iMacs of 2003
Well, I'm putting money down for new iMacs this coming MacWorld. Who agrees with me? I'm guessing the iMac may reach a 1Ghz G4. Also guessing slot load (and there has been talk of not wanting this), new graphics card and possible FW2, USB2 and Bluetooth.
Any other features our new iMac could indeed have?
And do you think Apple is over their Color phase, will we see iMac in colors again?
Thanks...
Any other features our new iMac could indeed have?
And do you think Apple is over their Color phase, will we see iMac in colors again?
Thanks...

Comments
My hope: 900ish and 1GHz iMacs with 133 or 167 (if possible) bus. High end has 19" screen and GeForce 4Ti or something equivalent. A Superdrive with a high write and rewrite speed for CDs would be nice, too. This would make me buy one on the spot.
I don't see slot loading drives in the iMac's future. They don't work with non-standard CDs, are perhaps a little more expensive, and can be a pain in the ass (just ask me about how my cube doesn't like to accept CDs with labels on them?too tight a fit). As of now, the Powerbook is the only Mac with a slot-loading drive. I think it'll stay that way.
Gamrin
Upping them to 64MB video memory couldn't hurt either.
This will most likely be a stop-gap mobo (in between the old iMacs and the ones we will see after the 970 gets here.)
The GeForce 4 Ti is really doubtful, though.
Hopefully 64MB across the line.
Apple has been on the ball with video card updates lately, no reason to stop now.
867MHz and 1Ghz G4's
133Mhz FSB
4x AGP
64MB Graphic's Chip
same price points
Standard, expected hard drive bumps of 20GB or so.
Perhaps a product-wide graphics card update.
Speedier CD-R and Combo Drive?
Still tray-loading optical drive (but a cool iMac DV style slot-loading one WOULD be cool!).
Apple Pro Speakers on all models (that should just be standard anyway).
900MHz and one 1GHz model on the high-end.
It's Apple, people...100MHz at a time...
Anyone saying "1.2GHz iMacs..." needs a smack.
Just like the Cube before it.
The ideal iMac lineup would start with:
- 1 GHz G3 ( = G4-1 )
- 15 in LCD
- 2 accessible RAM slots of same type
- no fan
- $990
Humbly,
<strong>For me, the iMac sales sputtered because of price.
Just like the Cube before it.
The ideal iMac lineup would start with:
- 1 GHz G3 ( = G4-1 )
- 15 in LCD
- 2 accessible RAM slots of same type
- no fan
- $990
Humbly,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Price Price Price. I agree.
And make one headless while you're at it.
What if the long gap in iMac updates is because Apple's been working on entirely revising the guts of the iMac for something like the 970? Why the iMac before the towers? I'm not really sure, but remember that Apple did the same thing when they first released the G4 iMacs. During their initial release, they were as fast as the towers, I believe, cheaper, and had a flat panel screen. For the couple of months until the towers got updated, it seemed crazy to buy a tower over an iMac. It would be nice if the same thing would happen here by putting the 970 in an iMac, but it certainly seems unlikely, to say the least.
Gamrin
Is this a chip or what?
Someone fill me in or provide some linkage?
And I agree with Eugene: the iMac has gone nearly an entire year (and by the time MWSF rolls around, it WILL have been a year!) with no updates or tweaks!!!
:eek:
All they've done is roll out a 17" widescreen model with a beefier graphics card and larger hard drive in July at MWNY.
But the original three 15" models haven't been TOUCHED. Very odd.
Although, I guess I shouldn't bitch because I've enjoyed most of 2002 with a "top of the line" model, without having to deal with the whole "I just bought it and then they updated it in two months" trauma.
<strong>I'm not really sure, but remember that Apple did the same thing when they first released the G4 iMacs. During their initial release, they were as fast as the towers, I believe, cheaper, and had a flat panel screen. For the couple of months until the towers got updated, it seemed crazy to buy a tower over an iMac. It would be nice if the same thing would happen here by putting the 970 in an iMac, but it certainly seems unlikely, to say the least.
Gamrin</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. When the iMacs were released, the PowerMacs had L3 cache and a faster bus/memory combo, and faster hard drives, plus the availability of better video cards (still do.) The 800MHz G4 iMac is only as fast as a 533MHz G4 PowerMac. At the time that the iMacs were released, the low-end was 733MHz I believe, so the fastest iMac was slower than the slowest PowerMac.
[ 12-01-2002: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
<a href="http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,543317,00.asp" target="_blank">eWeek</a>
<a href="http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20021014S0059" target="_blank">Silicon Stratagies</a>
and of course...
<a href="http://www-3.ibm.com/chips/news/2002/1014_powerpc.html" target="_blank">IBM itself.</a>
SPECint_base2000
=================
242 G4 800Mhz
259 G4 867Mhz
306 G4 1000Mhz
937 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================
SPECfp_base
=================
147 G4 800Mhz
153 G4 867Mhz
187 G4 1000Mhz
1051 GPUL 1800Mhz
=================
...and the icing on the cake... The VMX vector instruction set is Alitvec with a different name.
Well I am hopin the top model will hit 1 ghz, then maybe keep the same price points, except take the low end 15' model now, knock 300 buck off its price, and offer it for 999. I bet it will sell like crazy. That does not sound unreasonable does it?
<strong>I hope they don't release an iMac that trumps over the towers and is cheaper...cause I'm getting a dual ghz. Tower this week!</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Tower will still be much better than any iMac that's released.