User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Speculation and Rumors »

Redesigned MacBook Pro and iMac coming in first half of 2011?


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Redesigned MacBook Pro and iMac coming in first half of 2011?
Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Last Thread Tools
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-16, 16:28

Possibly, according to this AppleInsider story.

Nothing too interesting or earth-shattering except for this one passage that caught my eye:

Quote:
The upgraded iMac is expected to feature "a new panel size and a price point for the mainstream market," according to the report.


Is "mainstream market" code for "all the Best Buy shoppers who look for $400 computers?"

While it's obvious Apple will never create a stylish AIO iMac for $400, does it mean that maybe they're considering a new, smaller size to offer their flagship AIO desktop at a sub-$1,000 price?

That's honestly how I took it. When I think "mainstream market", I think of the regular joes and janes out there (as opposed to the high-end pro or geekster market.

The fact that Apple is currently selling four iMacs at two sizes - and they cover the $1,200-2,000 space nicely - I have to believe that any new "panel size and price point" is going to be heading in the other (downward) direction, trying to break that $1,000.

Thing is, Apple did this a few years ago with those education-only 17" white plastic iMacs. So there's precedent. I know 21.5" is great (and so is 27"), but I have to believe folks would jump on a black and aluminum 17"-18" iMac for $999 (or less) in great numbers (assuming it isn't hobbled or stripped down too much).

What do you all think? I know it's just a rumor (from a source that tends to be all over the place when it comes to said rumors), but just pretend for a second that it's true and legit. With the new Mac mini now going for $699 and up (with no screen or keyboard) is there a way Apple could sell a smaller iMac for $899-999 and not cause trouble for the mini (or suddenly make it look like an awful deal)?



I keep turning folks onto refurb $929-1,019 21.5" iMacs. But that's a huge bite for everyone, and all of them have told me that's more than they were hoping to spend (even though they're happy with their switch to the platform). But I'd love to be able to point them to a snazzy ~18" iMac that goes for under a grand, new (hell, depending on the specs and other factors that's something I might be interested in on my next go-around).
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2010-12-16, 16:54

I kind of doubt Apple would go any smaller than 21.5" again, that has basically become the standard size for displays these days and one of the principle reasons to buy an iMac is because of the good display. But, if they did downsize to ~20" at the same resolution and lowered the starting price to $999 or even $899, that'd be a pretty attractive computer. Particularly if it has that Sandy Bridge stuff on board. The other possibility that comes to mind would be if they stopped using the same S-IPS panel that the 27" ACD uses and elected to use an e-IPS panel and subsequently lower prices across the board by a few hundred.

As it stands, iMacs are not horrible values for what you get. The $2000 iMac is basically exactly what you could expect to get for a $2000 windows based PC with a 27" S-IPS display. It's just that... that display is almost too good for the computer it's paired with.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-16, 17:18

Must haves: USB3 and BD optical.

Cheaper model could essentially be the current 21.5" without much of a spec bump though, cheaper simplified motherboard, slightly improved I/O.

.........................................
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-16, 17:23

No, they're good machines and a good price. But for the surf/e-mail/iTunes/photos crowd, they could probably afford to drop a few specs and features to get a stylish AIO down below $1,000.

It wouldn't have to have the highest-end anything, or huge this or ultra-fast that, really. Just a basic machine...essentially the guts of a current Mac mini (which goes for $699) paired with a decent 18" display? The target crowd won't care that it's IPS this or Sandy Bridge that. It would just be a fast, solid and reliable machine that looks great.

Surely the following could result in such a machine:

- 18" display (decent, but doesn't have to be $1,199+ iMac quality)
- No FireWire
- No Ethernet
- 3-4 USB 2.0 ports
- headphones and audio in
- 160-250GB hard drive
- 2GB RAM (expandable to 4GB)
- 2.4GHz (give or take) Core 2 Duo
- Integrated graphics (whatever's in the Mac mini or MacBook, or even one generation back, if needed)
- Include the larger wired keyboard and standard Apple Mouse (they still ship those, the old Mighty Mouse design)

Still called an iMac, of course...that's a lot of reputation and history to tap into. It would almost sell itself, presented properly (especially around this time of year, with someone looking to get grandpa or Uncle Fred "on the MyFaceTube").

Seems underwhelming on the surface, the above specs, but still a fine, more-than-usable machine/specs for someone with nothing (sometimes the Mac mini creates more hassle than it solves, especially for a completely newbie or someone with older non-USB keyboard or old, poochy VGA-based CRT...they have to buy adapters and new keyboards anyway, so many times. To get all the above in a box, ready to go, for under a grand would have to be a desirable machine for many. The four current models would still be around for those who need (or think they need) better specs and numbers.

I've learned, from first-hand experienced, that the Mac mini and its "BYOKDM" thing doesn't always make for the easiest, more economical or friendliest approach (especially if you're dealing with older peripherals and KDM). Many wind up spending another $100-200 just to get something made in the 21st century to pair with their new mini. When all is said and done, they've put in around $800 for a machine they still have to hook-up/connect (and have wires running everywhere), display doesn't match the box and suddenly this "$699 Mac" is anything but (never mind the $499 or $599 it used to cost).
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2010-12-16, 17:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Must haves: USB3 and BD optical.

Cheaper model could essentially be the current 21.5" without much of a spec bump though, cheaper simplified motherboard, slightly improved I/O.
No USB3 support, since Intel still has no chipsets that support it. All third party boards with USB3 have third party chipsets added to do so.

I could see Apple selling 21" iMac $899 with high end TN/low end eISP panel and integrated graphics.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-16, 17:34

That would be great too, of course.

I just see that "new panel size" and that makes me think it won't be a 21.5" or 27" machine.

But, yeah...if they could take the existing 21.5" chassis and maybe tweak the guts, ports and components enough to chew down the price, that would be an awesome newcomer or switcher Mac.

Those customers aren't going to know all the cutting-edge stuff, so they're not going to view it with the critical eye that we might. They just want to turn it on, get online, have it look nice in their living room or den, not battle all the usual shit they've been dealing with on their PC, etc.

Regular, non-geek users aren't that demanding or discriminating. They don't view this stuff through the same prism we tend to, so sometimes you have to look at it through those less-savvy, -experienced or -knowledgeable eyes, and appreciate the overall idea (and not get too hung up on RAW $#%^@ POWER AND PERFORMANCE!!!!

  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2010-12-16, 17:46

The other option could be a 19" panel, which is far more common than 18" (never seen an 18" monitor).
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-16, 17:53

Yeah, I didn't know what the sizes were. I just picked a number. 19" just doesn't seem far enough away from 21.5", so I went lower. I should've said 17" because I know those exist (Apple does too).

Those 17" white iMacs were nice, I thought. A good, decent size for regular folks. Imagine one in a thinner, sleeker (and less "chin") aluminum/black enclosure with just a few ports on the back, and going for $899 or so, and still a solid, respectable performer.

I don't think 21.5" (or any number) is necessarily a "sweet-spot". People take to various sizes for all kinds of reasons...what they can afford, their usage habits/patterns, how bulky or small they'd like something in a particular room, etc. A 17" aluminum iMac, even heading into 2011, would sell plenty. It's crazy (and borderline spec-whoring) to think otherwise.

Some folks, all they've ever known are 15"-17" monitors...they wouldn't know what the hell to do with 21.5" or 27"!
  quote
joveblue
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
 
2010-12-17, 02:31

My take is that they'll adjust the 21.5" to something a little different (probably more likely to go up - say 23-24"), keep the guts relatively the same, and drop the price substantially, perhaps down to $999. Let's face it, the guts are pretty damn good for your average Joe. It's probably already huge overkill for most. So instead of doing the regular spec-bump, perhaps this time They're going to hold the specs more or less the same and drop the price instead. Very doable and sales will go through the roof once they get it down under $1000. But I think they'll stay with two screen sizes, just adjust the size of the smaller one.
  quote
drewprops
Bastard
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2010-12-17, 02:47

New MacBooks available by June at the earliest? Well, I guess I can wait another 6 months... I've waited this long.


...
  quote
wtd
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2010-12-18, 01:40

If we want to go based on economies of scale, a 20" (1600x900) TN panel with a low-end Sandy Bridge chip sans dedicated graphics, but 4GB of RAM and 500GB hard drive seems doable for $999.

That saves them the cost of the GPU and the much nicer panel. They could probably price it lower than $999, but a mere $200 gap gets them a sub-$1K price and makes it easy to upsell to a more capable mid-range iMac.
  quote
Jasoco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
 
2010-12-18, 03:04

I already have a brand new Early 2010 MacBook Pro 13", but I'm hoping the upcoming update to the MBP's does indeed drop the optical drive from some of the models. Especially the 13". Apple said "There's no i3 in there because there's no room!" So, maybe with the dropping of the optical they'll be able to actually put an i3 in there as well as a real video card (Whatever the 15" has) and possibly extra storage with an SSD combination. (I want both the speed and the storage capacity. So they could optimize the computer with an Air-like SSD, but also have a spot for a 2.5" HDD. 12mm if possible.)

It's all dreaming right now, but hopefully we'll find out in a month or two what Apple has in store for 2011.
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2010-12-18, 06:38

I don't see much sense in introducing an iMac with a smaller screen than the current 21". If the goal of the exercise is to get the price under USD 1,000 it seems like going with a cheaper display and only updating the innards conservatively would do the trick. Not that I myself would care much for such a product because the thing i love the most about my 27" iMac is it's gorgeous display.

If they keep with USB2 I also don't see the point in ditching FW. HD sizes have just become too big to comfortably shove data around over USB2. But hey, they could introduce FW3200, seeing how it's pin-compatible with FW800.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-18, 10:21

Bit that's the whole point. Such a machine wouldn't be for demanding, in-the-know users (they could still have the current lineup to choose from).

Not sure if it will happen (a new, third model/display size), but if that's what it takes for them to get their iconic AIO down to the reach of more newcomers or switchers, that's great.

Chances are, those people aren't "pushing around data" on external drives or all being all that discriminating on display panel specs.

I mentioned upthread that stuff like this can't always be viewed through the "savvy longtime user/spec-obsessed geek" prism. Fact is, most people simply don't know, or care, about such things.

If the choice is between a) Apple offering a more affordable version of their flagship desktop (even if it means still-respectable "yesterday's specs" or the exclusion of features those users will never miss), or b) iMacs always costing $1,200 or more and the Mac mini being the sole sub-$1,000 desktop option...I much prefer the former.

And so should Apple, consumers, stockholders and tech/Mac pundits.
  quote
nikstar101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Send a message via Yahoo to nikstar101  
2010-12-18, 15:12

Yeah i cannot see a new smaller size. I just don't see that Apple would go that way. I think they would prefer to push people towards a 17" MacBook Pro (even though they are more expensive). I think that Apple will (and has) consolidated it desktop line but will continue to expand its mobile line, so i think the current iMac line up is looking quite good at covering the bases at the moment.

I think the Mac Mini will get an update to bring it in line with the iCore processors, maybe i3 or i5. I wouldn't mind a i5 Mac Mini Server as that would be a gutsy little machine (not sure you will get a quad core in there though).

As for the laptops, it would seem a little early to jump on the Sandy Bridge wagon for Apple but if they are ready then maybe Apple will be the first to show of the tech? Hence also updating the iMacs too.... but then again i think Apple likes is dedicated video chip
  quote
thegeriatric
geri to my friends
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Heaven
 
2010-12-18, 21:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by pscates2.0 View Post
No, they're good machines and a good price. But for the surf/e-mail/iTunes/photos crowd, they could probably afford to drop a few specs and features to get a stylish AIO down below $1,000.

It wouldn't have to have the highest-end anything, or huge this or ultra-fast that, really. Just a basic machine...essentially the guts of a current Mac mini (which goes for $699) paired with a decent 18" display? The target crowd won't care that it's IPS this or Sandy Bridge that. It would just be a fast, solid and reliable machine that looks great.

Surely the following could result in such a machine:

- 18" display (decent, but doesn't have to be $1,199+ iMac quality)
- No FireWire
- No Ethernet
- 3-4 USB 2.0 ports
- headphones and audio in
- 160-250GB hard drive
- 2GB RAM (expandable to 4GB)
- 2.4GHz (give or take) Core 2 Duo
- Integrated graphics (whatever's in the Mac mini or MacBook, or even one generation back, if needed)
- Include the larger wired keyboard and standard Apple Mouse (they still ship those, the old Mighty Mouse design)

Still called an iMac, of course...that's a lot of reputation and history to tap into. It would almost sell itself, presented properly (especially around this time of year, with someone looking to get grandpa or Uncle Fred "on the MyFaceTube").

Seems underwhelming on the surface, the above specs, but still a fine, more-than-usable machine/specs for someone with nothing (sometimes the Mac mini creates more hassle than it solves, especially for a completely newbie or someone with older non-USB keyboard or old, poochy VGA-based CRT...they have to buy adapters and new keyboards anyway, so many times. To get all the above in a box, ready to go, for under a grand would have to be a desirable machine for many. The four current models would still be around for those who need (or think they need) better specs and numbers.

I've learned, from first-hand experienced, that the Mac mini and its "BYOKDM" thing doesn't always make for the easiest, more economical or friendliest approach (especially if you're dealing with older peripherals and KDM). Many wind up spending another $100-200 just to get something made in the 21st century to pair with their new mini. When all is said and done, they've put in around $800 for a machine they still have to hook-up/connect (and have wires running everywhere), display doesn't match the box and suddenly this "$699 Mac" is anything but (never mind the $499 or $599 it used to cost).
Looks good to me, but why no Ethernet? surely for a lot of users at that price point would be using non wireless routers? just saying.
  quote
Jasoco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
 
2010-12-19, 01:08

Wireless routers aren't expensive you know. This isn't 1999.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-20, 10:58

Would a smaller monitor make it dramatically cheaper? Decapitating the iMac (mini) hasn't done it; keeping any screen seems unlikely to help either. Not because it's impossible; simply because Apple won't go there unless they have something different to offer.

The mini is the smallest energy efficient desktop they offer, its size was the difference. I don't know that this has made it a popular machine or not. It's still in the line-up, but the value proposition is a bit weak - by design? - to move customers to an entry level iMac.

The conventional solution may be to simply offer a better/cheaper entry level iMac - one that makes an even stronger relative case for new Mac desktop customers. Do I get the mini when for 200 more I get a nice screen and keyboard and faster CPU, more storage, etc etc...

Current mini costs 749 Canadian. A 999 iMac would do the trick. The dual HDD mini costs 1099 - perhaps not really a machine for entry level customers, but rather a specific subset of customers.

A less conventional solution could be to make a small-ish/cheap-ish "Lion" Mac. Maybe with a 17" 5:4 screen with touch input. Basically a screen with an easle type foot on the back - so the whole machine can squat down to a comfortable touch-interface height and angle. Make it cheap, but still a mac, not an iOS device. Machine tilts up and with a wireless keyboard and mouse it's just like a mac, machine tilts back and it's a completely different interface - full screen, touch based control of iApps etc...

The whole thing is small, no chin, minimal bezel, minimal desktop footprint. It either stands up and out of the way, or down and out of site. It doesn't rotate either, hence the "almost square" 5:4 screen. Standard I/O, SD cards, USB, FW, and wireless, but no optical. SDD optional, large 2.5" HDD for now. Side profile: slightly of wedge shaped, so that the bottom lip gets real close to the desk surface and it keeps a comfortable angle.

A new kind of computer, yours for 999... happens to double as a small desktop mac...
  quote
Satchmo
can't read sarcasm.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
 
2010-12-23, 08:02

I wonder if we'll see the elimination of the optical drive from the iMac anytime soon. I realize it's a desktop/production computer where one might need to burn a disc or watch a movie. But AirPlay, cloud storage, USB keys, and CF slots, maybe the optical drive has gone the way of the floppy.

Last edited by Satchmo : 2010-12-23 at 08:02. Reason: Oops...or basically what Matsu just said.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-23, 09:00

I posit it only in the context of a different iMac, a sort of desktop tablet, an easle - with which to showcase a different -iMac type - something completely hypothetical which I don't expect Apple to actually make. A stripped down cloud mac could make a good eMac revival.

All apple has to really do is drive down the cost on the existing 21.5" - they need to keep ALL the i/o of a contemporary desktop for this to work. In fact there are at least a couple of additions they need to make - no subtractions. USB3 is first amongst these.

A cooler iMac update might be for an even larger iMac and cinema display at the high end.

A 30" 21:9 with some subset of 4K resolution - say 4096x1700 would make for a pretty awesome widescreen desktop... Start with the display and add an iMac model a few years later.

.........................................
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2010-12-23, 09:28

I remember when I thought a 20-inch iMac to be insanely big.
  quote
bassplayinMacFiend
Banging the Bottom End
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
 
2010-12-23, 09:54

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker View Post
I remember when I thought a 20-inch iMac to be insanely big.
No kidding. I still have my iMac G5 and can't wait to set it up again now that I've moved. Have seen the 27" iMac in the stores and the displays are too big for me. I can't see the whole 27" screen without moving my head unless I move far away from it.
  quote
Fullthrottledesigns
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Lorton, VA
 
2010-12-23, 15:08

I need to replace my 20" G5 iMac, maybe tax return $$$...
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-23, 17:10

Quote:
Originally Posted by bassplayinMacFiend View Post
No kidding. I still have my iMac G5 and can't wait to set it up again now that I've moved. Have seen the 27" iMac in the stores and the displays are too big for me. I can't see the whole 27" screen without moving my head unless I move far away from it.
Yeah, I'm not really a fan of that 27" iMac. It's awesome and breathtaking, of course. But it's also maybe too much of a good thing (I believe that's actually possible). Even if money were no object and I could get any iMac I wanted and not even blink, I'd still opt for the 21.5" model. To me, that size and resolution is just about perfect for me, and what I do/how I use it. Not too small, not too big. Great for Illustrator and other work, awesome for the iLife stuff and a really nice size for watching movies and video.

If I won the 27" in a contest, I'd probably sell it to buy a refurb 21.5". Call me Mr. Practical.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2010-12-26, 06:32

The key to more successful large screen displays will be to make them even wider, but not taller. Your field of view is about 160-180 degrees wide laterally, of about which 130 degrees are stereoscopic. It's only about 120 degrees vertically, most of which is stereoscopic on the vertical axis. But it's a funny thing, the field of view is somewhat de-centered vertically: It typically extends about 45-50 degrees vertically above centre, and 65-75 degrees below.

Check it out: NASA explains here

What this means for displays is that:

We don't like to look up - one reason why good ergonomic practice suggests aligning the top of your monitor with your sight-line.

We like a centre (stereoscopic) sweet spot of about 120 x 90 or 100 degrees. There's more stereoscopic field, but it's mostly useful for seeing what our hands and feet are doing. Useful for running away from big things that can eat us and not tripping over rocks, or for picking our small things we can eat while not tripping over rocks. There's also lots more monoscopic field horizontally at the outer edges - mostly useful for detecting big things in our periphery trying to sneak up beside us and eat us. Also informative for computer displays: line up the top, because the tendency is to look down over the image. Also explains the choice of historic 12:9 and 12:10 formats (4:3 an 5:4) and contemporary 16:10 and 16:9.

Now, you can have bigger and taller displays but you have to move back a bit to make it comfortable. You lose some of that cozy feeling when that happens. Desks, chairs, and practical space limits a sensible display choice to something viewed comfortably within a 2 to 4 foot distance. Probably not something immersive, but that sits in the sweet spot for vision without being fatiguing. Normally, this wouldn't recommend an even larger display, not wider or taller. But I think wider would work as a better dual screen alternative. a 21:9 would give essentially two 5:4 displays, but no seam.

Using the same height as the current 27" 16:9, you get a 33" 21:9 monitor. Certainly something interesting to sell at the high end of the cinema display line. Now if you use the same height as the old 30" display, you get a whopping 40" desktop display, but neither would be any taller than any monitor apple has ever sold.

Apple needs a monitor to go with their Mac Pro workstations. They could charge virtually anything for a 33 to 40" 4K ultra-wide monitor and the people who need them would pay.

.........................................
  quote
drewprops
Bastard
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2011-01-04, 02:04

Intel had an announcement and I see that the Sandy Bridge processors are said to exhibit as much as a 50% bump in performance. That would be nice in a new machine.


...

Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon.
Captain Drew on Twitter
  quote
Maciej
M AH - ch ain saw
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-01-04, 11:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by drewprops View Post
Intel had an announcement and I see that the Sandy Bridge processors are said to exhibit as much as a 50% bump in performance. That would be nice in a new machine.


...
Yes it would... I hate it when new hardware comes out.
  quote
pscates2.0
Mr. Farmiga
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2011-01-04, 12:37

But remember, it's Apple. They'll put these spiffy new processors in...and, for no reason whatsoever, remove or cripple another spec/feature, just for a little added "WTF?!". Or, at the very least, they'll jack up the price $100-200, across the line.

Apple giveth. And they certainly tend to taketh away, from time to time.
  quote
wtd
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
 
2011-01-04, 12:58

If they want to make them thinner, they'd likely remove the optical drive, and because they're fairly tall... the ethernet and firewire ports.
  quote
Yontsey
*AD SPACE FOR SALE*
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cleveland-ish, OH
Send a message via AIM to Yontsey Send a message via Skype™ to Yontsey 
2011-01-04, 13:06

Personally, if I'm buying a Pro machine I don't want to lose the optical drive, firewire, or ethernet. Ethernet isn't such a big deal, but for me, I was considering upgrading to a new 15" and my music recording interfaces connect via Firewire, which is a huge reason I want to upgrade.

Die young and save yourself....
@yontsey
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 7 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lightpeak coming in 2011 (Apple to Lead Charge?) Moogs Speculation and Rumors 42 2010-11-11 14:35
Redesigned Macs - Can they even get better? Partial Speculation and Rumors 77 2010-05-03 10:42
Macbook Pro - case coming apart! McSandwich Genius Bar 8 2007-05-04 20:46
imac :something's coming ? maryJ Speculation and Rumors 5 2007-01-17 13:40
What will be the next redesigned Intel Mac? iDaver Speculation and Rumors 24 2006-11-21 08:05


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 17:40.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2020, AppleNova