For the G4 to be equal with the P4 it needs to be at .6 the speed. That means between 1.8 and 1.9 GHz for the top end G4. Apple needs to make a quick change to 970's and move beyond 2GHz. Leave the G4 for the iBooks and eMacs.
That is a good proto-manipulation Barto! I think a 20-inch display on the iMac looks really cool. Sadly I have my mind set on a 15-inch Powerbook and therefore won't be affected by this product update.
It's fairly obvious that there will be no G5 iMac until next year when Apple DOES probably change the form factor. (When they do it will not be for just one configuration as being touted but the complete line. )Also I'd expect the lower wattage G5 to be in the first iMac when it comes ou t and not the current George Foreman grill heat output of the PowerMacs with the 6 fans running. Get it?
I have some doubts that iMac's arm can hold properly a 20" display. Well, we will soon see, the online Apple Stores are closing one after the other
Not necessarily so. The current size of the 17" including the VERY wide bezel is nearly 21 inches diagonally. Add another 3/4 inch or reduce the the b ezel width and there would seem to be no need to make the display that much larger. We'll know in a few hours.
Not necessarily so. The current size of the 17" including the VERY wide bezel is nearly 21 inches diagonally. Add another 3/4 inch or reduce the the b ezel width and there would seem to be no need to make the display that much larger. We'll know in a few hours.
Surely s/he's talking about weight and not horizontal dimensions? Perhaps display hardware is heavier/thicker than lucite?
As someone who has taken apart iMacs, They could probably hold 30" LCDs no sweat. The base is far, far, FAR heavier than the display.
Barto
The base isn't the issue, IMO. The torque/stress on the attachment points of the tilt/swivel arm is a far bigger concern to me. In addition, at what size would a display in the fully prone position block the optical drive or hit the surface of the table?
Comments
Originally posted by stingerman
For the G4 to be equal with the P4 it needs to be at .6 the speed. That means between 1.8 and 1.9 GHz for the top end G4. Apple needs to make a quick change to 970's and move beyond 2GHz. Leave the G4 for the iBooks and eMacs.
1.8 or 1.9 GHz G4 on a 167 MHz bus ?
Originally posted by Barto
PH34R
I don't understand your internet slang boy! Would you care to elaborate?
Originally posted by KANE
I don't understand your internet slang boy! Would you care to elaborate?
At a guess, that would be "fear", the emotion engendered by the price-tag, and the years of debt-bondage required by it.
The 20" iMac is so good, it strikes fear into the hearts of PC users.
Fear the debt you'll rack up on it (thanks staphbaby).
ph34r my l33t photochop skillz!
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
PH34R = Fear
...it strikes fear into the hearts of PC users.
May I ask why, especially if it's going to use the same 1.25 GHz G4 and probably, the same graphics card?
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/swedenstore/
Originally posted by Addison
If there really is to be a 20" iMac then that must put back any change in form factor to accomodate the G5
It was always extremely optimistic to expect a new form factor before mid next year.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
The sheer intimidation factor of a floating 20" viewable display.
I have some doubts that iMac's arm can hold properly a 20" display. Well, we will soon see, the online Apple Stores are closing one after the other
I have some doubts that iMac's arm can hold properly a 20" display. Well, we will soon see, the online Apple Stores are closing one after the other
Not necessarily so. The current size of the 17" including the VERY wide bezel is nearly 21 inches diagonally. Add another 3/4 inch or reduce the the b ezel width and there would seem to be no need to make the display that much larger. We'll know in a few hours.
U.S. Store now down at 7.52 AM ET
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Not necessarily so. The current size of the 17" including the VERY wide bezel is nearly 21 inches diagonally. Add another 3/4 inch or reduce the the b ezel width and there would seem to be no need to make the display that much larger. We'll know in a few hours.
Surely s/he's talking about weight and not horizontal dimensions? Perhaps display hardware is heavier/thicker than lucite?
Originally posted by PB
I have some doubts that iMac's arm can hold properly a 20" display.
As someone who has taken apart iMacs, They could probably hold 30" LCDs no sweat. The base is far, far, FAR heavier than the display.
Barto
Originally posted by Barto
As someone who has taken apart iMacs, They could probably hold 30" LCDs no sweat. The base is far, far, FAR heavier than the display.
Barto
The base isn't the issue, IMO. The torque/stress on the attachment points of the tilt/swivel arm is a far bigger concern to me. In addition, at what size would a display in the fully prone position block the optical drive or hit the surface of the table?
Originally posted by Barto
As someone who has taken apart iMacs, They could probably hold 30" LCDs no sweat. The base is far, far, FAR heavier than the display.
Great, but I am not talking about base weight; I am talking about the mechanical features of the arm.