I actually agree with Applenut, though the word "bullshit" is not a great substitute for logical reasoning.
iPod owners have some money or they wouldn't have an iPod. What they want is COOL and EASY and FAST ENOUGH and REASONABLE PRICE. I guess pretty much what we all want, but at a certain sweet spot that the current iMac must not hit.
Software-wise Panther is COOL and EASY, but most iPod buyers run on Windows, and iTunes has made that platform suddenly cool and easy for at least the music part of their lives.
Hardware-wise the iMac crt was cool and the iMac lcd was .... kind of cool. I personallly think that white is terrible color for computers ... about as exciting as beige, but harder to keep clean ... and it reminds me of bathroom furnishings.
The iMac IS fast enough for everything an iPod owner would want outside of the biggest games, BUT "fast enough" only lasts one year now. Upgradeabiliy is important to people and if Apple would only have made upgrading RAM and CPU and GPU as easy access as the OS has made unix, we would have had a real winner. Consumer computers need to be plug and play upgradeable ... as easy as docking an iPod.
"Reasonably Priced" is a hard thing to define. People, especially iPod owners, will pay more for style and quality and I can't claim to know the price points, but I believe that a few years ago Steve Jobs was correct when he publicly was targeting a $500 iMac as a goal. That hasn't happened, but I hope the eMac can get there. At the very least an iPod owner, a switcher who uses Windows now or at work, needs something cool for less than $1k before she will make the jump and that is all it will take to be convinced that OSX (esp. Tiger) will make Windows feel like your father's Oldsmobile.
In other words maybe the new iPod owners need a cool cpu accessory for their iPod in the form of the iMac and that doesn't mean cheap, it means reasonable and that means cool and less than $1k.
In other interesting news restricting flow doesn't actually speed stuff up once you hit Mach 1 but that's a whole other story and I doubt that relevant for a computer
Maybe it will be, at least the Mach 1 part! I vaguely remember reading that one (rather wacky sounding) proposed new power tech involved tiny jet engine style turbines. They would, iirc, generate power by spinning the turbines which were themselves powered by the pressure resulting from some type of high energy chemical reaction. The speed in the turbine chamber was supposed to be extreme, but the chambers were so small that they were quiet. Now that I think about it, I may have read it in "Wired."
Pretty much blue sky stuff, though there were working models. I think there was some mention of them getting up to around 1000 degrees celsius, though. Telomar might be interested in this......
The iPod is the BEST portable music player there is. Largest Hard Drive for Price, best OS, best integration to windows or Mac, etc. That is why they can charge a premium for it.
When the iMac has the largest Hard Drive, Best Processor Best OS (it does) Best RAM, best screen, etc
Then they can charge premium prices for it. But until they do, they shouldn't charging that much, because people don't buy then.
I can't believe someone suggest Pyramid shape as a good shape! A simple rectangular box, elegantly designed is what is in order. Monitor sold separately.
My field is heat transfer and fluid dynamics quite specifically... If you insert the fan it's easy to move air but don't expect it to work based on the venturi effect because that'll have nothing to do with it... if you oversimplify, like you have been, it'll eventually bite you in the arse. Just a warning for the future since right now I'm guessing you're about 2nd year uni.
Your guess would be wrong, (by about 30 years) and your second guessing is wrong as well.
I'll give you that a pyramid with a vent at the top is not a true venturi, (I was oversimplifying there) but you will have to concede that as long as heat is produced, the air will rise, there may be eddies along the way, but the flow is going to be UP and OUT as long as there is a vent at or near the top, and a heat source below it.
Since you are in the field, and likely to have the modeling programs you mention, then give it a go, and report back with data to support your own assumptions.
Of course you will be able to show that ambient temperatures can effect this, but I would guess that the room would have to at least approach, or most likely exceed, that of the interior of the enclosure to reverse the flow as you suggested. (convection eddies aside).
This all becomes an esoteric argument since I'm sure that Apple will have done their engineering homework on any form factor they decide to use. Just as they must have done with the Cube, I would like to note that they had made provisions for a fan in the Cube but given the heat output of the 500 MHz G4, they deemed it unneeded.
I would think that a pyramidal form factor of the size (volume) that I expect (which contains a 970FX) would most likely have a fan, just as I would expect the processor to have a heat pipe or pipes to deliver that concentrated heat to said fan.
But enough said, let's agree to disagree on the thermodynamics of a pyramidal shape until somebody does the actual numbers for us. And feel free to be that person if you do have the tools to make such a study.
... I can't believe someone suggest Pyramid shape as a good shape! A simple rectangular box, elegantly designed is what is in order. Monitor sold separately.
Well if anyone can design a retangular box elegantly it would be Apple. They pretty much did that with the MacIIsi (I have a couple of those right now and they are awesomely engineered) but I think Apple indicates that they will stay with an All-In-One just by calling it an iMac.
When they do eventually come out with a headless box, which I believe they will when they replace the eMac, then you will see your elegant rectangle.
Maybe it will be, at least the Mach 1 part! I vaguely remember reading that one (rather wacky sounding) proposed new power tech involved tiny jet engine style turbines. They would, iirc, generate power by spinning the turbines which were themselves powered by the pressure resulting from some type of high energy chemical reaction. The speed in the turbine chamber was supposed to be extreme, but the chambers were so small that they were quiet. Now that I think about it, I may have read it in "Wired."
Pretty much blue sky stuff, though there were working models. I think there was some mention of them getting up to around 1000 degrees celsius, though. Telomar might be interested in this......
</OT>
A stirling engine mounted on top of the pyramid could make excellent use of that wasted heat. It could even rotate a lightweight mirror "disco" ball!
But seriously... I think the imac2 is excellent industrial design and it's too bad they couldn't keep this form around, upgrade it, and offer it as a pricey alternative for those who want that look. Apple could even offer it in the minipod colors.
Hopefully the new imac will be a competitively priced machine starting at $999.00 with at least a 1.8 GHz G5.
I also agree with THT. and others, about a "headless" mac... there should be something to help lure those windows users with ipods over to the OS.
A stirling engine mounted on top of the pyramid could make excellent use of that wasted heat. It could even rotate a lightweight mirror "disco" ball!
But seriously... I think the imac2 is excellent industrial design and it's too bad they couldn't keep this form around, upgrade it, and offer it as a pricey alternative for those who want that look. Apple could even offer it in the minipod colors.
Hopefully the new imac will be a competitively priced machine starting at $999.00 with at least a 1.8 GHz G5.
I also agree with THT. and others, about a "headless" mac... there should be something to help lure those windows users with ipods over to the OS.
I love it.....how could a disco ball fail to jumpstart Apple's moribund marketshare?
I agree re the industrial design. As I said earlier (maybe in another forum; there are so many), the iMac2 gives one of the most comfortable computing experiences one could have. I'd hate to see the new screens constraining that experience, since I think I'll buy an iMac soon. As a non gamer, I could care less about GPU upgrades; as someone who uses computers a lot, I certainly care about ergonomics.
In fact, I'd probably choose the iMac2 over the next gen version, if the steel/chrome arm goes.
People hoping for a new iMac that is cheaper than the last line are probably spitting into the wind. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple is having a hard time keeping the price points the same; and we will see slightly higher prices for a while.
I'm all for Apple trying to cut corners wherever possible, but not at the expense of good quality LCD screens, GPUs, CPUs, FSBs, etc. Even good design is worth the extra costs involved.
I don't think that the last iMac was a failure at all. It sold well enough; considering the time period it was sold in. I fully expect that the next iMac will make Apple money and satisfy the people who choose to purchase it.
iPod users are (obviously) willing to pay a little more for excellence. The same holds true for the iMac.
The iMac is not for Power Users, it is for home or office use, not for high graphics use and as there aren't many games on the Mac so graphics do not need to be good. Apple aren't competing with speed, people want a cheap computer to get themselves online, download songs to their iPod and write letters, not use final cut pro, speed does no need to be an issue.
The original iMac did not even have a way of saving externally - it did not have a good graphics card nor did it have a lot of high end features, and Apple sold three million of them - it had USB, IR a modem and ethernet. The second iMac did not sell as well because it was too expensive, that's the reason for it. People can get a PC for £500 why buy a mac for £1000. The eMac is the lower end and I suppose the iMac should be middle range so should be for £750, not much more though. Apple need to work on a computer that is an upgrade to the current system but addresses the problems the current one had in the market. Apple's main problem is cost, oh and btw the iPod is not that expensive compared to others for what you are getting, also the iPod works in a different market with different factors, it is an accessory for 'coolness' people buy the iPod like people buy Nike, for the name.
The iPod is the BEST portable music player there is. Largest Hard Drive for Price, best OS, best integration to windows or Mac, etc. That is why they can charge a premium for it.
When the iMac has the largest Hard Drive, Best Processor Best OS (it does) Best RAM, best screen, etc
Then they can charge premium prices for it. But until they do, they shouldn't charging that much, because people don't buy then.
I can't believe someone suggest Pyramid shape as a good shape! A simple rectangular box, elegantly designed is what is in order. Monitor sold separately.
Completely agree with you, that was exactly my point i was trying to make above!
The iMac is not for Power Users, it is for home or office use, not for high graphics use and as there aren't many games on the Mac so graphics do not need to be good. Apple aren't competing with speed, people want a cheap computer to get themselves online, download songs to their iPod and write letters, not use final cut pro, speed does no need to be an issue.
The original iMac did not even have a way of saving externally - it did not have a good graphics card nor did it have a lot of high end features, and Apple sold three million of them - it had USB, IR a modem and ethernet. The second iMac did not sell as well because it was too expensive, that's the reason for it. People can get a PC for £500 why buy a mac for £1000. The eMac is the lower end and I suppose the iMac should be middle range so should be for £750, not much more though. Apple need to work on a computer that is an upgrade to the current system but addresses the problems the current one had in the market. Apple's main problem is cost, oh and btw the iPod is not that expensive compared to others for what you are getting, also the iPod works in a different market with different factors, it is an accessory for 'coolness' people buy the iPod like people buy Nike, for the name.
The graphics comment is sort of chicken and egg. Why *not* put some decent graphics in it? If it is not upgradeable then it should be decent to start with (not top end but not too far down from it). Also games are *not* the only thing the GPU is to be used for. The Tiger preview demonstrates that *everyone* can use the capabilities of the GPU.
The later (slot loading) jellybean iMacs had Firewire on them pretty much in line with when the Powermacs gained it (perhaps just a short while after) so your expansion idea is flawed as well.
There is no reason Apple can't correct the flaws from the iMac2 and produce a much improved iMac3 in terms of both price *and* performance.
Apple has stated they want to increase market share.
Apple has admited they missed the price point.
In order to gain market share Apple must entice switchers.
When enticing switchers Apple must overcome two main complaints.
.... Lack of software/compatibility
.... Price performance(if anyone really thinks the eMac will entice significant #'s of switchers, I believe they are mistaken)
Of those problems Apple can realistically correct only one, that is price performance. An LCD AIO won't address this problem.
In my humble opinion, if Apple truly wishes to meet their stated goals, they must introduce a headless mac, xMac, iBrick, whatever you wish to call it. It must have a competative processor-G5 1.8GHz min., an AGP 8x slot for standard size card and one free PCI slot would be gravy.
Just curious, what is Fred Anderson doing these days, has he stepped down yet?
I can guarantee two things from Apple with regard to the new iMac:
1. it won't have much if any internal expansion or upgradability, and
2. they will do everything including gluing the monitor to the CPU to make sure you buy their monitor.
It doesn't preclude having a separate monitor or a detachable one, but dont expect for one instant that Apple is going to give up the monitor to customers. There is no direct correlation between these a la carte features and either price or user demand. I don't think Apple is going to lose a lot of customers for pushing a monitor with the new iMac whether it's glued on or not.
Oh, and whether the iMac is a pyramid or a cube or a dome is kind of spurious if you're just picking a cool shape. It's the old design from the inside-out so called "soap bubble" approach that informed the two iMacs before. Obviously, they were refine dfor how they look on the outside, but the rationale was internal first.
As a former Cube owner, I will tell you right now: forget about fanless convection cooling. You only get enough airflow if the parts are extremely hot, which reduces their life substantially. Sure, it may work for a few weeks or months, but the DC-DC board, or the graphics card's fan, or the hard drive, or, if you're very unlucky, the motherboard or CPU will fail.
For any Cube owners out there who are persisting in this fanless fool's paradise, do yourself a favor and add a fan. Or, start scrounging up replacement parts, they're getting rare.
For any Cube owners out there who are persisting in this fanless fool's paradise, do yourself a favor and add a fan. Or, start scrounging up replacement parts, they're getting rare.
what about water cooling? with one small fan it could be nearly silent.
Comments
Originally posted by applenut
thats simply bullshit
I actually agree with Applenut, though the word "bullshit" is not a great substitute for logical reasoning.
iPod owners have some money or they wouldn't have an iPod. What they want is COOL and EASY and FAST ENOUGH and REASONABLE PRICE. I guess pretty much what we all want, but at a certain sweet spot that the current iMac must not hit.
Software-wise Panther is COOL and EASY, but most iPod buyers run on Windows, and iTunes has made that platform suddenly cool and easy for at least the music part of their lives.
Hardware-wise the iMac crt was cool and the iMac lcd was .... kind of cool. I personallly think that white is terrible color for computers ... about as exciting as beige, but harder to keep clean ... and it reminds me of bathroom furnishings.
The iMac IS fast enough for everything an iPod owner would want outside of the biggest games, BUT "fast enough" only lasts one year now. Upgradeabiliy is important to people and if Apple would only have made upgrading RAM and CPU and GPU as easy access as the OS has made unix, we would have had a real winner. Consumer computers need to be plug and play upgradeable ... as easy as docking an iPod.
"Reasonably Priced" is a hard thing to define. People, especially iPod owners, will pay more for style and quality and I can't claim to know the price points, but I believe that a few years ago Steve Jobs was correct when he publicly was targeting a $500 iMac as a goal. That hasn't happened, but I hope the eMac can get there. At the very least an iPod owner, a switcher who uses Windows now or at work, needs something cool for less than $1k before she will make the jump and that is all it will take to be convinced that OSX (esp. Tiger) will make Windows feel like your father's Oldsmobile.
In other words maybe the new iPod owners need a cool cpu accessory for their iPod in the form of the iMac and that doesn't mean cheap, it means reasonable and that means cool and less than $1k.
Originally posted by Telomar
In other interesting news restricting flow doesn't actually speed stuff up once you hit Mach 1 but that's a whole other story and I doubt that relevant for a computer
Maybe it will be, at least the Mach 1 part! I vaguely remember reading that one (rather wacky sounding) proposed new power tech involved tiny jet engine style turbines. They would, iirc, generate power by spinning the turbines which were themselves powered by the pressure resulting from some type of high energy chemical reaction. The speed in the turbine chamber was supposed to be extreme, but the chambers were so small that they were quiet. Now that I think about it, I may have read it in "Wired."
Pretty much blue sky stuff, though there were working models. I think there was some mention of them getting up to around 1000 degrees celsius, though. Telomar might be interested in this......
</OT>
When the iMac has the largest Hard Drive, Best Processor Best OS (it does) Best RAM, best screen, etc
Then they can charge premium prices for it. But until they do, they shouldn't charging that much, because people don't buy then.
I can't believe someone suggest Pyramid shape as a good shape! A simple rectangular box, elegantly designed is what is in order. Monitor sold separately.
Quanta is one of nVidia:s partners, and they manufactures the iMac, so why not? Then you get an exchangeable graphics card...
Originally posted by Telomar
My field is heat transfer and fluid dynamics quite specifically... If you insert the fan it's easy to move air but don't expect it to work based on the venturi effect because that'll have nothing to do with it... if you oversimplify, like you have been, it'll eventually bite you in the arse. Just a warning for the future since right now I'm guessing you're about 2nd year uni.
Your guess would be wrong, (by about 30 years) and your second guessing is wrong as well.
I'll give you that a pyramid with a vent at the top is not a true venturi, (I was oversimplifying there) but you will have to concede that as long as heat is produced, the air will rise, there may be eddies along the way, but the flow is going to be UP and OUT as long as there is a vent at or near the top, and a heat source below it.
Since you are in the field, and likely to have the modeling programs you mention, then give it a go, and report back with data to support your own assumptions.
Of course you will be able to show that ambient temperatures can effect this, but I would guess that the room would have to at least approach, or most likely exceed, that of the interior of the enclosure to reverse the flow as you suggested. (convection eddies aside).
This all becomes an esoteric argument since I'm sure that Apple will have done their engineering homework on any form factor they decide to use. Just as they must have done with the Cube, I would like to note that they had made provisions for a fan in the Cube but given the heat output of the 500 MHz G4, they deemed it unneeded.
I would think that a pyramidal form factor of the size (volume) that I expect (which contains a 970FX) would most likely have a fan, just as I would expect the processor to have a heat pipe or pipes to deliver that concentrated heat to said fan.
But enough said, let's agree to disagree on the thermodynamics of a pyramidal shape until somebody does the actual numbers for us. And feel free to be that person if you do have the tools to make such a study.
...
Originally posted by tak1108
... I can't believe someone suggest Pyramid shape as a good shape! A simple rectangular box, elegantly designed is what is in order. Monitor sold separately.
Well if anyone can design a retangular box elegantly it would be Apple. They pretty much did that with the MacIIsi (I have a couple of those right now and they are awesomely engineered) but I think Apple indicates that they will stay with an All-In-One just by calling it an iMac.
When they do eventually come out with a headless box, which I believe they will when they replace the eMac, then you will see your elegant rectangle.
...
Originally posted by jouster
Maybe it will be, at least the Mach 1 part! I vaguely remember reading that one (rather wacky sounding) proposed new power tech involved tiny jet engine style turbines. They would, iirc, generate power by spinning the turbines which were themselves powered by the pressure resulting from some type of high energy chemical reaction. The speed in the turbine chamber was supposed to be extreme, but the chambers were so small that they were quiet. Now that I think about it, I may have read it in "Wired."
Pretty much blue sky stuff, though there were working models. I think there was some mention of them getting up to around 1000 degrees celsius, though. Telomar might be interested in this......
</OT>
A stirling engine mounted on top of the pyramid could make excellent use of that wasted heat. It could even rotate a lightweight mirror "disco" ball!
But seriously... I think the imac2 is excellent industrial design and it's too bad they couldn't keep this form around, upgrade it, and offer it as a pricey alternative for those who want that look. Apple could even offer it in the minipod colors.
Hopefully the new imac will be a competitively priced machine starting at $999.00 with at least a 1.8 GHz G5.
I also agree with THT. and others, about a "headless" mac... there should be something to help lure those windows users with ipods over to the OS.
Originally posted by pey/coy-ote
A stirling engine mounted on top of the pyramid could make excellent use of that wasted heat. It could even rotate a lightweight mirror "disco" ball!
But seriously... I think the imac2 is excellent industrial design and it's too bad they couldn't keep this form around, upgrade it, and offer it as a pricey alternative for those who want that look. Apple could even offer it in the minipod colors.
Hopefully the new imac will be a competitively priced machine starting at $999.00 with at least a 1.8 GHz G5.
I also agree with THT. and others, about a "headless" mac... there should be something to help lure those windows users with ipods over to the OS.
I love it.....how could a disco ball fail to jumpstart Apple's moribund marketshare?
I agree re the industrial design. As I said earlier (maybe in another forum; there are so many), the iMac2 gives one of the most comfortable computing experiences one could have. I'd hate to see the new screens constraining that experience, since I think I'll buy an iMac soon. As a non gamer, I could care less about GPU upgrades; as someone who uses computers a lot, I certainly care about ergonomics.
In fact, I'd probably choose the iMac2 over the next gen version, if the steel/chrome arm goes.
Originally posted by dws
People hoping for a new iMac that is cheaper than the last line are probably spitting into the wind. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple is having a hard time keeping the price points the same; and we will see slightly higher prices for a while.
I'm all for Apple trying to cut corners wherever possible, but not at the expense of good quality LCD screens, GPUs, CPUs, FSBs, etc. Even good design is worth the extra costs involved.
I don't think that the last iMac was a failure at all. It sold well enough; considering the time period it was sold in. I fully expect that the next iMac will make Apple money and satisfy the people who choose to purchase it.
iPod users are (obviously) willing to pay a little more for excellence. The same holds true for the iMac.
The iMac is not for Power Users, it is for home or office use, not for high graphics use and as there aren't many games on the Mac so graphics do not need to be good. Apple aren't competing with speed, people want a cheap computer to get themselves online, download songs to their iPod and write letters, not use final cut pro, speed does no need to be an issue.
The original iMac did not even have a way of saving externally - it did not have a good graphics card nor did it have a lot of high end features, and Apple sold three million of them - it had USB, IR a modem and ethernet. The second iMac did not sell as well because it was too expensive, that's the reason for it. People can get a PC for £500 why buy a mac for £1000. The eMac is the lower end and I suppose the iMac should be middle range so should be for £750, not much more though. Apple need to work on a computer that is an upgrade to the current system but addresses the problems the current one had in the market. Apple's main problem is cost, oh and btw the iPod is not that expensive compared to others for what you are getting, also the iPod works in a different market with different factors, it is an accessory for 'coolness' people buy the iPod like people buy Nike, for the name.
Originally posted by tak1108
The iPod is the BEST portable music player there is. Largest Hard Drive for Price, best OS, best integration to windows or Mac, etc. That is why they can charge a premium for it.
When the iMac has the largest Hard Drive, Best Processor Best OS (it does) Best RAM, best screen, etc
Then they can charge premium prices for it. But until they do, they shouldn't charging that much, because people don't buy then.
I can't believe someone suggest Pyramid shape as a good shape! A simple rectangular box, elegantly designed is what is in order. Monitor sold separately.
Completely agree with you, that was exactly my point i was trying to make above!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
The iMac is not for Power Users, it is for home or office use, not for high graphics use and as there aren't many games on the Mac so graphics do not need to be good. Apple aren't competing with speed, people want a cheap computer to get themselves online, download songs to their iPod and write letters, not use final cut pro, speed does no need to be an issue.
The original iMac did not even have a way of saving externally - it did not have a good graphics card nor did it have a lot of high end features, and Apple sold three million of them - it had USB, IR a modem and ethernet. The second iMac did not sell as well because it was too expensive, that's the reason for it. People can get a PC for £500 why buy a mac for £1000. The eMac is the lower end and I suppose the iMac should be middle range so should be for £750, not much more though. Apple need to work on a computer that is an upgrade to the current system but addresses the problems the current one had in the market. Apple's main problem is cost, oh and btw the iPod is not that expensive compared to others for what you are getting, also the iPod works in a different market with different factors, it is an accessory for 'coolness' people buy the iPod like people buy Nike, for the name.
The graphics comment is sort of chicken and egg. Why *not* put some decent graphics in it? If it is not upgradeable then it should be decent to start with (not top end but not too far down from it). Also games are *not* the only thing the GPU is to be used for. The Tiger preview demonstrates that *everyone* can use the capabilities of the GPU.
The later (slot loading) jellybean iMacs had Firewire on them pretty much in line with when the Powermacs gained it (perhaps just a short while after) so your expansion idea is flawed as well.
There is no reason Apple can't correct the flaws from the iMac2 and produce a much improved iMac3 in terms of both price *and* performance.
Apple has stated they want to increase market share.
Apple has admited they missed the price point.
In order to gain market share Apple must entice switchers.
When enticing switchers Apple must overcome two main complaints.
.... Lack of software/compatibility
.... Price performance(if anyone really thinks the eMac will entice significant #'s of switchers, I believe they are mistaken)
Of those problems Apple can realistically correct only one, that is price performance. An LCD AIO won't address this problem.
In my humble opinion, if Apple truly wishes to meet their stated goals, they must introduce a headless mac, xMac, iBrick, whatever you wish to call it. It must have a competative processor-G5 1.8GHz min., an AGP 8x slot for standard size card and one free PCI slot would be gravy.
Just curious, what is Fred Anderson doing these days, has he stepped down yet?
1. it won't have much if any internal expansion or upgradability, and
2. they will do everything including gluing the monitor to the CPU to make sure you buy their monitor.
It doesn't preclude having a separate monitor or a detachable one, but dont expect for one instant that Apple is going to give up the monitor to customers. There is no direct correlation between these a la carte features and either price or user demand. I don't think Apple is going to lose a lot of customers for pushing a monitor with the new iMac whether it's glued on or not.
Oh, and whether the iMac is a pyramid or a cube or a dome is kind of spurious if you're just picking a cool shape. It's the old design from the inside-out so called "soap bubble" approach that informed the two iMacs before. Obviously, they were refine dfor how they look on the outside, but the rationale was internal first.
Originally posted by rickag
Just curious, what is Fred Anderson doing these days, has he stepped down yet?
He's no longer CFO, but I believe he is still on the board.
For any Cube owners out there who are persisting in this fanless fool's paradise, do yourself a favor and add a fan. Or, start scrounging up replacement parts, they're getting rare.
30 inch imac
what we will see:
sadly. it will be an aio
we will see no upgradeability outside of ram,
built for tiger, really fast gpu - 64 mb on low end 128 on the high end
speakers - I have no idea
form factor:
Picture an IBM blade server module mounted on the back of the old 20 inch cinima display - optical drive in besil under display.
Also announced at the same time:
motion express $99, DVD studio express $149.
bundle of FCE+DVDSE+motion express to be a suit (ala iLife) for $499, $50 bucks cheaper than each app alone.
Just a guess
Originally posted by cubist
For any Cube owners out there who are persisting in this fanless fool's paradise, do yourself a favor and add a fan. Or, start scrounging up replacement parts, they're getting rare.
what about water cooling? with one small fan it could be nearly silent.