[QB]I have to stress that i doubt that the iMac will reach 1Ghz this time around. The pro laptop line have just recently reached that mark, <hr></blockquote>
the iMacs usually are at the same speed at the PowerBooks
I like how you are keeping the 15" screen around for cost reasons... finally someone with sense around here...!
I think it will be:
iMac LCD
800
15
256
40
CDRW
32 Gforce 4mx
$1099($999?)
800
17w
256
60
Combo
32 Gforce 4MX
$1399
1Ghz
17w
256
80
Super (2x)
64 ATI 9000
$1699
1Ghz
19w
512
100
Super (2x)
64 ATI 9000
$1999
133 Bus
eMac
733
128
40
CDRW
$899
867
256
60
Combo
$1199
867
256
60
Super
$1499
133 Mhz Bus
iMac CRT
733 G3
128
40
CDRW
$699
all have snow keyboard and mouse
EDU prices -$100 on low end, -$50 elseware
***most of this is a pipe dream, but it should already be the way things are.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'm not so sure Moto will go away. A 1.25Ghz G4, with some L2 cache, looks like a decent CPU, just not for the high end, in consumer macs, it'd be not too bad.
[quote] I'm not so sure Moto will go away. A 1.25Ghz G4, with some L2 cache, looks like a decent CPU, just not for the high end, in consumer macs, it'd be not too bad. <hr></blockquote>
I think a 1.25Ghz G4 might be too hot for an FP iMac. If the put one inside a PowerBook, it may be banned in Sweden.
If you look at a dissasembled iMac you see how ingenious the industrial design is, the whole metal dome is one giant heat sink aided by a fan and vents that move air both through it and across the top surface (between the plastic outer dome and metal inner dome) I bet an iMac could handle quite a bit more heat than a PowerBook. Just through a few extra heat pipes from the CPU to the outer dome, and ratchet the CFM slightly on the fan. Done. Unlike the PowerBook, the iMac is aided by it's shape and convection. A powerbook fan probably works a lot harder to move the same amount of air.
the iMacs usually are at the same speed at the PowerBooks
I like how you are keeping the 15" screen around for cost reasons... finally someone with sense around here...!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, except for the fact that nobody's buying them...
17" LCDs are plunging in cost. I think Apple can successfully bump the screen size without raising prices.
The eMac can hold the low end. After they make it work more reliably, anyway. (What is it with Apple and 17" monitors, anyway? Some sort of ancestral curse?)
Apple should still produce low cost 15 inch I mac. I know two friends who baught them recently. One buy it for his secretaries : the arm of the screen was perfect to share the I mac for two secretarie : there was no need to have a 17 inch LCD to take care of an agenda.
The other bought it for him the superdrive model, but with the 15 inch LCD for cost reasons.
If there is something that Apple do not sell it's the original mac, a 600 mhz G3 cxe I mac is a real joke.
If Apple is not able to show new I mac and E mac with chips clocked at 1 ghz, it would be a marketing disaster. Nobody is speaking in mhz now. Ghz is the new unity.
<strong>Great, but that still leaves all but one of the laptops in the dark ages (perceptually at least) and most of the desktops too (for now).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know for the powerbook but i think that they can already update the i book at one ghz. I think that IBM is already producing them since some month, but Apple did not wanted to use it for marketing reason : the high end i book faster than the base ti book.
Not to sound gloomy, but it seems to me that people would be impressed by 1GHz iMacs. After 12 months shouldn't we be expecting something a bit more impressive than a 25% speed increase, and bigger hard drives, and faster optical drives. Isn't that sort of thing a given in the computer industry? I realize Apple can't be blamed for Moto pumping out faster chips about as quickly as I can etch my own processor into a graham cracker with a pocket knife, but I for one would really like to be wowed with the new iMacs. And if Apple can do it I am sure they will. I just hope they can.
<strong>Not to sound gloomy, but it seems to me that people would be impressed by 1GHz iMacs. After 12 months shouldn't we be expecting something a bit more impressive than a 25% speed increase, and bigger hard drives, and faster optical drives. Isn't that sort of thing a given in the computer industry? I realize Apple can't be blamed for Moto pumping out faster chips about as quickly as I can etch my own processor into a graham cracker with a pocket knife, but I for one would really like to be wowed with the new iMacs. And if Apple can do it I am sure they will. I just hope they can.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, a 1 ghz I mac would not impressed anybody, but if the i mac did not reach this speed , it would be pathetic.
However you are right, Apple need to put a lot of new features or improvements in his new i mac in order to stay in the market.
a 90 degree rotation screen is a waste of money.....both for Apple to do R&D on and for me(or rather us) as customers to pay for, id prefer builtin bluetooth (eventhough it's practically useless to me)than for the ability to rotate my screen, which i dont see any purpose to.
Also...there is a REMOTE posibility the iMacs will not hit 1Ghz.....but there will be only 3 odels, and the speeds could either be...
733,867, 933 (most likely) or...
800,900, 1000.
As far as portables go, dont expect anything before july...they were just updated this month.And i dont think Apple is very keen on having the high end iBook clock speed exceed that of the low end iBook.
iPod almost definately....although i doubt Apple will increase the storage, but will most likely include AAC support and other software enhancements. and they will become thinner.
What's kinda a bummer is that it's all getting a bit confusing and "too much" again. I really, really liked it a couple of years ago when it was VERY clear what you could buy from Apple: desktop pro or consumer machine, or a laptop counterpart.
Honestly, as much as I keep up with things and know what's what, I couldn't really tell you - without looking - exactly what Apple is offering and the specs/pricing for each.
I used to know this like the back of my hand.
Now imagine Joe Consumer or whoever. A lady I work with was asking me about Macs. She - because of what some guy at some store told her - "needs" to get a G4 (this lady is e-mail/surfing/Quicken, 100%). Now, she's looking at some overpriced/underpowered G4 tower and a monitor.
I explain to her that an eMac is probably more what she wants. She a) didn't know they even exist and b) wonders "why does it have a G4 in it?".
Granted, silly questions (from a silly person), but trying to explain Apple's lineup and divisions between the models and all is so confusing.
"Why did you spend $1800 for yours, when I can get this eMac here for $600 less...with a bigger screen and all?"
"Well, I payed for the flat screen and a SuperDrive...".
It's time I chime in. Apple MUST get the iMac at 1 ghz, or they are in major trouble. We can rant and rave about MHZ being meaningless, but whether you like it or not, WE are NOT the market that Apple is trying to reach anymore. They are trying to make contact with the millions of PC users that are unhappy, but unfortunately, the whole reason they stay unhappy is because they remain "ignorant." If they knew about the mhz myth, and the iApps, and OS X, etc., they would already own macs, but they don't. They see ONLY what is on the surface, and as long as they perceive Apple as being exponentially slower than wintel, Apple's market share will NOT grow worth a didly. They also MUST lower priced. I don't mind paying more for quality, but when PC users see a 1.5 GHZ Celeron Gateway for $399 and a 700 MHZ iMac for 1199, they are going to buy the Gateway because they haven't ever used a mac to see how much better they are. Same goes for the iPod.
Having said that, my feeling is that we will see 1.0 GHZ across the line. Perhaps 867 on the low end. They can differentiate using features (eg. Optical media, i/o, HD, ram, bluetooth, etc.) This makes for a MUCH more appealing lineup. They deffinitely should continue to offer a 15" iMac. There are a ton of people who have ZERO use for a friggin widescreen display. Unless you are watching movies or design, you have no use for the extra real estate and, as such, the higher price. They also have to put in a better video card. A GF2 is HORRIBLE and a GF4mx is just as bad (just sounds better). Cards are cheap, and even cheaper if bought by the million. A GF4 TITANIUM is about the minimun they should use. Many people complain about the games on the Mac, and half of that is because of the vid cards. Also, since you can't upgrade cards, they should include a better one, or at least in the high end. They should also make both ram slots user accessible. Currently, you HAVE to take it to a tech and pay an arm in the leg to install the maximum, which isn't right. NO PC requires this, and neither should Apple. Slot load drives are a no-no. They are finicky, don't support the 8cm discs, and are more dangerous (can't tell if a disc is already in or not.). After owning a mac with a slot drive, I strongly hope Apple doesn't make that mistake again, especially since I am looking to buy an iMac after MWSF.
<strong>a 90 degree rotation screen is a waste of money.....both for Apple to do R&D on and for me(or rather us) as customers to pay for, id prefer builtin bluetooth (eventhough it's practically useless to me)than for the ability to rotate my screen, which i dont see any purpose to . . .
That depends on the market that Apple is going for. From someone who works at a large publications developer I think that a G4 iMac with a 17" pivot screen (stanadard, not widescreen) and a 1.2 Ghz processor would make a wonderfull page production computer. If they added video spanning, which is supported in most of the video cards today, then that would make it even better, by adding a second 15" "pallet" monitor on the side. The problem with the pivot screens though, is that it takes a decent abount of engineering to get the contacts, and pivot sensors working reliably, and the market appeal is limited. This would also probably take some sales away from the PowerMac line.
I see the iMac getting higher resolution screens. This would allow the low and high-end model to mirror each other (like the ibooks), where the only difference is the physical size. Hell, throw in a high-res 17" model and you've got a killer iMac screen!
This leaves 3 models:
* 15" high-res screen (maybe widescreen)
* 17" widescreen (the current 17" wide iMac)
* 17" high-res widescreen
CPU, HD, RAM, all the same. GPU, Optical drive is all that differs. Perhaps the high-end model is slightly better... a "special edition".
Comments
[QB]I have to stress that i doubt that the iMac will reach 1Ghz this time around. The pro laptop line have just recently reached that mark, <hr></blockquote>
the iMacs usually are at the same speed at the PowerBooks
I like how you are keeping the 15" screen around for cost reasons... finally someone with sense around here...!
I think it will be:
iMac LCD
800
15
256
40
CDRW
32 Gforce 4mx
$1099($999?)
800
17w
256
60
Combo
32 Gforce 4MX
$1399
1Ghz
17w
256
80
Super (2x)
64 ATI 9000
$1699
1Ghz
19w
512
100
Super (2x)
64 ATI 9000
$1999
133 Bus
eMac
733
128
40
CDRW
$899
867
256
60
Combo
$1199
867
256
60
Super
$1499
133 Mhz Bus
iMac CRT
733 G3
128
40
CDRW
$699
all have snow keyboard and mouse
EDU prices -$100 on low end, -$50 elseware
***most of this is a pipe dream, but it should already be the way things are.... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I'm not so sure Moto will go away. A 1.25Ghz G4, with some L2 cache, looks like a decent CPU, just not for the high end, in consumer macs, it'd be not too bad.
No, not yet.
> 900 but
< 970
[quote] I'm not so sure Moto will go away. A 1.25Ghz G4, with some L2 cache, looks like a decent CPU, just not for the high end, in consumer macs, it'd be not too bad. <hr></blockquote>
I think a 1.25Ghz G4 might be too hot for an FP iMac. If the put one inside a PowerBook, it may be banned in Sweden.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Locomotive ]</p>
<strong>
the iMacs usually are at the same speed at the PowerBooks
I like how you are keeping the 15" screen around for cost reasons... finally someone with sense around here...!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, except for the fact that nobody's buying them...
17" LCDs are plunging in cost. I think Apple can successfully bump the screen size without raising prices.
The eMac can hold the low end. After they make it work more reliably, anyway. (What is it with Apple and 17" monitors, anyway? Some sort of ancestral curse?)
The other bought it for him the superdrive model, but with the 15 inch LCD for cost reasons.
If there is something that Apple do not sell it's the original mac, a 600 mhz G3 cxe I mac is a real joke.
If Apple is not able to show new I mac and E mac with chips clocked at 1 ghz, it would be a marketing disaster. Nobody is speaking in mhz now. Ghz is the new unity.
[ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>Great, but that still leaves all but one of the laptops in the dark ages (perceptually at least) and most of the desktops too (for now).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't know for the powerbook but i think that they can already update the i book at one ghz. I think that IBM is already producing them since some month, but Apple did not wanted to use it for marketing reason : the high end i book faster than the base ti book.
<strong>Not to sound gloomy, but it seems to me that people would be impressed by 1GHz iMacs. After 12 months shouldn't we be expecting something a bit more impressive than a 25% speed increase, and bigger hard drives, and faster optical drives. Isn't that sort of thing a given in the computer industry? I realize Apple can't be blamed for Moto pumping out faster chips about as quickly as I can etch my own processor into a graham cracker with a pocket knife, but I for one would really like to be wowed with the new iMacs. And if Apple can do it I am sure they will. I just hope they can.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, a 1 ghz I mac would not impressed anybody, but if the i mac did not reach this speed , it would be pathetic.
However you are right, Apple need to put a lot of new features or improvements in his new i mac in order to stay in the market.
15" LCD
800 - G4 512K L2
100 fsb
256 MB RAM
40 GB
CD-RW
17" Widescreen
867 - G4 512K L2
133 fsb
256 MB PC133
80 GB
SuperDrive
17" Widescreen with 90 degree rotation
1000 - G4 512K L2
133 fsb
256 MB PC133
100 GB
SuperDrive
$1199
$1499
$1899
Respectively
or not
[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: Tech Bug ]</p>
Also...there is a REMOTE posibility the iMacs will not hit 1Ghz.....but there will be only 3 odels, and the speeds could either be...
733,867, 933 (most likely) or...
800,900, 1000.
As far as portables go, dont expect anything before july...they were just updated this month.And i dont think Apple is very keen on having the high end iBook clock speed exceed that of the low end iBook.
iPod almost definately....although i doubt Apple will increase the storage, but will most likely include AAC support and other software enhancements. and they will become thinner.
[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: Hawkeye_a ]</p>
Honestly, as much as I keep up with things and know what's what, I couldn't really tell you - without looking - exactly what Apple is offering and the specs/pricing for each.
I used to know this like the back of my hand.
Now imagine Joe Consumer or whoever. A lady I work with was asking me about Macs. She - because of what some guy at some store told her - "needs" to get a G4 (this lady is e-mail/surfing/Quicken, 100%). Now, she's looking at some overpriced/underpowered G4 tower and a monitor.
I explain to her that an eMac is probably more what she wants. She a) didn't know they even exist and b) wonders "why does it have a G4 in it?".
Granted, silly questions (from a silly person), but trying to explain Apple's lineup and divisions between the models and all is so confusing.
"Why did you spend $1800 for yours, when I can get this eMac here for $600 less...with a bigger screen and all?"
"Well, I payed for the flat screen and a SuperDrive...".
"Does it read floppies?"
Having said that, my feeling is that we will see 1.0 GHZ across the line. Perhaps 867 on the low end. They can differentiate using features (eg. Optical media, i/o, HD, ram, bluetooth, etc.) This makes for a MUCH more appealing lineup. They deffinitely should continue to offer a 15" iMac. There are a ton of people who have ZERO use for a friggin widescreen display. Unless you are watching movies or design, you have no use for the extra real estate and, as such, the higher price. They also have to put in a better video card. A GF2 is HORRIBLE and a GF4mx is just as bad (just sounds better). Cards are cheap, and even cheaper if bought by the million. A GF4 TITANIUM is about the minimun they should use. Many people complain about the games on the Mac, and half of that is because of the vid cards. Also, since you can't upgrade cards, they should include a better one, or at least in the high end. They should also make both ram slots user accessible. Currently, you HAVE to take it to a tech and pay an arm in the leg to install the maximum, which isn't right. NO PC requires this, and neither should Apple. Slot load drives are a no-no. They are finicky, don't support the 8cm discs, and are more dangerous (can't tell if a disc is already in or not.). After owning a mac with a slot drive, I strongly hope Apple doesn't make that mistake again, especially since I am looking to buy an iMac after MWSF.
Whew! I think that's all. Just my $0.02.
Philip
There was an original iMac mod that put it into a 21" monitor case. It's over at <a href="http://www.applefritter.com/hacks/21imac/index.html"; target="_blank">Applefritter's hacks section.</a>
[quote] It's time I chime in. Apple MUST get the iMac at 1 ghz, or they are in major trouble. <hr></blockquote>
My sources 100% guarantee Apple will sport an ALL-GHz lineup in early 2003!
The entry iMac models may be spec'd at 0.8 GHz or, perhaps, 933 milliGIG.
<strong>a 90 degree rotation screen is a waste of money.....both for Apple to do R&D on and for me(or rather us) as customers to pay for, id prefer builtin bluetooth (eventhough it's practically useless to me)than for the ability to rotate my screen, which i dont see any purpose to . . .
[ 12-06-2002: Message edited by: Hawkeye_a ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
That depends on the market that Apple is going for. From someone who works at a large publications developer I think that a G4 iMac with a 17" pivot screen (stanadard, not widescreen) and a 1.2 Ghz processor would make a wonderfull page production computer. If they added video spanning, which is supported in most of the video cards today, then that would make it even better, by adding a second 15" "pallet" monitor on the side. The problem with the pivot screens though, is that it takes a decent abount of engineering to get the contacts, and pivot sensors working reliably, and the market appeal is limited. This would also probably take some sales away from the PowerMac line.
I see the iMac getting higher resolution screens. This would allow the low and high-end model to mirror each other (like the ibooks), where the only difference is the physical size. Hell, throw in a high-res 17" model and you've got a killer iMac screen!
This leaves 3 models:
* 15" high-res screen (maybe widescreen)
* 17" widescreen (the current 17" wide iMac)
* 17" high-res widescreen
CPU, HD, RAM, all the same. GPU, Optical drive is all that differs. Perhaps the high-end model is slightly better... a "special edition".