apple is debating whether to use Intel's dual-core processors or newer quad-core processors in the new iMacs. The dilemma is performance versus power consumption, as well as concerns that using quad-core chips in the iMac could steal business from the Mac Pro, currently the only system in Apple's lineup that uses quad-core processors.

In any event, Wu believes Apple is also redesigning the way the iMac dissipates heat, which could allow it to put lower-power chips in this year and give it enough headroom to make speed bumps in the future without having to redesign everything all over again.

Desktop sales--a sore point in Apple's otherwise excellent first fiscal quarter--declined 25 percent compared with the same period a year ago. Desktop sales have been down for all vendors, but the overall desktop business declined just 16 percent in the past quarter, according to IDC.

Wu also believes that Apple could be waiting to time the launch of the new iMacs with the launch of Mac OS X Snow Leopard operating system, which is expected to ship sometime around June. Snow Leopard is expected to improve the way Mac OS X handles multicore processing and graphics processing.

[Mr. Dee]

I think Apple is most likely to release the new iMacs before Snow Leopard just to milk pent up buyers who want a new machine with some updated processors, memory and graphics. Apple will then milk them again with Snow Leopard as a $129 upgrade. Its smart business marketing. As for quad core and iMacs, that might be standard on the 24inch (at the lowest clock speed, with the option of paying more for a faster quad core processor) and optional on the fastest 20 inch. Of course it will be the Core i7, but I believe this won't hurt the Mac Pro's that much since those machines are known for being upgradable and expandability (more memory 32 GBs). The iMacs top out at 4 GBs, that might also be a change in this upgrade, support for more than 4 GBs of RAM with 4 GB standard on the fastest 20 inch and the 24 inch. Other things I suspect Apple might make optional, SSDs, but being a consumer desktop, I don't think anyone is gonna fork $900 for 256 GBs, but standard storage I can probably say 500 GB on both 20 inches and 1 TB on the 24 inch.

[Random_Walk]

This is not how Apple users behave, however. Most users are like PC users, they simply keep what comes with the computer.

[Mr. Dee]

I read the Apple forums for popular rumor sites such as Macrumors, AppleInsider and even comments on Macworld, trust me, this is how Apple users in general behave since Apple started using Intel processor. If you said PowerPC Mac users, that would be a different story, then again, that's a dead end architecture.

[Zoobie]

@Mr. Dee--

So you read techie websites filled people who like to tinker with their machines, and then assumed that the average mass-market buyer acts that way.

Random_Walk is correct. Most users stick with whatever came in the box when they bought it.

[d_saum]

Mr. Dee...... Why should I trust you? I am a member to 2 of those sites you mentioned, and while I will agree that most of "THOSE" users on those forums may want upgradability/expandability, they only represent a tiny fraction of the Mac User Base. Look at the sales numbers every month, then look at Macrumor registered users. It's almost insignificant. It is a great website though. ;)

[Mr. Dee]

Most Apple users will stick with what came in the box, but when it comes to upgrading to a new machine, they are most likely to do so. Taking into account, iMacs are not that upgradable because of their form factor.

@d_saum:
Its not a true representation, but it surely is a reflection of the Mac user base.

[seanh1231]

@ Mr. Dee: No, Mac tech sites are most certainly NOT indicative of average Mac users. They are indicators of tech saavy Mac users that know more about their computers than the fact that they can make "totally awesome videos" with iMovie. If you honestly believe that the thousands of clueless girls walking around on my campus with Macbooks give two $#!+$ about upgrading their PCs, you are very, very sadly mistaken. People like us, who know the difference between a GB and a TB, or the difference between a dual-core and quad-core processor, will take the time to make our PCs the best they can be, but the overwhelming majority of Mac owners (and computer owners in general) are fine with how their computers perform and will be for a long time to come.

[colour_of_ash]

@seanh1231:

Tech savvy Mac users?! Wouldn't that not be an oxymoron.

Knowing a friend who being a Machead/Applehead, most if not all Mac users are more concerned with cosmetic "features" (i.e. how pretty it is) over "technical" features (i.e. what processor it runs). I understand there are a few that don't identify with that rule, but I feel that those elite who will pay a PREMIUM for extra RAM would only be doing so out of the desire to be "better" than the rest not actually to benefit.

I, personally, still think that Mac equals computing for dummies just as AOL equaled browsing for dummies. Nevermind that any self-respecting computer user with or without $2000 worth of disposable income would dare ever spend a cent on something that cannot TRULY be upgraded. BUT IT just WORKS, THEY EXCLAIM!! Well, my PC has more than JUST worked. It has performed.

If you want something eye catching or show stopping, spend some real money on an Alienware Area-51 or a Falcon Northwest FragBox. Or, better yet, spend THAT money on building your own computing monster.

~Dr. Frostus

[Mac OS XP]

I remember a keynote a little while back that showed how most Apple users are on the most recent version of OS X, and seeing as Apple releases new versions so frequently, that would indicate that Apple users tend to upgrade. But then again, it may simply be because the Apple-using sector may be more technically inclined than the average population and want the latest and greatest, just like Windows Geeks also always upgrade. Personally, though, I've stuck with Tiger. It's perfectly fine, but I'm considering Snow Leopard if the performance improvements are really great.

[seanh1231]

@ colour_of_ash: Clearly you did not read my post, or the ones before it, or else your would never have made such a moronic comment. The entire point of my post was to point out that Mac users tend to be less tech savvy, and that the people posting here (and at Mac forums) are part of a select group of individuals who are both Mac users and technologically inclined. I must say that before I got a Mac, I was, like you, ignorant as to the ways of Mac; I truly believed that Macs were designed for less intelligent people. I, however, gave them a chance and found them to be perfect for what I do: graphic design. But don't believe for a second that because I am an artist and a Mac user, that I don't know my way around a computer. My Mac (for art), Windows (for engineering work), and Linux (for programming and other engineering applications) machines all perform beautifully for my various needs. The difference between you and I is that I have learned not to make generalizations about people simply based on the OS they choose to use.

[viper396]

I'll just build one with the components and case I want for half the price then install Snow Leopard myself....oh wait.

[stefanvolos]

I would hazard to guess that Apple's desktop sales were off by 25% because many people like me were waiting for a much-anticipated upgrade to the iMac line-up at year's end that never materialized. (In fact, the previous iMac upgrade was something of a disappointment, as the 3.06GHz on the top-of-the-line model was only achieved by artificially increasing the processor speed of the chip.) Apple is in a difficult spot now, as the new iMac models will need to dramatically increase processor, memory, and graphics performance for the same price (or less) given the current economic and market conditions.

[nicmart]

Apple can't grow by merely selling to repeat customers. It needs to dramatically broaden its potential customer base. What works for marketing phones and music players also works for marketing computers.

[smilin:)]

Economic times are tough, just slap a faster processor and GPU in your existing Mac.

..oh yeah, nevermind...

[Random_Walk]

Actually, smilin:), you can often upgrade without buying a new computer, and with the PowerPC CPUs, it was often by a factor of 2x or greater: http://www.powerlogix.com/

GPUs are even easier with a PowerMac, since they use standard cards.

You also neglect to mention that with the PCs most people own, upgrading a processor often requires upgrading the motherboard, the RAM if the board upgrade is too much, the case if the CPU cooling tower has moved and will not fit in the old case, and etc. You also must check for SATA 1/2 compatibility, check for video card PCI/AGP slot compatibility if the video card isn't simply an Intel GMA, and many other factors. Doing any of this to an HP, Dell, or Lenovo immediately voids the warranty, and often the case will not fit the new parts. HP also has specific memory quirks.

And then you have to re-install Windows to cope with the new hardware.

Finally, most users do not have the skills to do most of these things without paying someone to do it, which means you might as well buy a new computer.

So your argument about upgrading discrete parts is, for most users, false.

[pithenumber]

@Random
I have a new GPU practically every day, no need to reinstall Windows
*New mobo? sckt775 was around in the days of P4, Intel just switched 1366, I can expect that to last a while too. Even though AMD makes new sockets every other year, they are making the chips backward compatible with old boards.
*Upgrading is not something you do with an iMac. You can upgrade RAM and the hard drive, but they use proprietary hardware for the GPU. It is physically compatible with any MXM card, but only the card that Apple installs works.
*Unless you have a small form factor case, any stock fan will fit, some aftermarket cooling might need a full tower, but people who need such cooling usually have one.
*PCI-e 2.0 x16 can be found on most modern boards, PCI-e 2.0 x16 is standard.
*I upgrade computers for very cheaply, it is easy, bring in the PC, I open it up and stick what you want into it, 10 minutes at most. I charge a very low price and overnight stress testing is free.
*upgrading is easy. A simple Google will tell you how to upgrade, Youtube has videos.

[nicmart]

Apple's desktop business has declined more than the overall industry because it doesn't sell a full-featured computer that is even close to the best-selling price point of PCs. It claims (with some truth) that the computers it sells are competitively priced with similarly equipped PCs, but most consumers don't want the equipment that Apple provides. Simply put, Apple needs to make some lower-priced Macs, just as it sells lower-cost iPods. Given the deep economic problems, it had better learn to provide Macs for the masses.

[contentcreator--2008]

It's also declined because they haven't updated the Mac Pro design in a while. It's going to keep declining until they come out with a Core i7-based design, because many folks like me are waiting for it. But that may be an Intel issue as much as an Apple issue --- no dual-processor chips, no new Mac Pro. 4 cores * 2 hyperthreads per DO NOT = 8 cores.

[Random_Walk]

Comparing prices between an Apple and a PC of equal specification, you find close pricing, and even better pricing for the Apple.

The rest is speculation, with little basis if any in reality. contentcreator--2008 is closer to the truth with a possible explanation.

[Get_Bent]

Comparable specs & prices? Not really. nicmart has a valid point here. There _is_ a price/performance gap between PCs and Macs with comparable configs. For example:

iMac system
* 2.8-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU
* 2GB of memory
* 320GB hard drive
* ATI Radeon HD 2600 video card
* 24" widescreen LCD
* Mac OS X Leopard

$1,694 from PC Connection


Dell Inpiron 518 mid-tower
* 2.8-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 CPU
* 2GB of memory
* 320GB hard drive
* ATI Radeon HD 3450 video card
* 24" widescreen LCD
* Windows Vista Ultimate

$1,009 from Dell's website

These machines have comparable configs (as close as I can get between Apple and non-Apple hardware). The iMac cost 67% more than the Dell. Apple doesn't sell a relatively inexpensive mini-tower machine. The closest thing they have is the Mac mini; there is a big gap between the high-end mini and the low-end iMac. Dell _does_ sell the XPS One machine that is very similar to the iMac. However, for $1,599, Dell's machine comes with a Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 CPU, 4GB of memory, and a wireless keyboard & mouse. This is the competition that Apple turns a blind eye to or says "That's not our style." I'll take substance over style any day.

[Perry_Clease]

@get_bent "These machines have comparable configs (as close as I can get between Apple and non-Apple hardware). The iMac cost 67% more than the Dell."

Yes, but then you would be burdened with a Dell running an inferior OS, it is kind of like getting treated by Dr Nick when you could have chosen Dr. Hibbard.

[Get_Bent]

@Perry_Clease: For a $685 savings, I could get _a lot_ of use out of Windows Vista....

[Perry_Clease]

@Get_Bent "For a $685 savings, I could get _a lot_ of use out of Windows Vista...."

You get a lot more out of the money by investing it in the Mac.

[pithenumber]

@get_bent
there are more impressive spec comparisons than that
iMac system
* 2.8-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU
* 2GB of memory
* 320GB hard drive
* ATI Radeon HD 2600 video card
* 24" widescreen LCD
* Mac OS X Leopard

$1,694 from PC Connection

home built
Phenom II X4 940 @4200MHz
4GB of RAM
320GB hard drive (salvaged)
1TB storage drive (salvaged)
ATi Radeon HD 4850 core@690 RAM@1000
24 inch LCD (salvaged)
Windows XP/Linux Ubuntu

$600 after discounts and rebates

which is faster: the home built, which is cheaper: the home built (by 1k)
even if OS X is better, 1k is what you spend for OS X, the form factor and the Apple logo, not worth my money

[Random_Walk]

I would like to see sources for these. Also, is the RAM of equal speed? The monitors of equal max resolution?

I also notice that there is a lot of software missing in the Dell. The Dell has no iLife suite or anything comparable to it in function. There is also a missing set of apps to read and write even crude .doc files (WordPad does not count due to incompatibilities). Also, you should upgrade Dell's warranty to match AppleCare. Once you price those, come back.

[DCuerpoJr]

@Get_Gent &pithenumber

When you compare the 24" LCD from Apple with another manufacturer you will have to compare it to a similar LCD Panel. Apple's panel is an ISP whereas the Dell you mentioned is a TA Panel (They also have a VPA 24" LCD for a couple hundred dollars more). The average user probably won't care about the higher quality panel from Apple, but graphics designers and videographers such as myself favor ISP displays for their color accuracy and viewing angles. Therefore, they're are considerably more expensive compared to VPA and TA panels. Just take a look at NEC's professional grade monitors and you'll get the point.

TA panels are great for video games due to their faster response times or if you just want more screen resolution at a lower price.

In the end I do agree that Apple's iMac's are sorely outdated compared to the competition and need to be upgraded and lowered in price. I have a 24" iMac and a new 15" Macbook Pro that I use for work. But when I want to play video games I stick with my HP BlackBird.

Just my two cents.

[DCuerpoJr]

*Correction.
TA Panel = TN Panel.

oh and by the way, the lower priced 20" iMac uses a TN panel as well.

[rhsc]

Do these analysts really get paid for this ****?
Analyst : "Computer company might put out new computer...eventually."
How profound. How about some hard sources? A timeline? A crappy photoshopped picture of the damn thing? anything?

[dragonbite]

The iMac is due for some upgrade (touch screen to counter HP's touch screen?) which will be a welcome change. I like how Apple products are well thought out and useful.

I don't own and am not particularly interested in Apple products but I do like the way they do "things that make you go hmm...".

[toosday]

Somehow I doubt they'll be a touchscreen iMac until there's a re-design. For example, I was just playing with HP's Touchsmart last week and noticed how much lower to the desk it is than my iMac. It doesn't require you to lift your arm as high as the iMac would. Right now, I'm reaching our to touch my iMac and thinking that would be a pain in the butt.

Also, to the writer of this article, we don't need an analyst to tell us there's going to be an iMac update soon. The last one was about 9 months ago (when I purchased mine), so it would be expected that they'll update the processors and hard drives very soon

[BigGuns149]

I don't realistically see Apple releasing a touchscreen iMac. For the most part a touchscreen is a gee whiz feature. Sure there are some space constrained environments where you are doing a limited number of tasks where a touch screen eliminates the need for a keyboard, but that is a bit of a niche to force customers to either pay several hundred dollars more for the same hardware or settle for dramatically worse hardware. Unless Apple could find a vendor that could include a touchscreen while keeping the price premium <$100 over a non-touch screen version I don't see them doing it.

Furthermore, while I am not a huge fan of the iMac (where is the card reader, expresscard slot...?) I don't see why Apple would follow HP's lead when Apple still leads the AIO computer category by a long shot.

[CDubber]

I was desperately hoping to buy a refreshed iMac this month and was disappointed not to see one at Macworld. I'm ready to buy - so Apple better hurry. If I have to chug along too much longer on my original 2.0 ghz Intel iMac maxed out at 2 gigs of RAM, I may have to look at building a Hackintosh.

Your move, Apple.

[Rick Cavaretti]

Your system will take 3GB, not 2 GB. And why are you complaining about a system that is barely two years old? It's not like changing underwear, you don't need a new computer every day.

[pithenumber]

Hackintoshes are awesome
I have one

build one, its worth it

[Notoapplefanbois]

"the new 2.6ghz quad core iMac with 4-8gb of ram, 9800gt sli setup, 512gb of SSD storage, 30" 2560x1600 touchscreen and all of this for $4000"

it's possible. but more likely to be a single card 9400m setup with 2ghz quad core, 2-4gb of ddr2 with a 26" touchscreen for $2800

[pithenumber]

I doubt Apple will ever support SLI/xfire
and for 4k, I want a GTX295 SLI and the Processor needs to be OC'd to 3GHz

Back to Hackintoshing, wanna buy one? I'll match your specs (no SLI though)

[Brian]

Apple needs to implement USB 3.0 standard, return to matte displays (or at least offer consumers a CHOICE), ditch the new flimsy keypad (I've seen broken keypads - aluminum housing is meaningless if the plastic keys are broken off) for a REAL keyboard with REAL BUTTONS.

Upgrade the iSight camera to HD quality so the user can upload straight to YouTube (Apple is really falling behind technology these days), streamline the price (we are in a recession).

Offer substantial improvements, seriously!

[homercles82]

We are in a recession but Apple sees no problem selling $3,000 laptops, $4,000 desktops and $200 cell phones

[Brian]

I can't ask consumers NOT to shop at an Apple retail store, but I am holding back on unnecessary purchases.

Apple is just not even attempting to compete with price.

[BigGuns149]

The reason Apple hasn't implemented USB 3.0 maybe has to do with the fact that there are no devices on the market that can take advantage of it and nobody is selling any USB 3.0 controllers. The only thing I have seen so far out of the USB-IF are a couple of technical proof of concept demos. I didn't see anybody at CES this year that had *real* USB 3.0 products nevermind anybody claiming to be working on a USB 3.0 based product. Even if there were controller it would be a feature that adds cost to the computer, but no immediate benefit that salespeople can point towards. In a bad economy I don't think people are buying features under the guise that they *might* be useful at some future date.

I think a better question is why isn't Apple implementing eSATA on *anything* yet? It is a real standard and despite the bad mouthing I get from some Apple fanboys it isn't going away. Unlike USB 3.0, which might come out next year eSATA is here today. I think customers are more interested in the here and now than the 2-3 years in the future.

For the first year or so Apple seemed to always be near the front of the line in implementing everything on their notebook line (802.11N, 800FSB, etc.), but even the updates on their notebook line are getting pathetic.

In Apple's defense they did make a decent recent upgrade on the $999 Macbook. It is probably one of the better notebooks at that price point, but I have to agree with you that Apple needs to do some major upgrades on their desktop line. The hardware on the Mac Mini is a joke and the iMacs specs aren't much more impressive.

Due to the questionable ability of Intel to deliver a quad core CPU at a low enough TDP I wonder whether it might be more in Apple's interest to do something uncharacteristic and cut the price points on their iMac models by ~$100 on every model. The reality is that most people don't need a quad core CPU and the newer generation of dual core processors are still quite a bit better than is on the current iMacs.

[Seaspray0]

@Brian. Wow. I'm touched. And all along, I've only considered you a hack. "Apple is just not even attempting to compete with price." is the first time I've ever seen you recognize apple isn't perfect. Perhaps this will make you feel better... As far as I can see, they do a fair job competing with price (not great but fair). What I see as the problem is they are not attempting to compete in the midrange and lower end of the computer market where over 80% of all computers are priced and sold.

[homercles82]

Maybe the new iMacs will have some cool interface feature like the windows will fly in from the left and do a ripple effect around the edges to show you it is a new window. That will be worth having OS X v10.6.1 then in 2010 paying $129 for OS X v10.6.2 which will make windows fly in from the opposite side and the ripple goes up instead of down. Maybe they will actually have the promised 16 million colors instead of the reported 256,000 colors they actually have. And I am sure the case will be small and compact.

Mac users everywhere will spill their lattes at this huge improvement in computing and rush to open their "environmentally friendly" aluminum mac books to type hate comments against anything M$ puts out because it is only for profit.

And a 25% decrease in desktop sales on anticipating new desktops is such a moronic statement.

[tipoo_]

A quad core Imac from apple? i'll estimate the cost at 2500+.

[BigGuns149]

You can actually buy a Mac Pro with a single 2.8Ghz quad core Xeon for $2300, but I would be surprised if Apple offered a quad core iMac for less than $2000 because they wouldn't want said unit to compete too much with the Mac Pro. That of course presumes that they can keep the machine cool with a quad core processor. Even Intel's mobile quad core produce considerably more heat than than the mobile dual core processors that Apple is currently using.

[supoman]

I think they'll use quad core. You don't buy a mac to get an average computer and the folks at Apple know that.

[homercles82]

I know right.

Those snazzy window effects and cool wallpapers are where it's at

[AppleSuxLeo]

Since Cnet doesn`t have an article about the NEW Apple worm , here it is !
Apple (NSDQ:AAPL) is once again the target of a Mac-only Trojan variant launched on the Mac OS X via pirated versions of Adobe (NSDQ:ADBE) Photoshop CS4.

Mac security company Intego issued a security advisory Monday, warning Mac users of the Trojan variant, which is estimated to have infected at least 5,000 Macs as of Jan. 25.

[Perry_Clease]

CNET had the story a few days ago.

Where did you get that 5000 number of infected Macs? What is your source?

[Random_Walk]

Trojans are not worms. Please do not pretend to speak of subjects you have no demonstrable knowledge of.

[Brian]

How many Mac users pirate software?

Seriously!

'Nuff said.

[pithenumber]

@Brian
its on pirate software, but the same trojan can be put on free downloads and malicious email attachments

[weeman17]

Will all of you shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[samhuff]

>Apple (NSDQ:AAPL) is once again the target of a Mac-only Trojan variant launched on the Mac OS X via pirated versions of Adobe (NSDQ:ADBE) Photoshop CS4.

La de da! Pirates get taken, Big Fine Deal (BFD).

[vmlenigma]

Tell that to those PC users that are biting their nails because of that Very very naughty Virus LOL
enjoy your Salvaged PC buddy

[jscott418]

I can't imagine Apple can keep its price margins with a Quad core. After all Apple likes money.
Who can blame them. I just sold my last Mac. It was a iMac (2008). It had a awful screen for a monitor.
The color balance was bad and so was the brightness. Too many light bleed area's. I guess you have to cut corners but come on Apple. Is saving a fews bucks worth tarnishing your image?
I've gone back to PC and bought a desktop and a laptop for the price of my iMac. Now that's value!!

[Brian]

Sad little man.

You were never a Mac user.

A real Mac user would never switch to a generic Windows PC.

Good luck with your viruses, spyware, adware, jokeware, kernal panics, trojans, hijackware and the Winblows blue screen of death.

[forkboy]

I don't know....I don't see it as so sad. I've never owned anything but PCs and by simply practicing safe online behaviour and proper/regular maintenance I've never had a virus, trojan, worm, blue screen, etc.

I won't say that Microsoft OSs are of the quality of Apple's, but Apple products are rather expensive even though you get so much with and from them. For the average every day consumer I'm not certain the things that come with Apple products make them worthwhile.

I've also often wondered if the reason Macs have fewer problems is because those who purchase them tend to be more computer-literate. I mean, those buying Macs know more about what to do and not to do with a computer such that they create for themselves fewer problems than do the masses of folks who buy Wintel machines who simply don't know any better.

All that said, I wish Apple would make a nice upgrade to the Mini as I'd really like to purchase one (to dabble in the world of Mac), but $800 is pretty steep for what basically amounts to a laptop without monitor, keyboard or mouse/touchpad. If they could bump up processing speed, jump to 2GB RAM and offer something decent for video (the current 64MB is ridiculous) I would be all over it.

[pithenumber]

@fork
the Mac Mini is old, i don't think Apple will upgrade it. I think they were talking about dropping the Mac Mini

[Brian]

@forkboy

I completely understand your opinion!

I used to own custom built PC systems for many years.

I previously owned a system that had two internal hard drives, a DVD Read/Write drive, an internal multimedia reader/writer for about $700 bucks (monitor not included).

I also agree that Apple has priced their systems out of reach for average consumers.

The most difficult part is switching to a more expensive brand, but once you do, it is equally as impossible to switch back because of all of the things you will be giving up.

I can do more on a Mac than I could on a PC, plus very little maintenance makes it very compelling.

I own two Macs and I just can't imagine life any different.

Once you go Mac, you don't go back.

[tcr071]

No, you actually can't do more on a Mac than you can on a PC. You can do less, a lot less, but you can't possibly honestly believe you can do more. I can listen to the arguments that OSX is a more stable operating system and is more secure, Apple hardware is better built and is more reliable, and that you pay a premium because you get premium products. What I can't entertain is a ridiculous notion that an Apple computer can do more than a PC because it is simply ludicrous.

The hardware on every line except the Mac Pro (no one buys that) is outdated compared to the PC counterpart and a great number of software vendors code for Windows optimization and port their products and/or software over Apple or not at all. Mac can do a lot but to match what a PC has to offer in terms of total software solutions available you'll be picking up a copy of Boot Camp or VMWare and installing a Windows branded operating system.

And I know plenty of people who have gone back from Mac and you can bet that number will be rising very rapidly for all the Apple faithful who suddenly find themselves with the need for a new computer but a shrinking wallet. Poor economic times don't bode well for Apple Inc.

[marknichelson]

@ Brian
I've been using PCs my entire life and have never once experienced any "viruses, spyware, adware, jokeware, kernal panics, trojans, hijackware and the Winblows blue screen of death" that you seem to think are common occurrences on Window's machines. If you use the computer correctly and use legitimate software, these problems simply don't happen.

@tcr071
Spot on. My 2 1/2 year old mid-range pc had better specs than most Macs that cost 4X as much, and many Mac users simply use their machines to run Windows in a VM anyway, so why spend all the extra cash?

[Brian]

For those who believe that I can't do more on a Mac than I could on a PC, I say this:

On a Mac, I can compose my own music with Garageband and Soundtrack.

On a Mac, there is no equal to iDVD.

On a Mac, there is no equal to Final Cut.

Safari is more than a web browser and it offers features that are not available on a Windows based PC, such as the ability to resize text boxes inside of a web page.

Spaces offers are more organized way to manage my apps.

Built-In PDF support makes creating a PDF file effortless.

Quick Look is unmatched.

Widgets are very useful and don't clutter my desktop.

These are just a few things I can do on a Mac that I can't on a PC.

If you have not ever used a Mac for a year or more, you simply wouldn't understand.

Once you go Mac, you don't go back.

[pithenumber]

iLife sucks
many open source alternatives are better, I use them on my Mac, and my PC's

[Seaspray0]

@brian. "On a mac, there is no equal to garagebamd. idvd, finalcut, safari, quick look, <blah, blah, blah>... "

Yes, there is. But not on a mac. Look, dude. I tried them. I didn't find anything that was so special about them when compared against their equivalents for PC. They're different in some ways but they do the same basic things. They're good apps, but they are not the be-all, end-all applications you claim them to be.

[Brian]

@Seaspray0

Show me the equivalent of any of the things I have mentioned that you can find on a PC.

Seriously, there is NO equal to the tools I use on my Macs.

[Dan7637]

why not use quad core in imac and corei7 in mac pro if they dont want to cannibalize mac pro sales

[Dan7637]

once you go mac you never go back, once you go windows you crash

[viper396]

Implying that Mac's never crash is probable the single biggest lie Mac users propogate.

While you may be happy staring at your Mac desktop running a very, very, limited set of programs that "never crashes" other people have real work to do.

[tigTheViking]

@viper396 - yeah - that statement is almost as ridiculous as implying that mac folks don't have any real work to do. MORONIC!

[pithenumber]

@tig
he is right
If you have every program out there on your Mac, guess what, sooner or later its gonna crash.
If you have only a few programs, having it crash is unlikely, same with Windows, Linux, you name it

[homercles82]

I can see you typing this up. iPhone laying on your desk, iMac with huge power sucking 32" display in front of you, AppleTV streaming subpar movies to your television, Air Ports throughout the house, iPods from Gen1 on lining shelfspace, a poster with the Apple icon on your wall in a small, thin framed window, and a latte beside you.

You are the epitome of cool. all mac users strive to be like you.

[weeman17]

Dan can it will ya. I agree macs are pretty good, but it is not invincible.

[inachu]

Original Imacs were very nice looking but every friend of mine that had one was very slow.
I hope the style stays the same with just different hardware.

[homercles82]

original iMacs look nothing like todays iMacs so are you asking for them to keep the style of Gen1 iMacs? The big clunky things?

[tigTheViking]

I'm guessing that the REAL change to the iMac will be an LED-backlit display. Apple already introduced the 24" display separately - so they can probably drop that in to the 24" iMacs easily. Certainly they can make a 20" version as well.

[homercles82]

That is very environmentally friendly. Maybe they will move from last on the list to second to last.

[homercles82]

I was just thinking. Apple should release an environmentally friendly Mac Desktop.

Think about it. The system will use the least hardware needed.

Intel CoreDuo
512MB ram (1 stick)
100GB harddrive (4200RPM)
Single Slot DVD/CD drive

and it will all only cost$1400

oh wait they already do that...