Considering a new iMac... could use some thoughts.

[macsforever]

Okay, so i've got a Dual 1.25Ghz G4/768mb ram/Radeon 9000 64mb. It's a very nice computer. It's pretty fast. I can play Doom 3 on Low Quality.

I'm thinking about getting a new iMac, but there are a few things i'm not sure about.

For one, is the iMac going to get the Conroe chip, when Conroe is available?

Is the top of the line iMac gonna be Dual 2.66Ghz conroe? And when would that be?

I don't desperetly need a new computer right now, but if the imacs aren't going to get that much better by the end of the year, I don't see the point in waiting.

I could use any advice. Thanks.

[Brad]

For one, is the iMac going to get the Conroe chip, when Conroe is available?

Is the top of the line iMac gonna be Dual 2.66Ghz conroe? And when would that be?
Nobody here can tell you what processors are going into future Apple computers. Anyone who claims to know is almost certainly lying. Your guess really is as good as anyone else's.

[torifile]

keep in mind the new iMacs have wifi standard. it will surely fry your brain.

[billybobsky]

Surely.

I wonder if an irrational fear of anything new is a biologically based psychosis...

[Brad]

keep in mind the new iMacs have wifi standard. it will surely fry your brain.
And in multiple frequency bands, too, with both 802.11 and Bluetooth included.

[Windowsrookie]

:eek:

[macsforever]

They can be disabled.....

[chucker]

Not before it's too late.

[Franz Josef]

They can be disabled.....:no: Just use the tin beanie - it's protected me for years.

[chucker]

We can say with near-certainty that the iMac is either going to use a Merom, or a Conroe. Beyond that, things are highly speculative. Both CPUs come with different FSB options (667 or 800 vs. 800, 1066 or 1333), both can be had with 4 MB L2 cache (whereas the Merom can be 2 MB as well), both will be available in several clock configurations, etc. A jump from 2 GHz to 2.66 GHz, to me, sounds unrealistic and entirely unnecessary. It would needlessly complicate the product line. The iMac is supposed to be a consumer/prosumer model, not a high-end machine.

[PB PM]

We can say with near-certainty that the iMac is either going to use a Merom, or a Conroe.
Can we say that? Who's to say that they wont stick with Core Duo chips at higher clock speeds?

[Franz Josef]

Can we say that? Who's to say that they wont stick with Core Duo chips at higher clock speeds?It's very hard to say one way or the other. We know Intel's roadmap after a fashion but have no clear line of sight on Apple's. It's difficult to speculate when they'll switch chips on a a given model.

[MCQ]

I don't desperetly need a new computer right now, but if the imacs aren't going to get that much better by the end of the year, I don't see the point in waiting.


Question answered.

Don't buy until you really need a new computer. A Dual G4 should be perfectly fine until late this year, then buy whatever Apple has then. It will be cheaper, faster, or a combination of both.

[macsforever]

Is there anyway I can find the Speed test number of the 20" iMac? Like, I ran this XBench thing on my computer, and got 161. What does the iMac get?

[Franz Josef]

Here's a benchmark at Ars for 17" iMac > http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/imac-coreduo.ars/5. It's fast :)

[macsforever]

Thanks. but it never says what the overall number is, for the test. Like the equivilent of the 161 I got on my machine.

[rminkler]

Can we say that? Who's to say that they wont stick with Core Duo chips at higher clock speeds?

Um, "merom" is a code name for what will become the Core Duo chip later this year. Just like "yonah" is the core duo chip we have now.

[chucker]

Can we say that? Who's to say that they wont stick with Core Duo chips at higher clock speeds?

Because Merom and Conroe will most certainly be referred to Core something as well. :)

[toyotaco01]

Based on your guys' experience and the current product line, when do you guys expect the iMac's to next get upgraded (whatever config they end up implementing)?

[shell]

Based on your guys' experience and the current product line, when do you guys expect the iMac's to next get upgraded (whatever config they end up implementing)?

I stare longingly into my crystal ball, but alas, I see nothing. Still, it needs to be pointed out that in the last twelve month period the iMac has been updated three times, if that factoid is relevant to what they are going to see in the future.

[LudwigVan]

I stare longingly into my crystal ball, but alas, I see nothing. Still, it needs to be pointed out that in the last twelve month period the iMac has been updated three times, if that factoid is relevant to what they are going to see in the future.

Indeed. One could take a look at this (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/) and draw some conclusions regarding upgrades. But with Apple now using Intel processors, who knows how--or even if--this will change the frequency of release.

[Satchmo]

I wonder if Apple might implement quicker upgrade cycles. With Intel on board, supply "should be" in a timely manner.

With random and quicker upgrades, people (mainly those of us on Apple Forums) may spend less time on the fence waiting before buying. :)

[Mac Donald]

I wonder if Apple might implement quicker upgrade cycles. With Intel on board, supply "should be" in a timely manner.

With random and quicker upgrades, people (mainly those of us on Apple Forums) may spend less time on the fence waiting before buying. :)
I think that's right, and this is one great thing about the Intel switch -- we got a company whose business it is to make new and better chips, not two companies who only do that as a side-business.

[shell]

I think that's right, and this is one great thing about the Intel switch -- we got a company whose business it is to make new and better chips, not two companies who only do that as a side-business.

Or rather two companies whose job it is to make new and amazing chips … for everyone but us.

[toyotaco01]

I hate to bring up something that was briefly discussed a few posts above, but I'm interested to learn more about the so-called "wifi radiation" that was mentioned.

Are you guys just talking about built in wireless internet and bluetooth cards/chips? "macsforver" said that "They can be disabled.....", but I just want to make sure (his/her post was a bit short). So is it possible to disable all of these wireless bands and just turn them on when needed, hence elimating all of those EM waves from seeping into our brains?

Thanks so much for the help with a mac newbie like myself :D

[Luca]

Thanks. but it never says what the overall number is, for the test. Like the equivilent of the 161 I got on my machine.
xbench.com

[chucker]

Are you guys just talking about built in wireless internet and bluetooth cards/chips?

Mainly. And yes, those can be disabled.

So is it possible to disable all of these wireless bands and just turn them on when needed, hence elimating all of those EM waves from seeping into our brains?

Dude. The dangers of WiFi and Bluetooth are so negligible to what you're exposing yourself every single day from other sources that it honestly doesn't matter. Do you have a cellphone? If you're really worried about this type of risk, the first thing you should do is get a wired or a Bluetooth wireless headset for your cellphone, and to only ever put the cellphone in your pocket, not next to your ear. The radiation from Bluetooth is much, much lower than that from cellphones, so this will be a huge improvement.

[euain]

If you're really worried about this type of risk, the first thing you should do is get a wired or a Bluetooth wireless headset for your cellphone, and to only ever put the cellphone in your pocket, not next to your ear.
I remember reading a study a couple of years ago where a wired headset was actually acting like a very efficient antenna and the exposure to radiation was actually higher than when using the handset alone. :err:

Looks like the only solution is to smash all electronic devices, hide from the sun and get the tin-foil hats on again.

[Disclaimer] I think I read an article to this effect. It was a long time ago and I saw it on the interweb so who knows..

[psmith2.0]

Based on your guys' experience and the current product line, when do you guys expect the iMac's to next get upgraded (whatever config they end up implementing)?

If the past 6-9 months are anything to go by, I'd say next week (or today). :)

Hell, it's been almost three months since MWSF...they're lagging!

[bassplayinMacFiend]

I remember reading a study a couple of years ago where a wired headset was actually acting like a very efficient antenna and the exposure to radiation was actually higher than when using the handset alone. :err:

Looks like the only solution is to smash all electronic devices, hide from the sun and get the tin-foil hats on again.

[Disclaimer] I think I read an article to this effect. It was a long time ago and I saw it on the interweb so who knows..


I saw a report to this affect years ago as well. I want to say it was a study done in the UK. The increased radiation transfer was caused by the wired headset acting as an antenna and the EM waves would ride up the wire due to some type of capacitance effect.

There was an easy solution to this problem though. Wrap a chunk of copper around the base of the wire where it plugged into the phone. You've probably seen these plastic encased copper pieces on VGA monitor cables. The copper would keep the EM waves from traveling up the headset wire. Of course, you won't find wired headsets coming stock with these copper chunks so you'll have to do an aftermarket modification to your headset if you're worried about this.

[Brad]

I hate to bring up something that was briefly discussed a few posts above, but I'm interested to learn more about the so-called "wifi radiation" that was mentioned.
Please see this thread (http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=14701), also started by macsforever.

Are you guys just talking about built in wireless internet and bluetooth cards/chips? "macsforver" said that "They can be disabled.....", but I just want to make sure (his/her post was a bit short). So is it possible to disable all of these wireless bands and just turn them on when needed, hence elimating all of those EM waves from seeping into our brains?
As I said in the aforementioned thread, the amount of electromagnetic radiation produced by wireless devices like these is like a drop in a very large bucket and doesn't matter.