For one thing, a bigger screen on the current base would throw off the proportions of the unit as a whole. For another, as the screen gets bigger (and heavier), the center of gravity for the unit shifts upward; add one cat, & you have an iMac upside down on the floor.
QB]<hr></blockquote>
With all due respect, I personally think the proportions are off with the current 15" display.
A 17" would be a better balance as the base presently seem a bit large. Besides, the added weight will be negliable.
As far as 19", uh...no I don't think so. Apple's not going to risk losing sales of it's more profitable pro desktops.
A Ghz 17" headed iMac with video spanning would be great. Even greater is if it was listed at $1800.
"This is a forum where people disagree and have different opinions. No one is right or wrong...just opinions."
"Who cares? You got hard fact? Just conjecture like all the other wannabees on these boards. So we gotta different opinion. Deal with it."
I was pointing out some real-world considerations, and acknowledged that I might be incorrect in my assessment of those structural considerations, as they apply to the G4 iMac. My opinion that the iMac won't accept a larger display "as is" is based on knowing something about structural & mechanical stuff.
As far as "opinion" is concerned, it's generally understood that opinion is based on some sort of logical, rational, or informed process. Lacking logic, reason or information, one has (at worst) prejudice - or (at best) meaningless noise.
By the same token, speculation is a process of extrapolation from the known to the unknown, informed once again by reason, logic, and/or information/experience.
If you want to make stuff up out of nothing & hope real hard you guess right, fine: don't let me stop you. But such pipe dreams don't qualify as either opinion or speculation.
With all the b**ching about the price of the iMac when it came out (on this board) AND with the subsequent $100 price increase I think we can rule out a 19" widescreen.
Whats 19" widescreen worth by itself $2200US or more? that pushing the iMac to $4000US+.
Even a 17" widescreen would cost more than the current 17" with the standard aspect ratio.
I dont think apple will push that until they can normalize the production costs of the current 15"
iMac and bring it closer to the old iMac price point. Right now they are working with a higher cost producer (Quanta) because they want the quality. Unlike the US gov't apple doesn't farm its production to the lowest bidder or we'd have heard a hundred stories about the arm failing on the iMac!
I was pointing out some real-world considerations, and acknowledged that I might be incorrect in my assessment of those structural considerations, as they apply to the G4 iMac. My opinion that the iMac won't accept a larger display "as is" is based on knowing something about structural & mechanical stuff.
As far as "opinion" is concerned, it's generally understood that opinion is based on some sort of logical, rational, or informed process. Lacking logic, reason or information, one has (at worst) prejudice - or (at best) meaningless noise.
By the same token, speculation is a process of extrapolation from the known to the unknown, informed once again by reason, logic, and/or information/experience.
If you want to make stuff up out of nothing & hope real hard you guess right, fine: don't let me stop you. But such pipe dreams don't qualify as either opinion or speculation.
A 19" widescreen LCD will be about the same area as a normal ratio 17" - does it seem so unlikely now?
David</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly! This is the key to understanding this rumor.
If these new iMacs will be widescreen, then it is very likely that the 17" widescreen LCD will have a comparable area to the current 15" LCD, and the 19" widescreen will be comparable to a 17" LCD.
The iMac's base is heavy enough to act as a counter-weight for displays MUCH heavier than the current 15" display. It's not even an issue. The neck is also sturdy enough to hold a larger display, and since a spring is used to hold the position of the jointed arm, a larger display would merely need a different spring. It is clear that the current imac was designed to be able to accomadate different display sizes--Apple learned their lesson after the original iMac locked them into a fixed display size.
Another point to consider is that the LCD iMac may very well move to a high end consumer desktop position in Apple's lineup. All Apple needs to do is offer the eMac to general consumers, and bracket it with the CRT iMac at the low end, and the LCD iMac at the high end. It's doubtful that Apple ever planned for the LCD iMac to be the low end desktop, since LCDs are simply too expensive.
I have a hard time believing that Apple will only offer the eMac to the edu market, it is too strong a product to keep away from the general public.
Here's the consumer desktop lineup I envision for the next year or two, starting sometime this year:
Low end: 15" CRT iMac.
$799: CD-ROM
$999: CD-RW
Midrange: 17" CRT eMac, w/modem and probably a new name.
$1099: CD-RW
$1199: Combo Drive
High end: LCD iMac, 2 models.
?17" Widescreen LCD:
$1399: CD-RW.
$1499: Combo Drive.
$1799: Superdrive.
?19" Widescreen LCD:
$1599: CD-RW.
$1699: Combo Drive.
$1999: Superdrive.
Another way to look at this lineup is to categorize by optical drive:
CD-ROM:
$799: 15" CRT iMac.
CD-RW:
$999: 15" CRT iMac.
$1099: 17" CRT eMac.
$1399: 17" Widescreen LCD iMac.
$1599: 19" Widescreen LCD iMac.
Combo Drive:
$1199: 17" CRT eMac
$1499: 17" Widescreen LCD iMac.
$1699: 19" Widescreen LCD iMac.
Superdrive:
$1799: 17" Widescreen LCD iMac.
$1999: 19" Widescreen LCD iMac.
(notice that even though a widescreen 17" has about the same area as a normal 15" LCD, by making the LCD iMac 17" minimum this minimizes confusion with the 17" CRT eMac, by never charging MORE for a display that is LESS inches).
I think such a lineup is in Apple's future, since it is very hard to imagine that a product like the eMac would only be offered to edu customers. The 15" CRT iMac is important for Apple's sub-$1000 range, although it is also concievable that the eMac's price could be lowered to $800...after all a flat-screen 17" CRT display is dirt cheap, and the price is only going lower.
The prices on the LCD iMacs are speculation...I used the $100 cost of the combo drive over a CD-RW drive when BTOing a Powermac. I figured $200 extra for the 19" widescreen LCD over the 17" widescreen LCD, this was based on a target of $1999 for the highest priced iMac, and on the $200 extra cost for a 17" LCD over a 15" LCD when buying a Powermac (see apple store's powermac BTO page for reference). I don't see Apple charging more than $1999 for an iMac, because 2K seems like a hard ceiling for consumers, and also because >2k would fall into Powermac territory.
This lineup addresses the #1 complaint about Apple's consumer desktops ever since the original iMac: Display size. For years Apple has saddled consumers with tiny, impotent displays on their all-in-one Macs, but I'm betting that Apple learned from all the negative feedback and is going to larger display sizes.
There is no overlap with Powermacs, since the low end powermac is $1599 and Apple's lowest priced display is $499, for a $2099 total, $200 over the high end iMac. That's a stripped down Powermac as well, something I'm betting that MOST buyers never even consider.
Personally, given the above lineup I still would opt for a Powermac, I simply must have the expandability and upgradabiliity of a tower. But for most Mac buyers, this lineup would be the most alluring of any Apple has offered in YEARS. Jobs was right to cut down the number of Mac models when he returned, but now that Apple is back on track it's time to expand the models to please more consumers. More models doesn't have to mean more confusion, and with the above lineup, a consumer can easily pick out a model based on which display they want. All they need to do is answer the following questions:
1. Price? Determines low, mid, or high end of consumer range.
2. CRT or LCD? Dependent upon price, desk space, and personal preference.
3. Display size? Price and personal preference determins display size.
A 19" widescreen LCD will be about the same area as a normal ratio 17" - does it seem so unlikely now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, every bit as unlikely, because the 19" would, arguably, be just as heavy as the 17" - if not moreso. It's a matter of weight, mass, & balance of forces. The weight of the screen out on that arm acts like a cantilever, magnifying the forces pulling on the base. Increase the weight of the screen - even slightly - and those forces will increase, possibly dramatically.
See, in order for the G4 iMac to work with a 17" (or larger) lcd, it must have been engineered to do so; if they did, then they know it can handle the bigger screen, and they know what they need to modify to ensure that it works (ie, won't tip over, arm will hold heavier screen in place at any angle just as well as it does the 15", etc). If Apple didn't engineer for the larger (heavier) screen, and just "bolts one on" & hope it works, that would be an unbelievably stupid thing to do - far more stupid than any of the stupid things they've been attacked for in these very fora (& elsewhere).
I find ironically entertaining that many of the harshest Apple critics here are among the most insistent advocates of the large-screen iMac. Sort of a win-win proposition for these folks: no matter what Apple chooses to do on the issue, it will give 'em something to scream @ Apple for. If no big-lcd iMac, scream about that; if it doesn't work, scream about that; if they do it & make it work, scream about the price. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Exactly! This is the key to understanding this rumor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong, sorry.
The key to understanding this rumour is this: some people want larger-lcd iMacs, and they don't care if it's do-able or not, and they don't care whether it's cost-effective or not. They decided it would be great (and it would be), and they talk themselves into believing it's sensible, inevitable, necessary...and they just don't want to hear anything except "you're right".
[quote]<strong>Heh, I'm getting excited about this lineup because it makes so damn much sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple is not so inept that they would have designed the LCD iMac to accomodate nothing but a 15" LCD. We understand the physics of it, you don't need to give us a lecture on levers and spring theory. The simple fact is that the base is heavy enough to act as a counter-weight for a larger, heavier display than the one currently on the iMac.
I've examined the new iMac close enough to be 100% confident that Apple designed it with larger LCD displays in mind. It's virtually "obvious", since clearly the most common complaint of the last iMac was the tiny display. A new iMac with a modular display is the fix, and I can assure you that Apple will eventually offer a model w/ a larger LCD.
Will it be at MWNY? Maybe, but probably not. I would say maybe a 20% chance at MWNY, an 85% chance at MWSF, and a 100% chance that one is introduced by MWNY 2003. If I'm wrong, I'll suck my own dick, but if YOU'RE wrong, then you have to suck my dick!
<strong>Man, you really know how to let loose huh?
This is AppleInsider. It's all about pipe dreams and silly conjecture.
And furthermore, there were rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely.
But lastly, and mostly importantly, reason and logic do not apply when speaking about Apple. </strong><hr></blockquote>
A couple of points:
Yeah, I *do* know how to let loose - but don't think you've see me do it. All I've done is plainly state a few basic concepts of intelligent discourse, since the conversation(s) displayed ignorance of them. If that's playing too rough for you, I have bad news about the rest of your life....
I've been around & posting since the "old days" here @ AI, and while there've been plenty of pipe dreams and silly conjecture, I never saw that as the point of the discussion here: I've generally chalked it up to mental laziness, intellectual dishonesty, and/or the failure of parents & schools to teach kids how to think, and why. But I'm not here because I'm bored or lazy, 'cause I have nothing else to do, or to make **** up & then act like I did something: I'm here to actually talk about stuff that requires real thinking, and to hear from others who actually know some things & who try to apply what they know to what they think about. It's called knowledge & experience, and practical intelligence. Amorph, Programmer, Razz Fazz, and others whose names I can't recall right this minute are good examples of what I'm here for. You want to show up & talk on a serious level, fine: let's talk; you wanna practice your stance, your attitude, I have no time for you.
As far as "rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely", every one of them applies equally well to the 17"; but because people want the 17" iMac to 'come true', the pull a Scarlett O'Hara & just refuse to think about what might really be going on.
I mean it's all so, like, ninth grade...
And lastly: logic is often useless and/or inappropriate, particularly where emotions are concerned; reason, on the other hand, is always useful and appropriate, 'cause it helps you stay clear about what you're doing. If you have an emotional reaction to all things Apple, and you want to let them out here to share, fine; but that's not thinking, and you're not gaining anything by pretending it is.
Yeah, I *do* know how to let loose - but don't think you've see me do it. All I've done is plainly state a few basic concepts of intelligent discourse, since the conversation(s) displayed ignorance of them. If that's playing too rough for you, I have bad news about the rest of your life....
I've been around & posting since the "old days" here @ AI, and while there've been plenty of pipe dreams and silly conjecture, I never saw that as the point of the discussion here: I've generally chalked it up to mental laziness, intellectual dishonesty, and/or the failure of parents & schools to teach kids how to think, and why. But I'm not here because I'm bored or lazy, 'cause I have nothing else to do, or to make **** up & then act like I did something: I'm here to actually talk about stuff that requires real thinking, and to hear from others who actually know some things & who try to apply what they know to what they think about. It's called knowledge & experience, and practical intelligence. Amorph, Programmer, Razz Fazz, and others whose names I can't recall right this minute are good examples of what I'm here for. You want to show up & talk on a serious level, fine: let's talk; you wanna practice your stance, your attitude, I have no time for you.
As far as "rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely", every one of them applies equally well to the 17"; but because people want the 17" iMac to 'come true', the pull a Scarlett O'Hara & just refuse to think about what might really be going on.
I mean it's all so, like, ninth grade...
And lastly: logic is often useless and/or inappropriate, particularly where emotions are concerned; reason, on the other hand, is always useful and appropriate, 'cause it helps you stay clear about what you're doing. If you have an emotional reaction to all things Apple, and you want to let them out here to share, fine; but that's not thinking, and you're not gaining anything by pretending it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhhh, you wrote so much and said so little.
I have yet to see any logical argument from you that proves that the current iMac's base cannot accomodate a larger LCD display. OBVIOUSLY, the reason you haven't put forth such an argument is because the argument cannot be made. I want to see calculations, not conjecture. If you're going to accuse Apple of such gross stupidity, then the burden of proof is on you.
I think you're problem is that no matter what Apple does, it's not good enough for you. You must complain about everything, whine and bitch constantly. I never can understand why people like you even bother to use Macs, much less visit Mac forums. If you hate Apple so much, then don't use a Mac!
<strong>Capt. Obvious, you're talking out of your arse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pot, kettle, black....
[quote]<strong>Apple is not so inept that they would have designed the LCD iMac to accomodate nothing but a 15" LCD. The simple fact is that the base is heavy enough to act as a counter-weight for a larger, heavier display than the one currently on the iMac.
I've examined the new iMac close enough to be 100% confident that Apple designed it with larger LCD displays in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say, your examination supports your contention that the base is large & heavy enough to anchor a larger LCD. Fine, and thanks: my time w/ the beast has been brief & limited in scope, so I'll trust your assessment. You don't mention whether you examined the arm; as you equally sure that it is capable of comfortably supporting the extra weight?
As for whether Apple have any intention of providing a 17" iMac, I've seen no indications that they do. I know folks have been calling for a 17" LCD for some time, I just don't know that they'll get it.
Comments
[QB]
For one thing, a bigger screen on the current base would throw off the proportions of the unit as a whole. For another, as the screen gets bigger (and heavier), the center of gravity for the unit shifts upward; add one cat, & you have an iMac upside down on the floor.
QB]<hr></blockquote>
With all due respect, I personally think the proportions are off with the current 15" display.
A 17" would be a better balance as the base presently seem a bit large. Besides, the added weight will be negliable.
As far as 19", uh...no I don't think so. Apple's not going to risk losing sales of it's more profitable pro desktops.
A Ghz 17" headed iMac with video spanning would be great. Even greater is if it was listed at $1800.
I agree with Satchmo.
A 17 inch is probably more in proportion. I think the iMac will get this eventually. When sales start levelling off.
I wish they'd do it now
Lemon Bon Bon
However, if you simply want me to be wrong, disagreeing wil not make it so.
<strong>If you have a basis for disagreement, by all means, share it. I could be wrong.
However, if you simply want me to be wrong, disagreeing wil not make it so.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is a forum where people disagree and have different opinions. No one is right or wrong...just opinions.
Who cares? You got hard fact? Just conjecture like all the other wannabees on these boards.
So we gotta different opinion. Deal with it.
Lemon Bon Bon
"Who cares? You got hard fact? Just conjecture like all the other wannabees on these boards. So we gotta different opinion. Deal with it."
I was pointing out some real-world considerations, and acknowledged that I might be incorrect in my assessment of those structural considerations, as they apply to the G4 iMac. My opinion that the iMac won't accept a larger display "as is" is based on knowing something about structural & mechanical stuff.
As far as "opinion" is concerned, it's generally understood that opinion is based on some sort of logical, rational, or informed process. Lacking logic, reason or information, one has (at worst) prejudice - or (at best) meaningless noise.
By the same token, speculation is a process of extrapolation from the known to the unknown, informed once again by reason, logic, and/or information/experience.
If you want to make stuff up out of nothing & hope real hard you guess right, fine: don't let me stop you. But such pipe dreams don't qualify as either opinion or speculation.
Just thought I'd point that out.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: Capt. Obvious ]</p>
A 19" widescreen LCD will be about the same area as a normal ratio 17" - does it seem so unlikely now?
David
Whats 19" widescreen worth by itself $2200US or more? that pushing the iMac to $4000US+.
Even a 17" widescreen would cost more than the current 17" with the standard aspect ratio.
I dont think apple will push that until they can normalize the production costs of the current 15"
iMac and bring it closer to the old iMac price point. Right now they are working with a higher cost producer (Quanta) because they want the quality. Unlike the US gov't apple doesn't farm its production to the lowest bidder or we'd have heard a hundred stories about the arm failing on the iMac!
of course Im just talking...
<strong>
I was pointing out some real-world considerations, and acknowledged that I might be incorrect in my assessment of those structural considerations, as they apply to the G4 iMac. My opinion that the iMac won't accept a larger display "as is" is based on knowing something about structural & mechanical stuff.
As far as "opinion" is concerned, it's generally understood that opinion is based on some sort of logical, rational, or informed process. Lacking logic, reason or information, one has (at worst) prejudice - or (at best) meaningless noise.
By the same token, speculation is a process of extrapolation from the known to the unknown, informed once again by reason, logic, and/or information/experience.
If you want to make stuff up out of nothing & hope real hard you guess right, fine: don't let me stop you. But such pipe dreams don't qualify as either opinion or speculation.
Just thought I'd point that out.
[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: Capt. Obvious ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Man, you really know how to let loose huh?
This is AppleInsider. It's all about pipe dreams and silly conjecture.
And furthermore, there were rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely.
But lastly, and mostly importantly, reason and logic do not apply when speaking about Apple.
<strong>
Whats 19" widescreen worth by itself $2200US or more? that pushing the iMac to $4000US+.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Viewsonic VX900s (19in LCD) can be had for $1000:
<a href="http://www.pcmall.com/pcmall/shop/detail.asp?DPNo=442506&adcampaign=email,zwb11607"; target="_blank">Here's the link</a>
Apple could afford to release a 19in iMac for less than $2500. The more important question is would they have enough supply to keep up with demand?
I personnally don't believe that we will see a 19in iMac in the near future. Apple could do it, but why when the 15in models are selling well?
Just my $.02
<strong>One point that needs to be pointed out:
A 19" widescreen LCD will be about the same area as a normal ratio 17" - does it seem so unlikely now?
David</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly! This is the key to understanding this rumor.
If these new iMacs will be widescreen, then it is very likely that the 17" widescreen LCD will have a comparable area to the current 15" LCD, and the 19" widescreen will be comparable to a 17" LCD.
The iMac's base is heavy enough to act as a counter-weight for displays MUCH heavier than the current 15" display. It's not even an issue. The neck is also sturdy enough to hold a larger display, and since a spring is used to hold the position of the jointed arm, a larger display would merely need a different spring. It is clear that the current imac was designed to be able to accomadate different display sizes--Apple learned their lesson after the original iMac locked them into a fixed display size.
Another point to consider is that the LCD iMac may very well move to a high end consumer desktop position in Apple's lineup. All Apple needs to do is offer the eMac to general consumers, and bracket it with the CRT iMac at the low end, and the LCD iMac at the high end. It's doubtful that Apple ever planned for the LCD iMac to be the low end desktop, since LCDs are simply too expensive.
I have a hard time believing that Apple will only offer the eMac to the edu market, it is too strong a product to keep away from the general public.
Here's the consumer desktop lineup I envision for the next year or two, starting sometime this year:
Low end: 15" CRT iMac.
$799: CD-ROM
$999: CD-RW
Midrange: 17" CRT eMac, w/modem and probably a new name.
$1099: CD-RW
$1199: Combo Drive
High end: LCD iMac, 2 models.
?17" Widescreen LCD:
$1399: CD-RW.
$1499: Combo Drive.
$1799: Superdrive.
?19" Widescreen LCD:
$1599: CD-RW.
$1699: Combo Drive.
$1999: Superdrive.
Another way to look at this lineup is to categorize by optical drive:
CD-ROM:
$799: 15" CRT iMac.
CD-RW:
$999: 15" CRT iMac.
$1099: 17" CRT eMac.
$1399: 17" Widescreen LCD iMac.
$1599: 19" Widescreen LCD iMac.
Combo Drive:
$1199: 17" CRT eMac
$1499: 17" Widescreen LCD iMac.
$1699: 19" Widescreen LCD iMac.
Superdrive:
$1799: 17" Widescreen LCD iMac.
$1999: 19" Widescreen LCD iMac.
(notice that even though a widescreen 17" has about the same area as a normal 15" LCD, by making the LCD iMac 17" minimum this minimizes confusion with the 17" CRT eMac, by never charging MORE for a display that is LESS inches).
I think such a lineup is in Apple's future, since it is very hard to imagine that a product like the eMac would only be offered to edu customers. The 15" CRT iMac is important for Apple's sub-$1000 range, although it is also concievable that the eMac's price could be lowered to $800...after all a flat-screen 17" CRT display is dirt cheap, and the price is only going lower.
The prices on the LCD iMacs are speculation...I used the $100 cost of the combo drive over a CD-RW drive when BTOing a Powermac. I figured $200 extra for the 19" widescreen LCD over the 17" widescreen LCD, this was based on a target of $1999 for the highest priced iMac, and on the $200 extra cost for a 17" LCD over a 15" LCD when buying a Powermac (see apple store's powermac BTO page for reference). I don't see Apple charging more than $1999 for an iMac, because 2K seems like a hard ceiling for consumers, and also because >2k would fall into Powermac territory.
This lineup addresses the #1 complaint about Apple's consumer desktops ever since the original iMac: Display size. For years Apple has saddled consumers with tiny, impotent displays on their all-in-one Macs, but I'm betting that Apple learned from all the negative feedback and is going to larger display sizes.
There is no overlap with Powermacs, since the low end powermac is $1599 and Apple's lowest priced display is $499, for a $2099 total, $200 over the high end iMac. That's a stripped down Powermac as well, something I'm betting that MOST buyers never even consider.
Personally, given the above lineup I still would opt for a Powermac, I simply must have the expandability and upgradabiliity of a tower. But for most Mac buyers, this lineup would be the most alluring of any Apple has offered in YEARS. Jobs was right to cut down the number of Mac models when he returned, but now that Apple is back on track it's time to expand the models to please more consumers. More models doesn't have to mean more confusion, and with the above lineup, a consumer can easily pick out a model based on which display they want. All they need to do is answer the following questions:
1. Price? Determines low, mid, or high end of consumer range.
2. CRT or LCD? Dependent upon price, desk space, and personal preference.
3. Display size? Price and personal preference determins display size.
4. Optical drive? Intended usage determins optical drive.
Heh, I'm getting excited about this lineup because it makes so damn much sense. I'm going to send it to Apple's feedback for kicks.
[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
<strong>One point that needs to be pointed out:
A 19" widescreen LCD will be about the same area as a normal ratio 17" - does it seem so unlikely now?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, every bit as unlikely, because the 19" would, arguably, be just as heavy as the 17" - if not moreso. It's a matter of weight, mass, & balance of forces. The weight of the screen out on that arm acts like a cantilever, magnifying the forces pulling on the base. Increase the weight of the screen - even slightly - and those forces will increase, possibly dramatically.
See, in order for the G4 iMac to work with a 17" (or larger) lcd, it must have been engineered to do so; if they did, then they know it can handle the bigger screen, and they know what they need to modify to ensure that it works (ie, won't tip over, arm will hold heavier screen in place at any angle just as well as it does the 15", etc). If Apple didn't engineer for the larger (heavier) screen, and just "bolts one on" & hope it works, that would be an unbelievably stupid thing to do - far more stupid than any of the stupid things they've been attacked for in these very fora (& elsewhere).
I find ironically entertaining that many of the harshest Apple critics here are among the most insistent advocates of the large-screen iMac. Sort of a win-win proposition for these folks: no matter what Apple chooses to do on the issue, it will give 'em something to scream @ Apple for. If no big-lcd iMac, scream about that; if it doesn't work, scream about that; if they do it & make it work, scream about the price. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
Exactly! This is the key to understanding this rumor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Wrong, sorry.
The key to understanding this rumour is this: some people want larger-lcd iMacs, and they don't care if it's do-able or not, and they don't care whether it's cost-effective or not. They decided it would be great (and it would be), and they talk themselves into believing it's sensible, inevitable, necessary...and they just don't want to hear anything except "you're right".
[quote]<strong>Heh, I'm getting excited about this lineup because it makes so damn much sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'd call it wishful thinking, if thinking had anything to do with it.
<strong>
High end: LCD iMac, 2 models.
•17" Widescreen LCD:
$1399: CD-RW.
$1499: Combo Drive.
$1799: Superdrive.
•19" Widescreen LCD:
$1599: CD-RW.
$1699: Combo Drive.
$1999: Superdrive.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
as much as I would like to see those prices... Were you exposed to any open fumes before you put that list together?
Apples LCD's are the most expensive on the (consumer) market, which thankfully gets you a gorgeous display.
Apple is not so inept that they would have designed the LCD iMac to accomodate nothing but a 15" LCD. We understand the physics of it, you don't need to give us a lecture on levers and spring theory. The simple fact is that the base is heavy enough to act as a counter-weight for a larger, heavier display than the one currently on the iMac.
I've examined the new iMac close enough to be 100% confident that Apple designed it with larger LCD displays in mind. It's virtually "obvious", since clearly the most common complaint of the last iMac was the tiny display. A new iMac with a modular display is the fix, and I can assure you that Apple will eventually offer a model w/ a larger LCD.
Will it be at MWNY? Maybe, but probably not. I would say maybe a 20% chance at MWNY, an 85% chance at MWSF, and a 100% chance that one is introduced by MWNY 2003. If I'm wrong, I'll suck my own dick, but if YOU'RE wrong, then you have to suck my dick!
<strong>If I'm wrong, I'll suck my own dick, but if YOU'RE wrong, then you have to suck my dick!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'm sorry you're so deprived?
<strong>Man, you really know how to let loose huh?
This is AppleInsider. It's all about pipe dreams and silly conjecture.
And furthermore, there were rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely.
But lastly, and mostly importantly, reason and logic do not apply when speaking about Apple.
A couple of points:
Yeah, I *do* know how to let loose - but don't think you've see me do it. All I've done is plainly state a few basic concepts of intelligent discourse, since the conversation(s) displayed ignorance of them. If that's playing too rough for you, I have bad news about the rest of your life....
I've been around & posting since the "old days" here @ AI, and while there've been plenty of pipe dreams and silly conjecture, I never saw that as the point of the discussion here: I've generally chalked it up to mental laziness, intellectual dishonesty, and/or the failure of parents & schools to teach kids how to think, and why. But I'm not here because I'm bored or lazy, 'cause I have nothing else to do, or to make **** up & then act like I did something: I'm here to actually talk about stuff that requires real thinking, and to hear from others who actually know some things & who try to apply what they know to what they think about. It's called knowledge & experience, and practical intelligence. Amorph, Programmer, Razz Fazz, and others whose names I can't recall right this minute are good examples of what I'm here for. You want to show up & talk on a serious level, fine: let's talk; you wanna practice your stance, your attitude, I have no time for you.
As far as "rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely", every one of them applies equally well to the 17"; but because people want the 17" iMac to 'come true', the pull a Scarlett O'Hara & just refuse to think about what might really be going on.
I mean it's all so, like, ninth grade...
And lastly: logic is often useless and/or inappropriate, particularly where emotions are concerned; reason, on the other hand, is always useful and appropriate, 'cause it helps you stay clear about what you're doing. If you have an emotional reaction to all things Apple, and you want to let them out here to share, fine; but that's not thinking, and you're not gaining anything by pretending it is.
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'm sorry you're so deprived?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry you have no sense of humor...
<strong>
A couple of points:
Yeah, I *do* know how to let loose - but don't think you've see me do it. All I've done is plainly state a few basic concepts of intelligent discourse, since the conversation(s) displayed ignorance of them. If that's playing too rough for you, I have bad news about the rest of your life....
I've been around & posting since the "old days" here @ AI, and while there've been plenty of pipe dreams and silly conjecture, I never saw that as the point of the discussion here: I've generally chalked it up to mental laziness, intellectual dishonesty, and/or the failure of parents & schools to teach kids how to think, and why. But I'm not here because I'm bored or lazy, 'cause I have nothing else to do, or to make **** up & then act like I did something: I'm here to actually talk about stuff that requires real thinking, and to hear from others who actually know some things & who try to apply what they know to what they think about. It's called knowledge & experience, and practical intelligence. Amorph, Programmer, Razz Fazz, and others whose names I can't recall right this minute are good examples of what I'm here for. You want to show up & talk on a serious level, fine: let's talk; you wanna practice your stance, your attitude, I have no time for you.
As far as "rational reasons given as to why many believed a 19" iMac was unlikely", every one of them applies equally well to the 17"; but because people want the 17" iMac to 'come true', the pull a Scarlett O'Hara & just refuse to think about what might really be going on.
I mean it's all so, like, ninth grade...
And lastly: logic is often useless and/or inappropriate, particularly where emotions are concerned; reason, on the other hand, is always useful and appropriate, 'cause it helps you stay clear about what you're doing. If you have an emotional reaction to all things Apple, and you want to let them out here to share, fine; but that's not thinking, and you're not gaining anything by pretending it is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Uhhh, you wrote so much and said so little.
I have yet to see any logical argument from you that proves that the current iMac's base cannot accomodate a larger LCD display. OBVIOUSLY, the reason you haven't put forth such an argument is because the argument cannot be made. I want to see calculations, not conjecture. If you're going to accuse Apple of such gross stupidity, then the burden of proof is on you.
I think you're problem is that no matter what Apple does, it's not good enough for you. You must complain about everything, whine and bitch constantly. I never can understand why people like you even bother to use Macs, much less visit Mac forums. If you hate Apple so much, then don't use a Mac!
<strong>Capt. Obvious, you're talking out of your arse.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Pot, kettle, black....
[quote]<strong>Apple is not so inept that they would have designed the LCD iMac to accomodate nothing but a 15" LCD. The simple fact is that the base is heavy enough to act as a counter-weight for a larger, heavier display than the one currently on the iMac.
I've examined the new iMac close enough to be 100% confident that Apple designed it with larger LCD displays in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You say, your examination supports your contention that the base is large & heavy enough to anchor a larger LCD. Fine, and thanks: my time w/ the beast has been brief & limited in scope, so I'll trust your assessment. You don't mention whether you examined the arm; as you equally sure that it is capable of comfortably supporting the extra weight?
As for whether Apple have any intention of providing a 17" iMac, I've seen no indications that they do. I know folks have been calling for a 17" LCD for some time, I just don't know that they'll get it.