19.5 inch iMac...

bioflavonoid

Don't look at the "...will be presented at Macworld...January 7..." Someone posted this on Spymac and (if you remember, I started a thread in Temporary Insanity during Macworld about this icon found in iSync). <a href="http://www.spymac.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=12548&papass=&sort=1&thecat=50 2" target="_blank">Spymac: iMac 19.5 inch</a>



[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Bioflavonoid ]</p>

ibrowse

Don't see it happening.

bioflavonoid

[quote]Originally posted by iBrowse:

<strong>Don't see it happening.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ya, I know. But, I just thought it was interesting. I didn't get my hopes up either. lol



[ 01-25-2003: Message edited by: Bioflavonoid ]</p>

mr. macintosh

One thing, why?

matsu

Why? Because a huge screen is about the only thing they could do to make a worthwhile iMac, unless they plan on drastically cutting the price. Are there faster chips available? Not for a few months yet. Faster optical drives, bigger HDD's, airport ex, bluetooth, psuedo DDR, and mebbe a GPU bump are all nice, but you still stuck with a basically unexpandable machine. The 17" widescreen is the bare minimum acceptable display for a machine that can NEVER upgrade its display. 19-20" display at 1999 would be about the only way to really wow people.

macsrgood4u

huge screen = huge price.

matsu

19" screens are a grand (retail), the rest of the iMac isn't worth another grand. If a wide screen 19/20" panel could be had it would cost even less than a 4:3 panel (less surface area). They could sell such a machine and still make a couple of hundred on it. 1999 is already a huge price!



NONE of the iMacs they're selling now should be more than 1500.

dschango

[quote]Originally posted by MacsRGood4U:

<strong>huge screen = huge price.</strong><hr></blockquote>



Yes, why not! Compare the new iBook.

Did you really expect that?

stunned

Though its unlikely and expensive even if likely, I really hope that a 19" iMac will come out. It will be so cool to have a desktop like that!

rok

just want to point out that the current imac 17" wide screen is JUST FINE. case in point, when i went looking for a computer back in late 1999/early 2000, i was very tempted by the then-top-of-the-line powerbook. 400 MHz G3, 1024x768 max res., firewire, usb, 8 MB Rage 128 AGP x2, airport capability, etc.



then it hit me, unless i am SURE that i will use the portability of the laptop, why shell out that much extra cash? the imac (i.e. the original imac dv se) had EVERYTHING the high-end powerbook had, for almost half the price (it was, in essence, a powerbook with a CRT display). i then plunked down for that imac, and was very happy with it for three years.



i think the imac today can follow a similar model, where they can still offer, in essence, desktop versions of their powerbooks. the high-end imac gets 1 GHz, already has superdrive (though it will probably go slot-loading), stay 17" wide screen -- which, as steve pointed out, came directly from their work on the imac 17", airport extreme... i'm not so sure about ddr ram, but it wouldn't surprise me, either. and the video gets bumped up from geforce 4 mx, which is no slouch for video, but is getting a bit dated compared to current offerings.



i really need to email my friend who helped design the imac's swing-arm and ask them if it can even support a +19" screen safely... i highly doubt it.



btw, before i forget, there was once a thread devoted to the pro's and con's of slot-loading drives, and i think recently i am starting to lean AGAINST using slot-loading drives. i liked the slot-loading on my imac dv, but it could never take non-standard sized cd's (not a huge deal), but also, if you inserted a cd with a large amount of 4-screen color printing on the front, it sometimes was too slick for the rollers to grab and push it out adequately.



for a long time, cd's could only be printed with a max of three colors (look at your cd collection pre-2001, and see if you can find a single one that was printed with more than 3 colors. closest i had was u2's achtung, baby!, and upon further inspection, it was just an awesome use of 3 color printing to get a great range of colors). now lots of dvd's are being printed with this new technique, which just gobs on the ink. heck, even the jaguar install cd's use this, but the actual color image is relatively little, so the rollers still have something to grab onto. note, this may only be a phenomenon when the slot-loading drive gets older and the rollers have been used a lot (like on my old imac), but it is still an issue that tray-loading and laptop snap-tray-loading drives never have to worry about.



anyway, food for thought.



[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>

dschango

i really need to email my friend who helped design the imac's swing-arm and ask them if it can even support a +19" screen safely... i highly doubt it.



[ 01-26-2003: Message edited by: rok ][/QB][/QUOTE]



Let me know their response!

I don't doubt it.

shawk

The patent for the iMac swing arm lists weight limits equaling screen sizes up to 22".

dschango

[quote]Originally posted by shawk:

<strong>The patent for the iMac swing arm lists weight limits equaling screen sizes up to 22".</strong><hr></blockquote>



Where did you get that information?

matsu

Rok, that's fine except:



12"PB superdrive, 1999, spanning support, 867/133, DDR(kinda)

17" iMac superdrive, 1999, no spanning, 800/100.



Same expensive SO-DIMM's needed for RAM expansion, Same expensive Apple Authorized service needed for HDD upgrades.



About the arm, it can support a lot more weight than it's currently asked to. Making the base slightly larger or the arm slightly taller is not the huge engineering feat you might think. Neither is casing the LCD in lighter plactics. The design is done and tweaking is just a matter of playing with tolerances. A little more weight here, a little less there, a touch more resistance in the clutches/springs and voila, same arm, new tolerances. You people act like every task involves an apollo mission level of engineering detail. Apple does some nice work in their design, but it isn't rocket science.



Also, there's no good reason whatsoever for a desktop computer to have a slot loading drive. I'm not altogether happy about having one in my portable either, but you might make some arguments for the idots who'll move their machine around with the tray open or perform some other ham fisted manouver. Also the fact that laptop tray are a little flimsy might argue for a slot loaser in a mobile invironment where the tray gets in the way. Even given all that, I'd still prefer a tray with a manual eject button (THAT'S EASY TO GET TO) Going back to desktops, desktop trays are beautiful and sturdy, and inevitably have newer better drives available sooner with a standard fit that makes swapping a simple matter. Need I mention 8cm discs? If Apple provided a slot loader with a facility to accept 8cm discs, then I might be happier about them, but they're still missing a manual eject even on their trays.



iMac for the home? Your kids WILL find a way to fvck up you slot loader a lot sooner than they do the tray, ask around, you'll see.



About the only application where you can not argue against the slot loader is the In-dash CD player. A tray jutting out of a dashboard in a cramped moving car? No. But that's it, they're tollerable in a laptop, though still suspect, and they're absolutely the worst idea ever for a desktop drive.



Back to iMacs and price for a second, 17" is OK, but for 2000 it's about 300-500 dollars too much. At 2000USD a 19" widescreen should be expected. Remember that widescreens are cheaper (less square inches) than 4:3's of equivalent diagnal measurement.

ghost_user_name

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

<strong>19" screens are a grand (retail), the rest of the iMac isn't worth another grand. If a wide screen 19/20" panel could be had it would cost even less than a 4:3 panel (less surface area). They could sell such a machine and still make a couple of hundred on it. 1999 is already a huge price!



NONE of the iMacs they're selling now should be more than 1500.</strong><hr></blockquote>



But Apple is using fuzzy math so your post is pointless

koffedrnkr

of course, i'm always happy to see more affordable hardware, but it's utterly impractical to compare apple's pricing structure with competitors like gateway or dell. since apple sells fewer machines, they absolutely have to protect their margins. i'm not sure apple could even survive on the 8-10% margin of other volume discounters like dell. they certainly would be stretched to continue hardware and software development, as well as putting the necessary resources into OSX.

what needs to happen is that apple continues to sell more machines on the merits of OSX and those higher sales need to be turned into lower unit cost and by extension, lower prices. to say that you can buy an emachines clone for $500 at wal-mart is to miss the point entirely...