Yuck. The eMac is a fine computer and all, but it's not where the future is; at least I hope not.
I must tell you this. I run several Mac labs at the college I work for and one of those labs has 1Ghz eMacs with 512 MB of ram in them. This lab is also used for two specific classes, and when I have to kick students out of that lab because of a class, they complain about having to leave.
That's not all, the adjacent room has PowerMac G4's that are older, but they do run well. The students prefer the eMacs to the older towers hands down. The college loves the eMacs because of the space savings and the ergonomics.
This is exactly the type of computers the college is moving to. Even on the PC side. This summer I will install three labs with a Gateway AIO that looks and works like a piece-o-sh!t, but the school wants that AIO form factor.
I think that the eMac, in time will gain a flat panel display, but not on an arm like it is now with the iMac, but with the bulk of the computer behind the display.
Maybe he chose his words carefully or maybe he was simply making the same point and we're over-analyzing it.
In some ways, the phrase "that would be a heck of a challenge as well" makes it sound like they're not even trying. But anyway, I don't want to overanalyze it either. Clearly he was simply saying we shouldn't expect a G5 in anything else but a PowerMac for some time.
That worries me too. It is the only reason to suspect there will be another round of G4 iMacs. It was as if the mere idea of a G5 iMac was surprising to him
I must tell you this. I run several Mac labs at the college I work for and one of those labs has 1Ghz eMacs with 512 MB of ram in them. This lab is also used for two specific classes, and when I have to kick students out of that lab because of a class, they complain about having to leave.
The eMac is nearly ideal for schools and kids. It's why it was named the eMac; for "education." However the iMac has much more style. The ergonomic design of the adjustable display is quite impressive. It's a darn shame that it hasn't been more successful than it has and I hope Apple will not give up on the idea. Instead, I hope that they will continue to improve and refine it as they have with PowerBooks and iBooks.
The biggest issue isn't price or performance - it's the resolution. You can get UXGA+ on a 15" gateway laptop for $999. That's 1400x1050 resolution for under a grand.
People are getting smart to the MHz myth, but when the screen feels cramped, it's tough to justify any price.
Try this - work at 800x600 for a week. If you're still sane, I'm wrong.
Now imagine switching from a gloriously huge resolution Windows box to a $1,300 15" iMac. Would you switch?
The issue is perceived value. People would pay more for a mac if they saw value. They'd pay to buy all new software if they saw value. The first part of a computer you encounter is the screen. That's where they lose the most customers. Low screen resolutions create a perception problem...
Those resolutions get totally wasted on a PC. Every PC that is in our building with a LCD screen is used at the wrong (non-native) resolution. And a 15 inch iMac is 1024X768.
Those resolutions get totally wasted on a PC. Every PC that is in our building with a LCD screen is used at the wrong (non-native) resolution. And a 15 inch iMac is 1024X768.
Sounds like a problem with your admin folks. Let me guess... MCSEs?
Seriously, though, 15"/1024x768 isn't enough for widescreen DVDs or photo editing. It's certainly not enough for an entry level machine from apple. They've got a reputation for good graphics (whether they still deserve it or not) and XGA is an insult. People expect more than that.
Consumers hate scrolling to see a picture in email. They want big, vibrant desktop wallpaper. Consumers hate scrolling in general (ever notice that cnn.com, foxnews, and msnbc all fit the major news frame perfectly at 800x600 with all default internet explorer toolbars visible). The digital hub needs to excel at the point of human interaction, which is the screen, and it needs as much visual appeal as possible. If users are so dumb that they can't change resolution, than an iMac that defaults to UXGA+ or higher will "give them more of the internet" by showing what they never scrolled to see before.
In the consumer market, visual is everything. iPod minis need colors, games need 3d, and computers need big, high-res screens.
Anyone notice you can BTO an eMac or PowerMac with a Bluetooth module, wireless keyboard and wireless mouse for $99 now? Previously you had to order them in addition to the wired versions. I find it interesting that you cannot BTO an iMac like this. This is probably just because new models are being announced soon but I wonder, do you think Apple may include them as standard with the next iMacs? The iMac has already begun moving upmarket in the Cube's territory and would be ideal for this. Too high-end an option for the eMac to be standard while PowerMac users may not find it an ideal solution. But the iMac? It could work.
Of course, if they leave the iMacs as they are and just give them 1.5Ghz G4 speedbumps it could be used as a sales incentive.
In the consumer market, visual is everything. iPod minis need colors, games need 3d, and computers need big, high-res screens.
This has been done over and over here on AI, but I don't think most Mac users like super high resolution (unless it's accompanied by a large screen, of course). Teensy stuff on your screen is really a Windows phenomenon. This 15" PowerBook I'm looking at with 1280 X 854 resolution is, for me, just past the point of comfort. I'd rather have it at a slightly lower resolution. I'm constantly increasing the screen font size on stuff.
But with prices on LCDs coming down recently, maybe we can agree that the low-end iMac ought to be a lot cheaper if it's going to keep that size screen.
Seriously, though, 15"/1024x768 isn't enough for widescreen DVDs or photo editing. It's certainly not enough for an entry level machine from apple. They've got a reputation for good graphics (whether they still deserve it or not) and XGA is an insult. People expect more than that...
I disagree. I run a scenic photography website and have an average of 200 visitors per day. According to the tracker statistics for my site, 43% of visitors have 800x600 displays. 42% are viewing at 1024x768. That leaves a mere 15% that have or use higher resolution displays. I think there's still room for a budget iMac with a 1024x768 15" display. It's perfectly adequate.
edit: Since I use more than one tracker on my site, I checked the other stats. (It's hard to know which is more accurate.) Those stats indicate only 50% of viewers have resolutions of 1024x768 or less. It's still a significant number and I doubt those visitors are all unhappy with their displays.
I am expecting a high-end, G5 consumer Mac of some kind at WWDC. Notice that the new G5 Power Macs were introduced less than three week from WWDC, getting them out of the way for the next big thing. Notice too that the new Power Macs are all dual processor. No low end model to satisfy folks like me, who don't need top performance but want a peppy consumer machine. Apple can now sell a single 1.8 GHz G5 to consumers. Note that Apple talked about the difficulty of putting a G5 in the iMac. That says nothing about putting it into a consumer machine that is designed to take a G5 right from the start. Apple was obviously referring to the present iMac. The other reason to have a consumer G5 was already stated. Developers need a clear signal that the 64 bit PPC processor is mainstream, not just for professional applications.
I hope it's a headless Mac, maybe one we can easily attach a flat panel display to if we like the AIO concept. Just dreaming.
The path is clear and it just doesn't get any clearer. PM's are all dual processors so it is obvious that we are gojng to see a G5 iMac after the WWDC my guess it that will still leave us under whelmed and not give us a 2ghz but either a 1.6 or 1.8 G5.
Personally I think a 2ghz G5 imac with a 160gb or 250gb HD option would be a huge sucess and would NOT impact on PM sales. Apple needs to make the iMac appeal to the public if they want to attract switchers and that means cutting edge performance, after all that what the expect when they buy a PC.
When it comes to video rendering modern PC's can still beats the pants off and iMac and boy the GUI on a PC is really fast, just try scrolling. Apple really do need to acceleerate the GUi and I hope that this happens in Panther.
In short I expect a G5 imac at 1.8ghz with a 120gb HD maximium option, and a so so video card.
Why do they blow it this way, the public really want top performing video for their games, PM buyers are probably less fussy, I don't need a top video card for working with Quark.
Seriously, I am losing hope for a G5 in anything smaller than a PowerMac case. I mean, just look at the thing. 9 fans and liquid cooling are not there for looks.
They're there for quietness and because there are two high clocked CPUs (and two 1/2 clocked FSBs to feed).
Quote:
The eMac is a fine computer and all, but it's not where the future is; at least I hope not.
Compare the current eMacs with iMacs. The current low-end eMac is 250MHz faster than the low end iMac and has a better graphics card (9200 vs GeForce 4 MX). Something tells me that this will change in the iMac's favour soon. (PCI-Express might be pushing things a little, unless the PowerMacs are really stop gap, which I doubt).
Quote:
It's certainly not enough for an entry level machine from apple.
1024x768 is perfectly usuable for an entry level machine.
Totally new design. No idea on graphics but the same chip on both 17" models. Airport Extreme and Bluetooth standard on the 20" model. Oh, and one new feature not seen on any other models to date.
This is possibly the only permutation of future specs that hasn't been considered.
Any possibility of Dual 1 and 1.25 Ghz G4s in the iMac? They've stopped production of the Power Mac G4...is this a coincidence?
You certainly get the impression that IBM promised the earth to Steve and in the end gave him the moon
As our fellow board members have pointed out, it is also possible that Apple has been designing a specific chip with IBM to get round the heat issues with the Power4 varieties. Will we see the first Power5-based processor go into the iMac? You'd think not, but Apple must be waiting and not refreshing for some reason...
As for Freescale coming along to save the day with the e600, that is unlikely to happen for another 3-6 months; anybody want to wait that long for a refresh?
Totally new design. No idea on graphics but the same chip on both 17" models. Airport Extreme and Bluetooth standard on the 20" model. Oh, and one new feature not seen on any other models to date.
With new displays on the way, could it be possible for the next iMac to be a cube without a display attached?
Totally agree. I can't see Apple announce new displays only at WWDC without a new box (either Cube 2 or xStation) being attached - it would be a big anticlimax. On the other hand, the screens could be announced at any other time outisde WWDC as a standalone announcement.
The only way I think Apple will announce a small headless box (iMac G5, G5 mini, whatever you want to call it) is if they have a replacement 17" display. It's not really a bargain if the least expensive display from the company is a $999 20" screen!
The Think Secret article says that the 17" will likely be discontinued, so unless that's simply to make way for a different style of 17" (say, a 1440x900 widescreen display like that from the iMac G4 and PowerBook), the iMac will remain an all-in-one.
No the iMac released at WWDC (and I still believe there will be something, based on the PowerMac8,1 kext info) will be something completely different. SMU_Neo2 rings new.
Totally agree. I can't see Apple announce new displays only at WWDC without a new box (either Cube 2 or xStation) being attached - it would be a big anticlimax.
Kinda like how, last year, they introduces the sleek Power Mac G5 with their dated displays?
I would love a new Cube, and I doubt they would even attempt another one without it having some killer features (G5). Pricing killed the last Cube and I'm sure Apple is aware of it.
Come through with another Cube (or other headless unit) Apple! Or I will just upgrade the bejesus out of my current one.
Personally I'd like to see the headless iMac with GPU on an AGP card and a 2 GHz 970FX for as low a price as Apple can possibly manage.
Someone's been spending waaaaay too much time in the Mac Ach. Please report to the Maximum Fun Chamber for deprogramming, citizen.
Why would Steve unveil the iMac at WWDC? Maybe for peripheral or PR reasons, although at this point the man gets international press coverage when he sneezes, and so the trend has been away from expo announcements altogether.
But what if it's something new? A lot of the technologies that look really interesting, that have the potential to evolve hardware, aren't coming down from the high end (although a lot of them are). Integrated memory controllers and systems-on-chip (IMC is a form of SoC, technically...) are the traditional domain of low-end and embedded systems. Nothing at all requires that a revolutionary - or even evolutionary - new platform debut in the PowerMac. It doesn't really even have to be that interesting in terms of what's on the board, but rather in terms of what it presents to developers as a complete system.
As far as screen resolutions go, I also work in a shop where the overwhelming majority of displays are set to 1024x768, even though they're higher res (the laptops are 15" @ 1600x1200 native, run at 1024x768). It has nothing to do with IT; our IT guy doesn't care what resolution you use. It has to do with the fact that most Americans, especially older Americans, aren't comfortable squinting at very small things on screen. 1024x768 on a 17" LCD makes everything comfortably large, so they can lean back and relax their eyes and still see what's on screen clearly. This is why Apple offers the 14" iBook at the same resolution as the 12" — people don't care about resolution, they care about absolute screen size and the ease with which they can read what's on screen. Given that, super-high-res — or Squintronic™, as I've taken to calling them — displays are a net loss, because they demand extra horsepower to run a display that's darker and lower-contrast (an inevitable result of higher pixel density) at a non-native resolution, which makes everything blurry, and you get all this for a significantly higher price.
If you look at what people are buying, notebook-wise, the 15" 1024x768 screen is king. If that's what people are using, that's the best thing to ship. An LCD screen designed to run natively at that resolution will be brighter, sharper, clearer, and cheaper than one that isn't.
Higher resolution screens won't become "better" to more than the niche market of people with 40/20 vision until someone ships a resolution-independent UI. Don't hold your breath.
Comments
Originally posted by iDave
Yuck. The eMac is a fine computer and all, but it's not where the future is; at least I hope not.
I must tell you this. I run several Mac labs at the college I work for and one of those labs has 1Ghz eMacs with 512 MB of ram in them. This lab is also used for two specific classes, and when I have to kick students out of that lab because of a class, they complain about having to leave.
That's not all, the adjacent room has PowerMac G4's that are older, but they do run well. The students prefer the eMacs to the older towers hands down. The college loves the eMacs because of the space savings and the ergonomics.
This is exactly the type of computers the college is moving to. Even on the PC side. This summer I will install three labs with a Gateway AIO that looks and works like a piece-o-sh!t, but the school wants that AIO form factor.
I think that the eMac, in time will gain a flat panel display, but not on an arm like it is now with the iMac, but with the bulk of the computer behind the display.
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe he chose his words carefully or maybe he was simply making the same point and we're over-analyzing it.
In some ways, the phrase "that would be a heck of a challenge as well" makes it sound like they're not even trying. But anyway, I don't want to overanalyze it either. Clearly he was simply saying we shouldn't expect a G5 in anything else but a PowerMac for some time.
That worries me too. It is the only reason to suspect there will be another round of G4 iMacs. It was as if the mere idea of a G5 iMac was surprising to him
Originally posted by oldmacfan
I must tell you this. I run several Mac labs at the college I work for and one of those labs has 1Ghz eMacs with 512 MB of ram in them. This lab is also used for two specific classes, and when I have to kick students out of that lab because of a class, they complain about having to leave.
The eMac is nearly ideal for schools and kids. It's why it was named the eMac; for "education." However the iMac has much more style. The ergonomic design of the adjustable display is quite impressive. It's a darn shame that it hasn't been more successful than it has and I hope Apple will not give up on the idea. Instead, I hope that they will continue to improve and refine it as they have with PowerBooks and iBooks.
Originally posted by fookz
The biggest issue isn't price or performance - it's the resolution. You can get UXGA+ on a 15" gateway laptop for $999. That's 1400x1050 resolution for under a grand.
People are getting smart to the MHz myth, but when the screen feels cramped, it's tough to justify any price.
Try this - work at 800x600 for a week. If you're still sane, I'm wrong.
Now imagine switching from a gloriously huge resolution Windows box to a $1,300 15" iMac. Would you switch?
The issue is perceived value. People would pay more for a mac if they saw value. They'd pay to buy all new software if they saw value. The first part of a computer you encounter is the screen. That's where they lose the most customers. Low screen resolutions create a perception problem...
Those resolutions get totally wasted on a PC. Every PC that is in our building with a LCD screen is used at the wrong (non-native) resolution. And a 15 inch iMac is 1024X768.
Originally posted by anand
Those resolutions get totally wasted on a PC. Every PC that is in our building with a LCD screen is used at the wrong (non-native) resolution. And a 15 inch iMac is 1024X768.
Sounds like a problem with your admin folks. Let me guess... MCSEs?
Seriously, though, 15"/1024x768 isn't enough for widescreen DVDs or photo editing. It's certainly not enough for an entry level machine from apple. They've got a reputation for good graphics (whether they still deserve it or not) and XGA is an insult. People expect more than that.
Consumers hate scrolling to see a picture in email. They want big, vibrant desktop wallpaper. Consumers hate scrolling in general (ever notice that cnn.com, foxnews, and msnbc all fit the major news frame perfectly at 800x600 with all default internet explorer toolbars visible). The digital hub needs to excel at the point of human interaction, which is the screen, and it needs as much visual appeal as possible. If users are so dumb that they can't change resolution, than an iMac that defaults to UXGA+ or higher will "give them more of the internet" by showing what they never scrolled to see before.
In the consumer market, visual is everything. iPod minis need colors, games need 3d, and computers need big, high-res screens.
Of course, if they leave the iMacs as they are and just give them 1.5Ghz G4 speedbumps it could be used as a sales incentive.
Originally posted by fookz
In the consumer market, visual is everything. iPod minis need colors, games need 3d, and computers need big, high-res screens.
This has been done over and over here on AI, but I don't think most Mac users like super high resolution (unless it's accompanied by a large screen, of course). Teensy stuff on your screen is really a Windows phenomenon. This 15" PowerBook I'm looking at with 1280 X 854 resolution is, for me, just past the point of comfort. I'd rather have it at a slightly lower resolution. I'm constantly increasing the screen font size on stuff.
But with prices on LCDs coming down recently, maybe we can agree that the low-end iMac ought to be a lot cheaper if it's going to keep that size screen.
Originally posted by fookz
Seriously, though, 15"/1024x768 isn't enough for widescreen DVDs or photo editing. It's certainly not enough for an entry level machine from apple. They've got a reputation for good graphics (whether they still deserve it or not) and XGA is an insult. People expect more than that...
I disagree. I run a scenic photography website and have an average of 200 visitors per day. According to the tracker statistics for my site, 43% of visitors have 800x600 displays. 42% are viewing at 1024x768. That leaves a mere 15% that have or use higher resolution displays. I think there's still room for a budget iMac with a 1024x768 15" display. It's perfectly adequate.
edit: Since I use more than one tracker on my site, I checked the other stats. (It's hard to know which is more accurate.) Those stats indicate only 50% of viewers have resolutions of 1024x768 or less. It's still a significant number and I doubt those visitors are all unhappy with their displays.
I hope it's a headless Mac, maybe one we can easily attach a flat panel display to if we like the AIO concept. Just dreaming.
Personally I think a 2ghz G5 imac with a 160gb or 250gb HD option would be a huge sucess and would NOT impact on PM sales. Apple needs to make the iMac appeal to the public if they want to attract switchers and that means cutting edge performance, after all that what the expect when they buy a PC.
When it comes to video rendering modern PC's can still beats the pants off and iMac and boy the GUI on a PC is really fast, just try scrolling. Apple really do need to acceleerate the GUi and I hope that this happens in Panther.
In short I expect a G5 imac at 1.8ghz with a 120gb HD maximium option, and a so so video card.
Why do they blow it this way, the public really want top performing video for their games, PM buyers are probably less fussy, I don't need a top video card for working with Quark.
Seriously, I am losing hope for a G5 in anything smaller than a PowerMac case. I mean, just look at the thing. 9 fans and liquid cooling are not there for looks.
They're there for quietness and because there are two high clocked CPUs (and two 1/2 clocked FSBs to feed).
The eMac is a fine computer and all, but it's not where the future is; at least I hope not.
Compare the current eMacs with iMacs. The current low-end eMac is 250MHz faster than the low end iMac and has a better graphics card (9200 vs GeForce 4 MX). Something tells me that this will change in the iMac's favour soon. (PCI-Express might be pushing things a little, unless the PowerMacs are really stop gap, which I doubt).
It's certainly not enough for an entry level machine from apple.
1024x768 is perfectly usuable for an entry level machine.
iMac G5 1.6 Ghz with 80GB HD, 256MB RAM, Combo Drive, 17" LCD
iMac G5 1.6 Ghz with 80GB HD, 256MB RAM, Superdrive, 17" LCD
iMac G5 1.8 GHz with 160GB HD, 512MB RAM, Superdrive, 20" LCD
Totally new design. No idea on graphics but the same chip on both 17" models. Airport Extreme and Bluetooth standard on the 20" model. Oh, and one new feature not seen on any other models to date.
Any possibility of Dual 1 and 1.25 Ghz G4s in the iMac? They've stopped production of the Power Mac G4...is this a coincidence?
You certainly get the impression that IBM promised the earth to Steve and in the end gave him the moon
As our fellow board members have pointed out, it is also possible that Apple has been designing a specific chip with IBM to get round the heat issues with the Power4 varieties. Will we see the first Power5-based processor go into the iMac? You'd think not, but Apple must be waiting and not refreshing for some reason...
As for Freescale coming along to save the day with the e600, that is unlikely to happen for another 3-6 months; anybody want to wait that long for a refresh?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
[B]My optimistic predictions:
iMac G5 1.6 Ghz with 80GB HD, 256MB RAM, Combo Drive, 17" LCD
iMac G5 1.6 Ghz with 80GB HD, 256MB RAM, Superdrive, 17" LCD
iMac G5 1.8 GHz with 160GB HD, 512MB RAM, Superdrive, 20" LCD
Totally new design. No idea on graphics but the same chip on both 17" models. Airport Extreme and Bluetooth standard on the 20" model. Oh, and one new feature not seen on any other models to date.
Originally posted by MacMatt
With new displays on the way, could it be possible for the next iMac to be a cube without a display attached?
Totally agree. I can't see Apple announce new displays only at WWDC without a new box (either Cube 2 or xStation) being attached - it would be a big anticlimax. On the other hand, the screens could be announced at any other time outisde WWDC as a standalone announcement.
The Think Secret article says that the 17" will likely be discontinued, so unless that's simply to make way for a different style of 17" (say, a 1440x900 widescreen display like that from the iMac G4 and PowerBook), the iMac will remain an all-in-one.
Originally posted by Rhumgod
No the iMac released at WWDC (and I still believe there will be something, based on the PowerMac8,1 kext info) will be something completely different. SMU_Neo2 rings new.
SMU - System Management Utilities
Neo2 - Apple Remote Desktop
But this is more than just software.
Originally posted by McCrab
Totally agree. I can't see Apple announce new displays only at WWDC without a new box (either Cube 2 or xStation) being attached - it would be a big anticlimax.
Kinda like how, last year, they introduces the sleek Power Mac G5 with their dated displays?
I would love a new Cube, and I doubt they would even attempt another one without it having some killer features (G5). Pricing killed the last Cube and I'm sure Apple is aware of it.
Come through with another Cube (or other headless unit) Apple! Or I will just upgrade the bejesus out of my current one.
Originally posted by Programmer
Personally I'd like to see the headless iMac with GPU on an AGP card and a 2 GHz 970FX for as low a price as Apple can possibly manage.
Someone's been spending waaaaay too much time in the Mac Ach. Please report to the Maximum Fun Chamber for deprogramming, citizen.
Why would Steve unveil the iMac at WWDC? Maybe for peripheral or PR reasons, although at this point the man gets international press coverage when he sneezes, and so the trend has been away from expo announcements altogether.
But what if it's something new? A lot of the technologies that look really interesting, that have the potential to evolve hardware, aren't coming down from the high end (although a lot of them are). Integrated memory controllers and systems-on-chip (IMC is a form of SoC, technically...) are the traditional domain of low-end and embedded systems. Nothing at all requires that a revolutionary - or even evolutionary - new platform debut in the PowerMac. It doesn't really even have to be that interesting in terms of what's on the board, but rather in terms of what it presents to developers as a complete system.
As far as screen resolutions go, I also work in a shop where the overwhelming majority of displays are set to 1024x768, even though they're higher res (the laptops are 15" @ 1600x1200 native, run at 1024x768). It has nothing to do with IT; our IT guy doesn't care what resolution you use. It has to do with the fact that most Americans, especially older Americans, aren't comfortable squinting at very small things on screen. 1024x768 on a 17" LCD makes everything comfortably large, so they can lean back and relax their eyes and still see what's on screen clearly. This is why Apple offers the 14" iBook at the same resolution as the 12" — people don't care about resolution, they care about absolute screen size and the ease with which they can read what's on screen. Given that, super-high-res — or Squintronic™, as I've taken to calling them — displays are a net loss, because they demand extra horsepower to run a display that's darker and lower-contrast (an inevitable result of higher pixel density) at a non-native resolution, which makes everything blurry, and you get all this for a significantly higher price.
If you look at what people are buying, notebook-wise, the 15" 1024x768 screen is king. If that's what people are using, that's the best thing to ship. An LCD screen designed to run natively at that resolution will be brighter, sharper, clearer, and cheaper than one that isn't.
Higher resolution screens won't become "better" to more than the niche market of people with 40/20 vision until someone ships a resolution-independent UI. Don't hold your breath.
Display sold seperately