Originally posted by Programmer
Personally I'd like to see the headless iMac with GPU on an AGP card and a 2 GHz 970FX for as low a price as Apple can possibly manage.
Someone's been spending waaaaay too much time in the Mac Ach. Please report to the Maximum Fun Chamber for deprogramming, citizen.
Why would Steve unveil the iMac at WWDC? Maybe for peripheral or PR reasons, although at this point the man gets international press coverage when he sneezes, and so the trend has been away from expo announcements altogether.
But what if it's something new? A lot of the technologies that look really interesting, that have the potential to evolve hardware, aren't coming down from the high end (although a lot of them are). Integrated memory controllers and systems-on-chip (IMC is a form of SoC, technically...) are the traditional domain of low-end and embedded systems. Nothing at all requires that a revolutionary - or even evolutionary - new platform debut in the PowerMac. It doesn't really even have to be that interesting in terms of what's on the board, but rather in terms of what it presents to developers as a complete system.
As far as screen resolutions go, I also work in a shop where the overwhelming majority of displays are set to 1024x768, even though they're higher res (the laptops are 15" @ 1600x1200 native, run at 1024x768). It has nothing to do with IT; our IT guy doesn't care what resolution you use. It has to do with the fact that most Americans, especially older Americans, aren't comfortable squinting at very small things on screen. 1024x768 on a 17" LCD makes everything comfortably large, so they can lean back and relax their eyes and still see what's on screen clearly. This is why Apple offers the 14" iBook at the same resolution as the 12" — people don't care about resolution, they care about absolute screen size and the ease with which they can read what's on screen. Given that, super-high-res — or Squintronic™, as I've taken to calling them — displays are a net loss, because they demand extra horsepower to run a display that's darker and lower-contrast (an inevitable result of higher pixel density) at a non-native resolution, which makes everything blurry, and you get all this for a significantly higher price.
If you look at what people are buying, notebook-wise, the 15" 1024x768 screen is king. If that's what people are using, that's the best thing to ship. An LCD screen designed to run natively at that resolution will be brighter, sharper, clearer, and cheaper than one that isn't.
Higher resolution screens won't become "better" to more than the niche market of people with 40/20 vision until someone ships a resolution-independent UI. Don't hold your breath.