Dwight F Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Why is it that the photos of the new iMac feature Leopard-like window theme, but Mac OS X Tiger wallpaper and menu bar? They might have been trying to publish screen caps that stayed a bit current even after Leopard drops. But also promotional pictures sometimes contain the funniest things. Just last month I saw an item in an online store LCD monitor that had very noticable "Vista Certified" bitmaps plastered next to it. The page had thumbnails of the monitor from 3 or 4 different angles. In all of those thumbnails guess what OS was running on the monitor? I'll give you a hint, the name ends with "X". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hara-Tiri Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Going through the Service Parts available to Apple Service Technicians, I couldn't help but notice that the Graphics card, unlike previous models, can be ordered. This means that the GPU isn't soldered to the Main Logic Board. They probably use an MXM-like slot for the Graphic Card. Anyways, a little bird told me that we *might* see a GPU upgrade kit, which could possibly be a couple of flavours of GF8 mobile cards. Just saying. The recent upgrade to the iMacs also tells me that the Mac Pro is likely due for an upgrade to their Graphics cards. Right now, the iMacs sports higher-end GPUs than any of those available for the Mac Pro except the GeForce FX 4500. The iMacs also have as CTO options new 1TO Hard Drive, which still aren't available for Mac Pros. Intel also announced 45nm Xeons for late 2007/early 2008. New Mac Pros by end of September anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight F Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 So what do you think, that'd be the top left of this with the longest heatpipe running it it? http://210.157.201.118/%7ekodawarisan/imac...id/DSC_3847.JPG Full set of pictures for those that haven't seen the link from MacRumors: http://www.kodawarisan.com/imac_2007_mid/i...007_mid_01.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hondo Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 Im pretty angry these came out seeing how I have only had my iMac for 4 months or so =(((. These look so sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSox Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 Okay, here is the deal.... I played with iMac all day yesterday. Was playing around with iMac (new) 2.4 highest in store. FCP is loaded. When you play back the demo file (motocycle) with FX on iMac, it would glitch for a moment, freeze then move on. I noticed that when you played the same file Mac Book Pro DEMO there is no glitch! 2.4 It plays flawless and fluid, I should expect the same with 128 MB of memory as the 128 is really used for when you have two displays (according to macfeats) when you use both monitors...128 for each display so my guess is for one DISPLAY 128 should be fine. Thoughts? Both had 256 MB of memory of GPU. iMac ATI HD2600 MBP Nvidia 8600HD Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hara-Tiri Posted August 13, 2007 Share Posted August 13, 2007 So what do you think, that'd be the top left of this with the longest heatpipe running it it? Yeah, that would be it. This is the image that GSX displays for the ATI Radeon HD 2600XT: The Part # is 661-4436 for the HD 2600XT and 661-4440 for the HD 2400XT. Both are said to be "Out of Stock" by GSX. Thoughts? Both had 256 MB of memory of GPU. iMac ATI HD2600 MBP Nvidia 8600HD Thoughts? My thoughts is that the GF8 series is noticeably faster than their ATI counterparts and that the resolution of the iMac's screen is much higher than that of the MacBook Pro. As far as the full 256 MB being used only when two displays are used, I would be inclined to think that this might be the case when only fiddling on the Finder and browsing the Internet, but today, there are many games optimized for 512MB of VRAM and even more. A game will always strive to use as much memory as is available/needed, whichever is the lowest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWN_Hellzone Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 Thay look good, Still SPENDY I hate the prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hara-Tiri Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 Thay look good, Still SPENDY I hate the prices. Well, it all depends on what you spend your money on. If you consider the fact that they come bundled with (admittedly poor) 2.0 speakers, a gorgeous 1680x1050 20" widescreen LCD Display, a 1.3 MP iSight Webcam, a microphone, a remote, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and the system software, and you build yourself a tower of equal or similar performance, you quickly add-up to a very similar price. The only problem is that you have no (or very little) choice on what you put in that machine. So, even if, for similar performance/fonctions, Apple gets very competitive prices, you might not need/want everything that comes with the computer, and pay for things you won't use in the end. In the end, for most people, a custom-built PC will be what gives the best price/performance ratio for their specific needs but, to do that, you need to understand computers quite a bit. Therefore, most people, instead of going through the hassle of choosing every pieces that goes in their PC, just go to their local Future Shop/ Best Buy and buy the cheapest Dell/HP and other Compaq and STILL end-up paying for things they don't NEED. IMHO, it's just a question of personal preference. Sure, the cheapest Mac cost quite a bit more than the cheapest PC, but the cheapest PC is nowhere near the cheapest Mac in terms of performance. If you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, you'll realize it's all the same bullsh*t, so... pick your sides, the war is (still) open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts