Slashdot Log In
Apple Updates iMac, iLife, .Mac
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Aug 07, 2007 01:04 PM
from the more-goodies dept.
from the more-goodies dept.
Apple just announced new iMacs. They are aluminum and come in 20" (two models) and 24". There's a new view called "Events" in iPhoto that should make it easier to deal with large photo libraries. Apple's .Mac service is enhanced with .Mac Web Gallery, which integrates with the new iTunes and also the iPhone. It's a Web 2.0 app now. And iMovie is being replaced by a completely new app of the same name. Steve Jobs claimed that with it you can put together a 5-minute movie in 30 minutes, and he demo'ed that from the stage. iWeb, iDVD, and GarageBand get new features too. And .Mac subscribers get 10 GB of storage. Here is Engadget's blow-by-blow coverage, and Wired's.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why is this here now? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:No kidding (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://somethingstirring.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 01, @05:09PM)
Is it just me, or did he not say, "Boom!" once during this presentation?
Apple's website not updated? (Score:2)
(http://monogon.org/)
Finally (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Finally (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday November 21 2005, @12:45PM)
The wireless keyboard IS FOR the Apple TV. They just haven't announced it yet.
The wired keyboard is for when you're sitting right in front of your iMac.
That time of the year again (Score:5, Funny)
(from the Apple Product Life Cycle) [misterbg.org]
New iMac keyboard (Score:1)
Geez (Score:5, Funny)
(http://itsbeenconfirmed.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 04 2003, @02:33AM)
Re:Geez (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Geez (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday June 05 2006, @10:46AM)
Goths.
Software's the name of the game (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a Web 2.0 app now... (Score:5, Funny)
Some of us Luddites are a bit slow to upgrade.
iphone update? (Score:2)
(http://www.jonaskaplan.com/ | Last Journal: Friday April 09 2004, @03:10AM)
I got a small chuckle from.... (Score:4, Funny)
Video Coverage? (Score:2)
Mac mini refreshed today too (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Mac mini refreshed today too (Score:5, Informative)
1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
80GB hard drive1
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$599.00
---------
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
120GB hard drive1
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$799.00
Wow, does he really talk like that? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.tringali.org/ | Last Journal: Thursday July 12, @03:10PM)
Re:Wow, does he really talk like that? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless, of course, you can read/write stenographer's shorthand. Otherwise, I see no other way of of relaying the Stevenote, given that live audio and video wasn't an option.
"Blow-by-blow" coverage? (Score:1, Funny)
(http://goldspider.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday March 18 2005, @10:54AM)
Do we really need that kind of visual, considering fanbois' well-documented oral fixation with everything Apple?
*ducks*
A few thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Steve: "We use Intel chips"
hehehe, sounded a li'l like the intel chip implanted into his head kicked in there.
second, why is the imac so underpowered in the RAM department, I mean the specs in one of the pictures showed the iMacs, all the way up to the biggest $1800 version only has 1gig- with all the RAM you get in normal PCs now days (4gigabytes not unusual) is this not a little strange?
Finally, is it just me, or have they slighyl repackaged everything, made no huge advances, like for example, why did they bother to minimize a keyboard, which for someone like me, would just be annoying. iLife? It's had nothing added, they just repackaged every single feature, and when asked why
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://web.mac.com/eurobar)
Complicated as in disassembling the shell, depending on the model, but not complicated as in having to use special equipment, as all you need are a screwdriver (preferably magnetic), maybe a Leatherman toolkit (specifically the pincers), precautions to avoid static electricity, as well as a visual guide: http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/ [xlr8yourmac.com].
Going one notch further, when I upgraded the hard disk on my Indigo G3 http://www.faqintosh.com/risorse/en/guides/hw/ima
As for RAM chips and the new Macs? I'd guess it takes less than five minutes to do it, just open a little hatch, fit the chip in the slot and you're good to go!
Re:A few thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I found out third-party companies were selling it for the same absurd price.
So I told myself I'd wait a few months for the price to drop, since it would inevitably fall like a rock when more companies started shipping the Core 2 Extreme with chipsets requiring FB-DIMMs. Then it was announced that the FB-DIMM wasn't going to be on Intel's future roadmap.. d'oh!
Prices haven't dropped like a rock, but slowly declined instead.. now I can get 4GB for around $300.
But the thing is, the system doesn't really need it. I admit that it's already total overkill for what I use it for, but I was rewarding myself for using my 600Mhz iBook G3 for 5 years, including all thru college, and that maxed out at 640MB. With Tiger, and a bunch of widgets running, yeah, I can feel when it starts swapping -- usually at about the 15th Safari window or so. However, the system is so damn fast -- and I'm running RAID 0 on my main volume -- that the swapping is really just a minor annoyance. I keep finding better things to spend money on than more memory for my already blazing fast computer.
So, to make a long story short, 1GB is plenty for a "desktop" Mac. Most users would be much better served by 2GB, but most users would ALSO be much better served by Apple bundling as little possible so that the buyer can choose whether they want to install the RAM themselves, or have Apple do it.
Re:A few thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday June 29, @03:09PM)
AFAIK, Window's PC manaufacturers usually put in 1 GB now with an option to get 2 GB or more. Usually 2GB costs you an extra $100-200 and 4GB cost you an extra arm, leg, and testicle.
Even if you give up a 'nad for the 4GB, Windows PC's will only use 3 GB when 4 GB is installed unless you're willing to do a lot of extra configuration and you buy the correct hardware. We got a bunch of new Dells at work a couple months ago. All of them came with 4 GB. But when you boot into Windows XP Pro, only 3 GB is visible. I tried all the hacks to get more -- with certain MB and hardware configs, it is possible to get up to 3.5GB with a bit of hacking your OS configuration but 3GB is the most you can get unless you know all your hardware components will memory map into the top 0.5 GB (and unfortunately the Dells we got only do 3GB on 32-bit Windows). There is no way to get an ACTUAL USABLE 4GB in Windows without going to one of the 64-bit versions of Windows and with all the memory and driver issues there, you're not gaining anything on a consumer machine.
The Dumbest Question I've Ever Heard (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.lkmc.ch/)
Apropos Intel, via Daringfireball.net [daringfireball.net]:
"We like our own stickers better," Jobs said. "Don't get me wrong. We love working with Intel. We're proud to ship Intel products in Macs. They're screamers, and combined with our OS, we've tuned them well. It's just that everyone knows we use Intel processors. We'd rather not tell them about the product that's inside the box."
Re:The Dumbest Question I've Ever Heard (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because we want our computers to look classy and not like a cheap whore".
Brushed metal (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday October 08, @07:57PM)
I like the change, but...how? Some auto-negation bug in the intra-office memo software? "!brushed_metal = brushed_metal....SENT"
Can we please kill off "Web X.Y"? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a Web 2.0 app now
No it's not, because there's no such thing as a "version" of the Internet OR the World Wide Web.
Just because O'Reilly and a bunch of bloggers like it, doesn't mean you should use it.
BUMMER! "You can't be to thin ... (Score:2)
But your integrated screen can still be to high!
This is what annoys me the most about the iMac and they didn't fix it. I'm using a 20" iMac at my current client and the screen is about 8-10cm to high for my tast. And you can only pivot it on the iMacs, not raise or lower it. I'd've thought they'd've fixed that with this release. Shame they didn't.
iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.starlight-systems.com/)
Re:iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. The feature list and Excel compatibility are a big win for some of us. I'm tired of using MS Office for the Mac, because it is slow and bloated, and prone to crash. A lighter, more nimble competitor is very welcome for my light spreadsheet needs. I avoid OpenOffice on the Mac as well, since it is likewise not really there yet.
The improvements to Pages also seem significant, with some real layout power (and separate layout and word processing modes). Hopefully this will make for a lightweight Framemaker/InDesign replacement for smaller jobs. In fact, the main thing missing from iWork for my needs is ODF support.
Re:iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:iWork - Numbers! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.smileystation.com/)
Balloons (Score:2, Funny)
They could make the iMac more expandable (Score:2, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday February 11 2006, @09:16AM)
iMac and VMWare (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been considering a Mac desktop for a while, and now that a new one is out, perhaps I'll buy it.
One thing I need, though, is to be able to run Linux and OpenBSD in virtual machines on my desktop. Does anyone have any experience with how the new VMWare Fusion compares to VMWare Workstation? Is there any difference between the two (aside from the price, and that unity view for Windows, which does not affect me)? I mean, in terms of features and running other OSes?
Attack of the clones. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://designelement.us/)
Seeing these new Macs, however, I can't help but wonder why in the hell PC makers don't actually start putting some damn effort into the manufacture and design of their machines. Instead they go for quick, cheap gimmicks like Dell and the goofy interchangeable color covers for their laptops. Even worse are the third party case manufacturers.
There are a million ideas out there for very elegant designs that could be just as impressive, if not more so, than anything Apple has designed. But instead what are we going to see? Dozens of crappy clones of the Apple design. Either that or half-hearted attempts that scream of cost-cutting over thoughtful design. Even Nintendo couldn't help but cloning the MacBook design with the DS and to a lesser extent the Wii.
Apple has nice design, but they are far from being the pinnacle of high design. If only other companies weren't cheap and unimaginative.
Re:Attack of the clones. (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) I need this to get work done and it has to run forever: Lenovo (formerly IBM) and high-end HP. Ugly is fine, as long as it's bullet-proof ugly
(2) I'm cheap and have no taste: Dell. Absolutely rock-bottom prices, and it has to match my velvet Elvis or corporate posters from Inspiration.com.
(3) It's a lifestyle choice, and I'm willing to pay for polish: Apple. They're not that much more expensive (especially the laptops), but getting people to overlook the price on the quad-core monsters is going to take better marketing. Tasteful, unobtrusive, and just let you get whatever it is you do done. Should be offered in Latte.
Besides, 94%, give or take a Linux box or two run Windows of some flavor. Why shouldn't the look of the machine remind you of the experience you're about to have?
iMac design (Score:2)
(http://www.geocities...atepower_gangsta.htm)
Am I the only one out there who thinks that the iMac's design has never been better than in its 1998-2001 (or so) version, before it started involving flat screens? I think it has never looked better than that, but that they couldn't keep it cause :
-They had to move on to a different design for the sake that it was a few years old because people don't like "old" stuff
-They had to put a flat screen in it because that's what people want
-They had to make it increasingly slimer and such because that's what people expect from futuristic computers
-Later they couldn't go back to it anyways so they have to move on into the forced design futurism
?