Maybe Blueray and a headless iMac :)

It's an absolute travesty the iMac hasn't gone quad yet. Low end windows machines that sell for less than the iMac have largely gone quad at this point. Apple is way way behind right now.

Yah I confess I too can't understand how the h*** Apple hasn't realized we need a quad consumer level machine.

Nothing uses quad processors yet. Almost no consumer level software is multiprocessor aware beyond two processors or cores. Snow Leopard will change that with Grand Central, but that's why we haven't seen it so far.

On 8 core Mac Pros, none of the iLife suite uses more than 2 cores. Not even iMovie. Remember that the iMac is a consumer level machine, so until the software can use it there is just no point in having more than 2 cores.

I have an eerie feeling a lot of red thumbs-down will be clicked on this post, but... to h*** with it! ;)

While I understand the urgency and wants of people for "bigger, better, faster," I think it must be said that bigger/better/faster does not mean "more talented" or "more highly skilled."

If you can't write a cohesive sentence on a 200MHz machine, four cores isn't going to help you with your spelling and grammar...

If you can't write a decent line of code with an old PowerMac G4 tower, four cores isn't going to make you a better programmer...

If you can't put colors together in a pleasing way on a 1GHz machine, four cores isn't going to make you a better designer...

More power is always better, I agree (and who wouldn't want four cores in their iMacs?) -- but I find quite commonly people whom equate their own skills and abilities to the speed and power of their computers, when in fact, the two are most definitely mutually exclusive.

I've got my helmet on -- let the beatings begin!

Title says it all. Easy swapable hard drives, upgradeable video card..etc

In other news, an upcoming update will include asked-for features, such as improved graphics and sound. It might also include faster hardware.

Now expand that to four paragraphs and you have a newsworthy article :)

Seriously wish that the current iMac chassis was more easily upgradeable in terms of HD, like the old ones were. Would love to drop an SSD in one and see how it runs, but take the screen glass off to swap in a new drive? um, no.

I love the other macs - but I do have a wish list....
-Love the Mac Pro (I own a 2008 model)
- would like a non-pro version of the mac with the same concept of the mac-pro (maybe quad CPU - non-Xeon handling up to 16GB, multiple drives at a little lower price) - and a slightly smaller tower case.
- like the Mac Mini concept - just wish they had a slightly larger one - USB3, space for a second drive - or eSATA ports; up to 8GB memory - and supporting 4 monitors - ok dreaming about 4 monitors :o).
- can't think of much I would change about the macbook pro line - just weighting for new tech to come down in price; OLED, larger memory drives).

To those who are saying you don't need quad, I have two points.

1) It's not about what you actually do or don't need. It's about perceived value. If a consumer is looking at an iMac and a Dell on the shelf, they're going to pick the machine with the "better" specs. Macs need relative parity spec wise in order for consumers to consider them. Especially given the fact that PCs and Macs use essentially the same hardware now.

2) While basic apps may not use more than two processors today, that's going to change very soon with Snow Leopard. I'm not buying a machine for how it runs now. I'm buying a machine for how it runs for the next 3-5 years. Simply put, a dual core machine is going to be severely crippled compared to a quad core machine in that time span.

When you compare current PCs to current iMacs, it's a joke right now considering the price to performance ratio. It's not about how well the machine performs right now. It's about how well the machine performs over it's lifetime. PC's that use quad core processors have a ton more headroom than the current iMac. It's pretty simple.