The first imac revision is going to bring 933-1Ghz speeds, a 133Mhz bus, possibly 4x AGP, and the RAM layout will change to 2 external 168 pin DIMMs. And maybe 50-100 dollar price drop from the low end to the high-end. No 17" untill at least the end of 2002, but mid 2003 is a better bet. Right now a 999 model (and the eventual retirement of the CRT) is more of a priority than a 17" model.
So the original iMac didn't get a CPU upgrade for 8 months, but new models were added (with new colors) sooner. I think the revision B was more of a bug fix, not really an "upgrade", can anyone clarify that?
As for this opinion:
[quote] I don't think a 17" monitor would entice much more people.<hr></blockquote>
You are insane. A 17" iMac would entice many more people! Every single salesman I've ever talked to at ChumpUSA has always told me the same thing about the iMac, that the number one complaint, the number one sales-breaker, was the small display. Every salesman told me that if Apple offered a 17" iMac, they could sell probably twice as many, because so many potential buyers were sold except for the display size.
So now you tell me that a 17" iMac wouldn't make a difference. Nonsense. It would outsell any other iMac model there is. I would even buy one. You have no idea how many people I've talked to besides computer salesmen who all express the same frustration with the iMac, "it's a nice computer, but the monitor is too small", this is a mantra among the Mac users I talk to who want a new Mac but can't afford $2500 for a Powermac just so they can use a display larger than 15".
Yes, the new 15 viewable display is a great improvement, but it doesn't really change the nature of computer buyers: if they have a choice between two different systems, both the same except one has a larger display, then if they can afford the cost difference they will usually get the larger display.
Another problem the iMac faces is that once you've used a display of a certain size, it is difficult to step down to a smaller size without feeling constrained. The iMac is Apple's best bet for converting Wintel drones to Mac users, but the problem is that most Wintel users are used to 17"-19" CRT displays. The new iMac display would still feel small and constrained to these people. And don't give me that line about the 15" LCD being the same as a 17" CRT, that's bull. A typical 17" CRT has a 16" viewable area, compared to a 15" viewable area on the iMac's display. Big difference, particularly if you are trying to use OS X, which thrives on display area.
It's getting worse....the AppleZombies are out in full force here at AI. For a while they seemed to be in hibernation, maybe they were just out looking for more brains to eat, but now they're back. I don't know what bothers me more, an RDF-emitting AppleZombie, or a Wintel droid pissing Windows and sh!tting MHz all over the place!
15" LCD is comparable to a 17" CRT. Most new 17" CRT's can be pushed to 16" viewable, but the manufacturers are fudging a bit there. You don't often get that full edge to edge coverage without at least some edge distortion, even on the better models. If you want the picture straight as can be you need to back away from the edges a tad .25 to .5 of an inch. So, in effect you're really comparing a 15.1" viewable LCD to about a 15.5 - 15.75" viewable CRT. Factor in a flicker free, high contrast image, and unless you need multiple resolutions the LCD is the clear image quality/ergonomic winner.
A 17" LCD (about equivalent to a 19" CRT) would absolutely rock though.
<strong>I doubt we will see a major iMac revision until fall at the earliest, however, I think chances are good for a new iMac model to be introduced at MWNY, a model with a 17" LCD display!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't really see it, but I would definetly be on that like white on rice
Ok, dumb question: If you have a wireless keyboard or mouse, doesn't the wireless card, or chip or whatever need to be powered somehow??? So wouldn't it require batteries? I hope I'm totally off base but if you did need some sort of power Apple would never do this.
That would piss me off I had to keep changing batteries in my keyboard to keep it working.
Ok, dumb question: If you have a wireless keyboard or mouse, doesn't the wireless card, or chip or whatever need to be powered somehow??? So wouldn't it require batteries? I hope I'm totally off base but if you did need some sort of power Apple would never do this.
That would piss me off I had to keep changing batteries in my keyboard to keep it working.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, gasp... it would require batteries. or perhaps it could eb an optional thing. usb or wireless.
the iMac looks so futuristic I just think a logical futuristic step would be to eliminate as many wires as possible.
perhpas Apple could implement regenerative key pressing? sort of like the brakes on electric cards and hybrids that charge the battery using the energy created from braking.
Wireless iMac would be a good idea. But then we'd have the whiners who would complain that the mouse would be so easy to lose. Ahh well. Apple can't win regardless.
Oh, and I think usually Apple likes to ship products out before announcing revisions. I know, I know... stupid philosophy.
MWNY will see slight speed bumps and price changes on the iMac top model, down to $1699. Low-end model will be dropped and middle model will have a price drop to $1299 from $1499. Screen size will stay the same. 6 milllion originals were sold with 15" screen and seemlingly only people on this forum complained. LCD prices are not falling anymore, they are increasing. You don't screw with a product unless it is not selling. Also look for a new app at MWNY for the digital hub. No wireless mouse or keyboard as that would add to the price. Also I expect Apple to add another manufactuer for the iMac. Actually Quanta and the others assemble the product, the pieces are made by many different companies.
A completely redesigned Tower will be offered as well as a revised iPod (with 20 mg disk drive) at the current price.
<strong>The iMac, I think, is already the best selling vers ever. And, personally, I don't think a 17" monitor would entice much more people. It's a great addition, but not necessary.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you serious? People see 15" and 17" and think VALUE!!! for the latter.
<strong>Wireless iMac would be a good idea. But then we'd have the whiners who would complain that the mouse would be so easy to lose.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The majority of those complaints are in the context of a school environment. Have the top of the line model with a wireless keyboard and mouse and you've basically eliminated the complaint. (Most schools buy few or none of the top of the line iMac model)
Taking Apple's own 5% figure, that means roughly 120 Million consumer machines were sold in the same time frame. Virtually all of them Windows machines. So while the iMac may be the top selling single model, it has not done much to adress the issue of market share (which even Apple now claims to be aiming for). iMac is nice, but has not been, on it's own, enough to make any significant inroads regarding the total market share of the whole platform. It needs to get both cheaper and more powerful with more consistent updates and better discounts in addition to all the exclusive software innovations. Consumers respond to price and quality. All the quality in the world won't do you any good if people simply can't afford to pay for it. Nobody doubts that Merecedes makes a quality automobile, but how many can afford to own it?
The majority of those complaints are in the context of a school environment. Have the top of the line model with a wireless keyboard and mouse and you've basically eliminated the complaint. (Most schools buy few or none of the top of the line iMac model)</strong><hr></blockquote>
forgive me but I don't get this arguement... how is having a usb cable more secure than having no cable?
OMG I would so buy a 17 inch iMac if Apple had the balls to do it. Alot of people I've spoken to think that the iMac is a great computer. Its really almost there for them...I think that a 17 inch iMac would be a phenomenal seller. Geez...I'm getting wait to excited about this...
Wireless keyboads: All perhipherals are tied down at the Applestore. Cables are useful. Regarding schools: th USB cable is more a psychological deterrent than anything. You would never, ever accidently put a mouse in your backpack would you? You know why? Its the cable, stupid.
[quote] 15" LCD is comparable to a 17" CRT. <hr></blockquote>
Wrong. 17" CRTs have a viewable area of 16". That is about an inch larger in viewing area compared to a 15" LCD.
[quote]A 17" LCD (about equivalent to a 19" CRT) would absolutely rock though.
<hr></blockquote>
Wrong. A 19" CRT has an 18" viewable area, again, about an inch larger than a 17" LCD.
I don't doubt that the 15" LCD on the new iMac is a beautiful display, but get your facts right. Go over to <a href="http://www.outpost.com"; target="_blank">www.outpost.com</a> and do a search on CRT displays. Check out the rated size vs. actual viewing area, and you will see that I'm right.
And no, you can't talk your way out of this by making crap up about unused space on the edge of CRT displays...because that space is the very reason that CRT makers are required to give the measurment for the ACTUAL viewable area, i.e., because it is SMALLER than the actual size of the display. Also, far less than 0.5" unused space is needed on the sides of a quality CRT display. Most have only a few millimeters unused space on each side...these are not you father's CRTs, I'm talking about the true flatscreen trinitrons and diamondtrons.
[quote]6 milllion originals were sold with 15" screen and seemlingly only people on this forum complained. <hr></blockquote>
Obviously people who had a problem with the iMac's display size simply chose not to purchase an iMac. They either forked over the cash for a Powermac, or they bought a Wintel, or they didn't buy a computer at all. The fact that the original iMac sold well does not prove that there is not a large contingent of consumers who would buy a 17" LCD iMac but not a 15" LCD iMac.
Furthermore it is not really a valid comparison, because when the original iMac was introduced displays were generally smaller in size than they are today. The standard size for most midrange computers back in 98 was about 15", but today it is about 17" (16" viewable), and the new iMac falls shy. But of course the new LCD's display quality is so awesome that it will convince many people to opt for quality over raw size. Surely the original iMac's display never inspired such trade-offs. I swear the last time I used an iMac the display felt like it was recycled from 1992. It's pathetic.
As for wireless keyboard and mouse, unless it's nuclear powered forget it. Nobody want's to dick around with batteries all the time....what if it's 2:00 am and you're working up to the wire on a project and you run out of batteries? Doeh!!! But seriously, if you have to recharge the keyboard and mouse by plugging them in, no cables have actually been eliminated. In fact wireless becomes more of a hassle because not only are there still cables, but you've got to remember to plug them in to recharge! What a royal pain in the arse .
Don't know about the rest of you but my keyboard cable never bothers me at all, and the mouse cable is out of the way as well, being so short and attached to the keyboard. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Furthermore, a USB keyboard and mouse are easily replaced with aftermarket peripherals if desired. If Apple switched to some proprietary wireless design, then 2+ button mouse users would be totally FU[KED! I'll stick with the cheap and plentiful USB mice and keyboards, thank you!
Furthermore, a USB keyboard and mouse are easily replaced with aftermarket peripherals if desired. If Apple switched to some proprietary wireless design, then 2+ button mouse users would be totally FU[KED! I'll stick with the cheap and plentiful USB mice and keyboards, thank you!</strong><hr></blockquote>
yea, because if they went wireless keyboard/mouse they would also remove USB ports
Hehe, well you got me there Applenut. Too much to drink and too much typing..
But I'd still rather Apple devoted their efforts to developing a two button mouse w/ scrollwheel rather than dicking around with wireless crap. I mean, first there was the puck mouse, and then two years, TWO years later, they managed to up the ante with the "pro" mouse, not pro but not Fisher Price either, and then the pro mouse probably cut the proportion of Mac buyers who immediately trashed their mouse upon receiving shipment by about 20%. If it's this hard for Apple to get their mouse right, imagine the amount of resources they would need for a wireless mouse and keyboard that people didn't throw out first thing after opening the packaging. Don't laugh until you think back prior to the introduction of the puck mouse--who would have thought anybody could screw up a mouse, especially the very same company that brought the first mouse-dependent personal computer to the market! Unbelievable.
I'm not sure Apple would be able to pull off of wireless mouse design, let alone the whole keyboard/mouse combo.
forgive me but I don't get this arguement... how is having a usb cable more secure than having no cable?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My G4 shipped with a small clip that you use to collect the mouse, keyboard and speaker cables in a bundle with a small loop that you attach to your security cable.
Comments
rev. A August 1998 (shipped)
rev. B October 1998
5 Colors: Jan. 1999
333Mhz: April 1999
Slot-loading: Oct. 1999
As for this opinion:
[quote] I don't think a 17" monitor would entice much more people.<hr></blockquote>
You are insane. A 17" iMac would entice many more people! Every single salesman I've ever talked to at ChumpUSA has always told me the same thing about the iMac, that the number one complaint, the number one sales-breaker, was the small display. Every salesman told me that if Apple offered a 17" iMac, they could sell probably twice as many, because so many potential buyers were sold except for the display size.
So now you tell me that a 17" iMac wouldn't make a difference. Nonsense. It would outsell any other iMac model there is. I would even buy one. You have no idea how many people I've talked to besides computer salesmen who all express the same frustration with the iMac, "it's a nice computer, but the monitor is too small", this is a mantra among the Mac users I talk to who want a new Mac but can't afford $2500 for a Powermac just so they can use a display larger than 15".
Yes, the new 15 viewable display is a great improvement, but it doesn't really change the nature of computer buyers: if they have a choice between two different systems, both the same except one has a larger display, then if they can afford the cost difference they will usually get the larger display.
Another problem the iMac faces is that once you've used a display of a certain size, it is difficult to step down to a smaller size without feeling constrained. The iMac is Apple's best bet for converting Wintel drones to Mac users, but the problem is that most Wintel users are used to 17"-19" CRT displays. The new iMac display would still feel small and constrained to these people. And don't give me that line about the 15" LCD being the same as a 17" CRT, that's bull. A typical 17" CRT has a 16" viewable area, compared to a 15" viewable area on the iMac's display. Big difference, particularly if you are trying to use OS X, which thrives on display area.
It's getting worse....the AppleZombies are out in full force here at AI. For a while they seemed to be in hibernation, maybe they were just out looking for more brains to eat, but now they're back. I don't know what bothers me more, an RDF-emitting AppleZombie, or a Wintel droid pissing Windows and sh!tting MHz all over the place!
A 17" LCD (about equivalent to a 19" CRT) would absolutely rock though.
<strong>I doubt we will see a major iMac revision until fall at the earliest, however, I think chances are good for a new iMac model to be introduced at MWNY, a model with a 17" LCD display!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't really see it, but I would definetly be on that like white on rice
Price drop of 100 on each model, including a new $999 model (same specs as current bottom end, but slower CDRW)
Speed bumps in the order of 800/800/1000
MWSF will see:
Price drop equating to $999, $1299, $1499. 1000/1000/12000. Superdrive on top and middle, combo on bottom.
I am sure about MWNY, MWSF is just an educated guess.
<strong>
wireless keyboard and mouse
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, dumb question: If you have a wireless keyboard or mouse, doesn't the wireless card, or chip or whatever need to be powered somehow??? So wouldn't it require batteries? I hope I'm totally off base but if you did need some sort of power Apple would never do this.
That would piss me off I had to keep changing batteries in my keyboard to keep it working.
<strong>
Ok, dumb question: If you have a wireless keyboard or mouse, doesn't the wireless card, or chip or whatever need to be powered somehow??? So wouldn't it require batteries? I hope I'm totally off base but if you did need some sort of power Apple would never do this.
That would piss me off I had to keep changing batteries in my keyboard to keep it working.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yes, gasp... it would require batteries. or perhaps it could eb an optional thing. usb or wireless.
the iMac looks so futuristic I just think a logical futuristic step would be to eliminate as many wires as possible.
perhpas Apple could implement regenerative key pressing? sort of like the brakes on electric cards and hybrids that charge the battery using the energy created from braking.
Oh, and I think usually Apple likes to ship products out before announcing revisions. I know, I know... stupid philosophy.
A completely redesigned Tower will be offered as well as a revised iPod (with 20 mg disk drive) at the current price.
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]</p>
<strong>The iMac, I think, is already the best selling vers ever. And, personally, I don't think a 17" monitor would entice much more people. It's a great addition, but not necessary.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Are you serious? People see 15" and 17" and think VALUE!!! for the latter.
<strong>Wireless iMac would be a good idea. But then we'd have the whiners who would complain that the mouse would be so easy to lose.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The majority of those complaints are in the context of a school environment. Have the top of the line model with a wireless keyboard and mouse and you've basically eliminated the complaint. (Most schools buy few or none of the top of the line iMac model)
<strong>6 milllion originals were sold with 15" screen and seemlingly only people on this forum complained.
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: MacsRGood4U ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Taking Apple's own 5% figure, that means roughly 120 Million consumer machines were sold in the same time frame. Virtually all of them Windows machines. So while the iMac may be the top selling single model, it has not done much to adress the issue of market share (which even Apple now claims to be aiming for). iMac is nice, but has not been, on it's own, enough to make any significant inroads regarding the total market share of the whole platform. It needs to get both cheaper and more powerful with more consistent updates and better discounts in addition to all the exclusive software innovations. Consumers respond to price and quality. All the quality in the world won't do you any good if people simply can't afford to pay for it. Nobody doubts that Merecedes makes a quality automobile, but how many can afford to own it?
[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
<strong>
The majority of those complaints are in the context of a school environment. Have the top of the line model with a wireless keyboard and mouse and you've basically eliminated the complaint. (Most schools buy few or none of the top of the line iMac model)</strong><hr></blockquote>
forgive me but I don't get this arguement... how is having a usb cable more secure than having no cable?
<strong>
forgive me but I don't get this arguement... how is having a usb cable more secure than having no cable?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good point. Wireless across the line, dammit!
OMG I would so buy a 17 inch iMac if Apple had the balls to do it. Alot of people I've spoken to think that the iMac is a great computer. Its really almost there for them...I think that a 17 inch iMac would be a phenomenal seller. Geez...I'm getting wait to excited about this...
Wireless keyboads: All perhipherals are tied down at the Applestore. Cables are useful. Regarding schools: th USB cable is more a psychological deterrent than anything. You would never, ever accidently put a mouse in your backpack would you? You know why? Its the cable, stupid.
Wrong. 17" CRTs have a viewable area of 16". That is about an inch larger in viewing area compared to a 15" LCD.
[quote]A 17" LCD (about equivalent to a 19" CRT) would absolutely rock though.
<hr></blockquote>
Wrong. A 19" CRT has an 18" viewable area, again, about an inch larger than a 17" LCD.
I don't doubt that the 15" LCD on the new iMac is a beautiful display, but get your facts right. Go over to <a href="http://www.outpost.com"; target="_blank">www.outpost.com</a> and do a search on CRT displays. Check out the rated size vs. actual viewing area, and you will see that I'm right.
And no, you can't talk your way out of this by making crap up about unused space on the edge of CRT displays...because that space is the very reason that CRT makers are required to give the measurment for the ACTUAL viewable area, i.e., because it is SMALLER than the actual size of the display. Also, far less than 0.5" unused space is needed on the sides of a quality CRT display. Most have only a few millimeters unused space on each side...these are not you father's CRTs, I'm talking about the true flatscreen trinitrons and diamondtrons.
[quote]6 milllion originals were sold with 15" screen and seemlingly only people on this forum complained. <hr></blockquote>
Obviously people who had a problem with the iMac's display size simply chose not to purchase an iMac. They either forked over the cash for a Powermac, or they bought a Wintel, or they didn't buy a computer at all. The fact that the original iMac sold well does not prove that there is not a large contingent of consumers who would buy a 17" LCD iMac but not a 15" LCD iMac.
Furthermore it is not really a valid comparison, because when the original iMac was introduced displays were generally smaller in size than they are today. The standard size for most midrange computers back in 98 was about 15", but today it is about 17" (16" viewable), and the new iMac falls shy. But of course the new LCD's display quality is so awesome that it will convince many people to opt for quality over raw size. Surely the original iMac's display never inspired such trade-offs. I swear the last time I used an iMac the display felt like it was recycled from 1992. It's pathetic.
As for wireless keyboard and mouse, unless it's nuclear powered forget it. Nobody want's to dick around with batteries all the time....what if it's 2:00 am and you're working up to the wire on a project and you run out of batteries? Doeh!!! But seriously, if you have to recharge the keyboard and mouse by plugging them in, no cables have actually been eliminated. In fact wireless becomes more of a hassle because not only are there still cables, but you've got to remember to plug them in to recharge! What a royal pain in the arse .
Don't know about the rest of you but my keyboard cable never bothers me at all, and the mouse cable is out of the way as well, being so short and attached to the keyboard. Why fix something that isn't broken?
Furthermore, a USB keyboard and mouse are easily replaced with aftermarket peripherals if desired. If Apple switched to some proprietary wireless design, then 2+ button mouse users would be totally FU[KED! I'll stick with the cheap and plentiful USB mice and keyboards, thank you!
<strong>
Furthermore, a USB keyboard and mouse are easily replaced with aftermarket peripherals if desired. If Apple switched to some proprietary wireless design, then 2+ button mouse users would be totally FU[KED! I'll stick with the cheap and plentiful USB mice and keyboards, thank you!</strong><hr></blockquote>
yea, because if they went wireless keyboard/mouse they would also remove USB ports
But I'd still rather Apple devoted their efforts to developing a two button mouse w/ scrollwheel rather than dicking around with wireless crap. I mean, first there was the puck mouse, and then two years, TWO years later, they managed to up the ante with the "pro" mouse, not pro but not Fisher Price either, and then the pro mouse probably cut the proportion of Mac buyers who immediately trashed their mouse upon receiving shipment by about 20%. If it's this hard for Apple to get their mouse right, imagine the amount of resources they would need for a wireless mouse and keyboard that people didn't throw out first thing after opening the packaging. Don't laugh until you think back prior to the introduction of the puck mouse--who would have thought anybody could screw up a mouse, especially the very same company that brought the first mouse-dependent personal computer to the market! Unbelievable.
I'm not sure Apple would be able to pull off of wireless mouse design, let alone the whole keyboard/mouse combo.
[ 02-14-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
<strong>
forgive me but I don't get this arguement... how is having a usb cable more secure than having no cable?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My G4 shipped with a small clip that you use to collect the mouse, keyboard and speaker cables in a bundle with a small loop that you attach to your security cable.