[quote]It sure looks like this whole Quanta spiel snaps together pretty well with the buzz in the rumor mill, as well as with what some little birds have been singing around the AtAT compound for the past week or so: namely, that the long-awaited LCD iMacs are absitively posolutely going to surface at the shindig in January.<hr></blockquote>
Based on their track record with little birds, things written onto the dust on their car, and vegan entrail substitutes, it looks like we have a winner: 15" LCD iMacs at MWSF.
Now all that remains is for Apple (1)to bump the resolution on all their LCD's
15" 1280x1024
17" 1440x1080
22" 1920x1200
Much better and smoother for OSX, just look how nice the iBook screen is.
(2)Intro 'gigawire' as discussed previously
(3)Eventually make iMacs out of the bigger LCD's aswell. They could do a 17" version right away for about 300 more than the 15". I think a lot of people would buy one.
<strong>Now all that remains is for Apple (1)to bump the resolution on all their LCD's
15" 1280x1024
17" 1440x1080
22" 1920x1200
Much better and smoother for OSX, just look how nice the iBook screen is.
(2)Intro 'gigawire' as discussed previously
(3)Eventually make iMacs out of the bigger LCD's aswell. They could do a 17" version right away for about 300 more than the 15". I think a lot of people would buy one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possibly, but I think the introduction of the 15" will be plenty for this time around. A 17" or even 22" right now just doesn't make sense. Hit the street hard with the LCD iMac, then later on make it into larger screens (like maybe after a year).
yep, I don't think they'll do it right away, but it's promising that it'd probably be a whole lot easier to do with LCD's. Let's hope we get 17" models in 2003.
<strong>Hi, smaller screen??? I hope you're joking or I'll have to come over there and slap you in the head. 15" is small enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, smaller screen. The current iMac's screen is way too big H x W not to mention D, to fit in tight spaces. It's have to be 12" or smaller. Preferably 10" for me. Vertical orientation is preferred - creates smaller footprint than horizontal orientation.
Yes, smaller screen. The current iMac's screen is way too big H x W not to mention D, to fit in tight spaces. It's have to be 12" or smaller. Preferably 10" for me. Vertical orientation is preferred - creates smaller footprint than horizontal orientation.
Not kidding.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WTF?????????? It is the case that is problem, kiddo. I have one, I know. Is the iBook to big for you too?
If you mean the overall bulk of the CRT you may be exempted from a beating (but only just). However, with an LCD the new iMac will be plenty small. It'll have practically zero footprint. I don't want to squint, I want a screen I can keep at a comfortable ditance from my eyes. 12" is fine for a laptop because the screen is close to you (on your lap) and even on a desk. You make some sacrifices for portability, which, when one thinks in terms of portability, are really advantages. But to do that to a machine that doesn't travel, would be to create an internet appliance. Apple should never do that. Can you name one successful attempt? Audrey? That Sony eVilla thing? All crap. When the iMac came out, it was a suitable machine but has aged since. Apple has enough problems with PPC, Mhz, updated designs, without knowingly handicapping a machine from the outset. A 12" screen would be the death of the iMac.
<strong>Now all that remains is for Apple (1)to bump the resolution on all their LCD's
15" 1280x1024
17" 1440x1080
22" 1920x1200
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's also the "news" (rumor? supposition? hard fact?) posted by RailHead that there will be a new LCD monitor - a 19" size - introduced soon and the EOL of the 15" monitor. (The 17" and the 22" cinema display will continue to be produced.)
There's also the "news" (rumor? supposition? hard fact?) posted by RailHead that there will be a new LCD monitor - a 19" size - introduced soon and the EOL of the 15" monitor. (The 17" and the 22" cinema display will continue to be produced.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if they added a 19" I think they should keep the 15" and lower the price a drop more.
I don't think it'll happen, but it'd be nice if each of the current displays came down a bit in price. Apple sells the 15" at $929 Canadian. Without trying, I can find an NEC 15" for $599 Canadian, and if I want to risk it at a small retailer, I can get it for $549. I can nearly buy two NEC'c for the price of the Apple. Now you don't get ADC, but ADC isn't worth that much. No, a price drop of about $150 US (or 225 Canadian) is in order. That would bring the US price to about 449-459 and the Canadian price to about 699-729. Still more expensive than the competition, but an acceptable premium given the design, quality, and ADC connection.
The 22 is actually very competitive with other large panels, and the 17 isn't too bad, but could stand to drop about 100 US to 899 (just like the Formac unit).
This is unlikely, but here is the iMac I want to see:
Two basic form factors:
15" LCD iMac
17" LCD iMac
Depending on the design, this could be very easy to do, compared to having different sized CRTs. If the display is simply mounted on a base unit containing the internals, then theoretically Apple could snap on any sized display and it wouldn't jack up production costs. So 15" for schools, grannys, and soccer moms, and 17" for computer enthusiasts. Pricing should be no higher than $1600. Something like:
15" 999-1299
17" 1399-1599
This pricing is possible for sure...Apple gets LCD displays cheap, and if they design the iMac to have low manufacturing costs then this could be done. I wouldn't pay more than $1600 for an LCD iMac however, because for about $2000 I can get a PMG4 w/15" LCD display as a student.
Graphics support:
A real AGP slot would be wonderful, but it's not going to happen. BTO options also are not practical, because they drive up manufacturing costs. So what Apple should do, IMHO, is offer the 15" and 17" with a good, midrange video chipset, like the Radeon or GF2MX. Then, offer a Gamer's edition (but Apple would call it the Maya edition or Graphics pro edition--never the gamer's mac). The gaming iMac would be the 17" LCD with a GeForce 3, and it would sell for a premium price at around $1700.
17" LCD w/GF3
$1700
People would pay this price for a high end video card and a bitching 17" LCD from Apple....I know I would. It would be a tremendous iMac.
Finally, the other internals:
CPU: Please Apple, PLEASE! slip an Apollo G4 in the new iMac!
IF the G5 Powermacs become reality, then the iMac may get the Apollo G4. So the desktops would go something like:
PMG5: 1.2, 14. 1.6
iMacG4: 1 GHz.
To save manufacturing costs, Apple should use only two different Mobos for the iMac: All of them with 1 GHz G4, and then the gamer edition with a GF3.
It is also possible that the iMac gets the G3, but then when PMG5s are introduced at MWNY, the iMac moves to the G4. It is crucial that the iMac get altivec, so that Apple's altivec user base grows in size. Apple has invested too much in Altivec to use it only in a minority of Macs sold...they must use it in consumer lines to give developer's incentive to code for it. The more Apps that support Altivec, the less MHz matter, and by word of mouth people WILL learn that Macs are fast for their MHz ratings. For word of mouth to work, the iMacs need Altivec.
Another sign that the new iMacs might get Altivec is that AppleInsider guessed that they would get G3s. Since AI is normally wrong, this is more evidence that an Apollo iMac is coming soon.
For optical media drives, same old...base different models by drive and not CPU.
Give all of the iMacs lots of RAM:
Low end 999 iMac: 128 MB RAM
All others: 256 MB RAM.
In reality, I don't believe we will see iMacs like the ones I just descibed, nevertheless I think that if Apple made these they would sell like mad. The only problem with my iMac dream here is the price of the 17" LCD iMac...Apple might not sqeeze out good margins with it. Buy we can dream!
[quote]um, are people forgetting that a 15 inch crt is around 13.3 inches, while a 15 inch LCD is 15 inches?
we are getting a bigger moniter, by almost two inches. that's great. stop your bitching. <hr></blockquote>
Why don't you stop bitching about people who like larger displays?
Some of us enjoy the luxuries of a large display area. The iMac needs as large of a display as possible if it's going to be a hit. Nobody skips the iMac because it's display is too big, they forego the iMac because it's display is so awfully small! So get a clue and understand why we want larger displays.
Also, a 15" LCD is NOT 2" bigger than the current display. The current display is 13.8 viewable, so 15-13.8=1.2" 1.2" is not even close to 2".
If you're going to bitch about other posters, at least try to get your facts straight.
[quote]Another sign that the new iMacs might get Altivec is that AppleInsider guessed that they would get G3s. Since AI is normally wrong, this is more evidence that an Apollo iMac is coming soon <hr></blockquote>
ROTFL.
[quote] Give all of the iMacs lots of RAM: <hr></blockquote>
Good Idea.
I don't see a 17" iMac coming because some of the models you describe get to close to bottom end PM specs...
Though, that may change if G5's show up. Now you have a whole different distinction in terms of processor.
Comments
[quote]It sure looks like this whole Quanta spiel snaps together pretty well with the buzz in the rumor mill, as well as with what some little birds have been singing around the AtAT compound for the past week or so: namely, that the long-awaited LCD iMacs are absitively posolutely going to surface at the shindig in January.<hr></blockquote>
Based on their track record with little birds, things written onto the dust on their car, and vegan entrail substitutes, it looks like we have a winner: 15" LCD iMacs at MWSF.
15" 1280x1024
17" 1440x1080
22" 1920x1200
Much better and smoother for OSX, just look how nice the iBook screen is.
(2)Intro 'gigawire' as discussed previously
(3)Eventually make iMacs out of the bigger LCD's aswell. They could do a 17" version right away for about 300 more than the 15". I think a lot of people would buy one.
<strong>Now all that remains is for Apple (1)to bump the resolution on all their LCD's
15" 1280x1024
17" 1440x1080
22" 1920x1200
Much better and smoother for OSX, just look how nice the iBook screen is.
(2)Intro 'gigawire' as discussed previously
(3)Eventually make iMacs out of the bigger LCD's aswell. They could do a 17" version right away for about 300 more than the 15". I think a lot of people would buy one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Possibly, but I think the introduction of the 15" will be plenty for this time around. A 17" or even 22" right now just doesn't make sense. Hit the street hard with the LCD iMac, then later on make it into larger screens (like maybe after a year).
<strong>Hi, smaller screen??? I hope you're joking or I'll have to come over there and slap you in the head. 15" is small enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, smaller screen. The current iMac's screen is way too big H x W not to mention D, to fit in tight spaces. It's have to be 12" or smaller. Preferably 10" for me. Vertical orientation is preferred - creates smaller footprint than horizontal orientation.
Not kidding.
<strong>GREAT! The LCD iMac is not even available and we are already bitching about the screen size needing to be bigger!
Of course, that's how it always is here.
<strong>
Yes, smaller screen. The current iMac's screen is way too big H x W not to mention D, to fit in tight spaces. It's have to be 12" or smaller. Preferably 10" for me. Vertical orientation is preferred - creates smaller footprint than horizontal orientation.
Not kidding.</strong><hr></blockquote>
WTF?????????? It is the case that is problem, kiddo. I have one, I know. Is the iBook to big for you too?
<strong>Now all that remains is for Apple (1)to bump the resolution on all their LCD's
15" 1280x1024
17" 1440x1080
22" 1920x1200
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's also the "news" (rumor? supposition? hard fact?) posted by RailHead that there will be a new LCD monitor - a 19" size - introduced soon and the EOL of the 15" monitor. (The 17" and the 22" cinema display will continue to be produced.)
<strong>
There's also the "news" (rumor? supposition? hard fact?) posted by RailHead that there will be a new LCD monitor - a 19" size - introduced soon and the EOL of the 15" monitor. (The 17" and the 22" cinema display will continue to be produced.)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Even if they added a 19" I think they should keep the 15" and lower the price a drop more.
The 22 is actually very competitive with other large panels, and the 17 isn't too bad, but could stand to drop about 100 US to 899 (just like the Formac unit).
we are getting a bigger moniter, by almost two inches. that's great. stop your bitching.
Two basic form factors:
15" LCD iMac
17" LCD iMac
Depending on the design, this could be very easy to do, compared to having different sized CRTs. If the display is simply mounted on a base unit containing the internals, then theoretically Apple could snap on any sized display and it wouldn't jack up production costs. So 15" for schools, grannys, and soccer moms, and 17" for computer enthusiasts. Pricing should be no higher than $1600. Something like:
15" 999-1299
17" 1399-1599
This pricing is possible for sure...Apple gets LCD displays cheap, and if they design the iMac to have low manufacturing costs then this could be done. I wouldn't pay more than $1600 for an LCD iMac however, because for about $2000 I can get a PMG4 w/15" LCD display as a student.
Graphics support:
A real AGP slot would be wonderful, but it's not going to happen. BTO options also are not practical, because they drive up manufacturing costs. So what Apple should do, IMHO, is offer the 15" and 17" with a good, midrange video chipset, like the Radeon or GF2MX. Then, offer a Gamer's edition (but Apple would call it the Maya edition or Graphics pro edition--never the gamer's mac). The gaming iMac would be the 17" LCD with a GeForce 3, and it would sell for a premium price at around $1700.
17" LCD w/GF3
$1700
People would pay this price for a high end video card and a bitching 17" LCD from Apple....I know I would. It would be a tremendous iMac.
Finally, the other internals:
CPU: Please Apple, PLEASE! slip an Apollo G4 in the new iMac!
IF the G5 Powermacs become reality, then the iMac may get the Apollo G4. So the desktops would go something like:
PMG5: 1.2, 14. 1.6
iMacG4: 1 GHz.
To save manufacturing costs, Apple should use only two different Mobos for the iMac: All of them with 1 GHz G4, and then the gamer edition with a GF3.
It is also possible that the iMac gets the G3, but then when PMG5s are introduced at MWNY, the iMac moves to the G4. It is crucial that the iMac get altivec, so that Apple's altivec user base grows in size. Apple has invested too much in Altivec to use it only in a minority of Macs sold...they must use it in consumer lines to give developer's incentive to code for it. The more Apps that support Altivec, the less MHz matter, and by word of mouth people WILL learn that Macs are fast for their MHz ratings. For word of mouth to work, the iMacs need Altivec.
Another sign that the new iMacs might get Altivec is that AppleInsider guessed that they would get G3s. Since AI is normally wrong, this is more evidence that an Apollo iMac is coming soon.
For optical media drives, same old...base different models by drive and not CPU.
Give all of the iMacs lots of RAM:
Low end 999 iMac: 128 MB RAM
All others: 256 MB RAM.
In reality, I don't believe we will see iMacs like the ones I just descibed, nevertheless I think that if Apple made these they would sell like mad. The only problem with my iMac dream here is the price of the 17" LCD iMac...Apple might not sqeeze out good margins with it. Buy we can dream!
we are getting a bigger moniter, by almost two inches. that's great. stop your bitching. <hr></blockquote>
Why don't you stop bitching about people who like larger displays?
Some of us enjoy the luxuries of a large display area. The iMac needs as large of a display as possible if it's going to be a hit. Nobody skips the iMac because it's display is too big, they forego the iMac because it's display is so awfully small! So get a clue and understand why we want larger displays.
Also, a 15" LCD is NOT 2" bigger than the current display. The current display is 13.8 viewable, so 15-13.8=1.2" 1.2" is not even close to 2".
If you're going to bitch about other posters, at least try to get your facts straight.
[quote]Another sign that the new iMacs might get Altivec is that AppleInsider guessed that they would get G3s. Since AI is normally wrong, this is more evidence that an Apollo iMac is coming soon <hr></blockquote>
ROTFL.
[quote] Give all of the iMacs lots of RAM: <hr></blockquote>
Good Idea.
I don't see a 17" iMac coming because some of the models you describe get to close to bottom end PM specs...
Though, that may change if G5's show up. Now you have a whole different distinction in terms of processor.
733 Mhz G4
133 Mhz Bus
4X AGP with nVidia geforce 2 MX 16 MB
256 MB RAM
60GB HD
15.1 inch LCD (1024 x 768)
Combo slot loading drive
$1299
$1499 model has Superdrive