NOPE: if you are a real pro then you need expantion slots,
This gets repeated all the time, and I have to ask: For what? Current PowerMacs are so well equipped that I can't figure out what they'd really need PCIe for. Professional audio interface? They've got Firewire versions. 10Gbase-T Ethernet? Lots more USB ports? Apple can build those in if there's enough of a clamor, and they really should, since 2 or even 4 USB ports is pretty chintzy and they're cheap to add. Look at all the cheap PC motherboards that have 8 or 10 of them. Honestly, between Firewire and USB 2.0, there really isn't much that desperately needs to be internal. One PCIe slot for the graphics card really should be enough.
it goes back to % of PowerMac Users, now it Laptops stand almost 50% of the new sales...
% of users want to buy PMs?
% of users upgrade their PMs?
I think gamers and Pro users may want to upgrade their Graphic Cards in frequent manner...I am sure there is a Market for PMs, but 20" & 23"iMac nice machines can last you long for 24 to 36 months.
Also the way the technology taking off, it is wiser to upgrade the entire machines every 24/36 months depending on ones Performance Needs...
now i am stuck in the AGP Graphic Cards in my PC, where now there is much performance from PCIe and whole lots of new features in the newer motherboard
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong. What a waste. That's why I hate AIO designs; displays and CPUs age at different rates so inevitably you end up junking a computer with a fine display but an outdated CPU.
The Cube was the answer to this, but Apple screwed it up. They need to try again, but this time with a mini tower that offers a small amount of expandability and upgradability (video card, for example). Then the user can keep using his old but still beautiful display, or buy a new one later, or whatever.
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong.
It's only obsolete if it stops doing what you want it to do.
There aren't many - heck, there aren't any - metrics by which the G3 700 iBook I'm typing on isn't waaaaay obsolete. But Safari, Word, IRC, iChat and iTunes and the few others I use run fine.
I think Apple views the target market for the iMac as having similar demands.
It's only obsolete if it stops doing what you want it to do.
There aren't many - heck, there aren't any metrics by which the G3 700 iBook I'm typing on isn't waaaaay obsolete. But Safari, Word, IRC, iChat and iTunes and the few others I use run fine.
I think Apple views the target market for the iMac as having similar demands.
Your iBook cannot run Aperture and will probably look very weak running lightroom. It doesn't have bluetooth. It's limited in memory, which may be a problem when running photoshop, or large Excel worksheets, or a two-page document in Neooffice.
As more and more programs demand 10.4 or 10.5, you'll feel a pressure to upgrade. New OS versions assume you have a stronger machine and have more intricate GUI. If all that was available when OSX was first introduced was the 300 MHz G3, like I had at the time, they would not include the Genie effect which looked horribly slow.
I don't know if any of these applies to you, but there are many other reasons you might want to upgrade your computer.
I currently use a 6-year-old 20" CRT display. It's actually still very good. Why would I want to throw it away? If we're talking 23" LCDs, why would I want to permanently attach such an expensive piece of equipment to a computer I might want to replace in 3 years?
I seriously doubt that Apple's target audience is people who will keep their iMac for 5-6 years. They want you to upgrade every 2-3 years. Unfortunately the Mini is underpowered and the PM is a big, inelegant machine.
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong. What a waste. That's why I hate AIO designs; displays and CPUs age at different rates so inevitably you end up junking a computer with a fine display but an outdated CPU.
The Cube was the answer to this, but Apple screwed it up. They need to try again, but this time with a mini tower that offers a small amount of expandability and upgradability (video card, for example). Then the user can keep using his old but still beautiful display, or buy a new one later, or whatever.
if machine outdated, do not the display outdated as well?, my 6 month cinema display already lose out in response time race to other displays...
that's what what exactly said technology rate far faster than one can catch. i said only if you need latest performance 24/36 months cycle, it could be shorter for someone longer someone else...
Your iBook cannot run Aperture and will probably look very weak running lightroom.
I could care less about either.
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
It doesn't have bluetooth.
I have no need for it.
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
It's limited in memory, which may be a problem when running photoshop,
Gimp runs fine. I have no need for PS, and barely even use Gimp anyway.
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
or large Excel worksheets, or a two-page document in Neooffice.
Hasn't been a problem so far.
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
As more and more programs demand 10.4 or 10.5, you'll feel a pressure to upgrade.
Only if there's a compelling reason to. That's kinda my point; I didn't feel the Tiger upgrade was worth $129 for my limited needs, so I stuck with Panther which is, for me, rock-solid. If 10.5 offers something compelling, maybe I will.
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
I don't know if any of these applies to you, but there are many other reasons you might want to upgrade your computer.
What are they? If my current box - whatever it is - fulfills my needs, why drop $1700 on something new?
Quote:
Originally posted by synp
I seriously doubt that Apple's target audience is people who will keep their iMac for 5-6 years. They want you to upgrade every 2-3 years.
Isn't it the case that Apple users tend to upgrade far less than do PC users? That said, I've never seen any evidence that PC users upgrade quickly.
Isn't it the case that Apple users tend to upgrade far less than do PC users? That said, I've never seen any evidence that PC users upgrade quickly.
It is. I'm using a 500MHz TiBook. At home I have a Dual 867 MHz PM. PC users do tend to upgrade more often.
Quote:
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic....
Back to the iMac 23, which is more interesting.
It's not entirely off-topic. The price of 17" and 20" panels has gone down. Perhaps it's low enough that people don't mind getting a new one every time they upgrade their computer.
I don't think the same can be said for 23" panels.
Comparing prices for displays on bestbuy.com, I get that the 17", 20" and 23" are $320, $500 and $1400 respectively, for the lowest-cost monitor I can find in a given size.
I think this means that the 23" is too expensive to attach to a single computer.
I think this means that the 23" is too expensive to attach to a single computer.
Good point. It most likely is right now. But I think I read that flat panels in general (especially TVs) were going to plummet this year, and be significantly cheaper by end '06/ start '07.
Comparing prices for displays on bestbuy.com, I get that the 17", 20" and 23" are $320, $500 and $1400 respectively, for the lowest-cost monitor I can find in a given size.
I think this means that the 23" is too expensive to attach to a single computer.
There's your problem. Best Buy prices stink. Dell's 24" costs less than $900, barely more than what Apple charges for its 20".
I think the solution would be to have separate but combinable CPU and display units. IIRC, Dell or HP used to do this a few years ago, where you could take a thin CPU and mount it on the back of an LCD. This way, when you want to upgrade, just snap off the old CPU and snap on a new one. There's really no need for a massive tower like a PowerMac. As I wrote, the vast majority of even "pro" users likely need only a single PCIe slot for the graphics card, and you can easily fit a single slot inside a thin, pizza box style enclosure. Apple already severely limits the number of drive bays inside a PowerMac, so it wouldn't be like we'd be losing any. Think a Mac Mini on steroids, just as thin but maybe 4x wider and 3x as deep. Or even like an Xserve. And if Apple can cool a G5 inside the confines of an iMac, they can do the same with Intel processors.
Isn't it the case that Apple users tend to upgrade far less than do PC users? That said, I've never seen any evidence that PC users upgrade quickly.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic....
Back to the iMac 23, which is more interesting.
I think for many people it depends on their financial situation. I had a P3 Dell from Sept 2001- August 2005 as my only computer. It did what I needed. It was slow, painful to use with the stock 128MB of Ram (Which I later upgraded to a whopping 256MB), but it worked.
After years of gradual saving I bought an iMac in August which all together cost me $2000 and change. Due to the price alone I know I will be using this machine for the next four years minimum.
Everyone wants the latest and greatest, but if what you have works, there really isn't any NEED to upgrade.
Mind you I got the Dell when I was 12, making me 16 now so of cource my funds are somewhat limited. But I see no reason to do other wise even if I was loaded. Also when you get something great (iMac) after waiting so long it seems extraordinary compared to what you had.
It's only obsolete if it stops doing what you want it to do.
There aren't many - heck, there aren't any - metrics by which the G3 700 iBook I'm typing on isn't waaaaay obsolete. But Safari, Word, IRC, iChat and iTunes and the few others I use run fine.
I think Apple views the target market for the iMac as having similar demands.
Exactly, I have the same ibook, and it's still chugging along great. I've had it for 3 years, 9 months.
I've got a new iMac on order because I want to do stuff with garageband, but I'm definitely keeping my ibook for couch internet duty! It'll be probably five years before I get something new, and I'm sure displays will be way way better by then.
Edit: Five years ago, the iMac had a 15 inch CRT. If these had been seperate entities, would someone really buy a new mac and keep the monitor?
I think not!
Four years ago, the iMac had a 1024x768 15" LCD
Again, would someone really buy a new mac and keep that monitor? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.
24" Dell in singapore priced at s$1500 (yes priced at s$1500), something equivalent to $833, we should know the cost will be much less than it (incl panel,package, delivery, ad, USB port, Dual DVI input and so on)...
so panel alone will be much cheaper
Generally we all know Appple Cinema Display are priced higher, so 23" iMac is doable.
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong. What a waste. That's why I hate AIO designs; displays and CPUs age at different rates so inevitably you end up junking a computer with a fine display but an outdated CPU.
YES! If I buy a new display next week and a new computer in say May, or June why chuck everything?!?!? and more importantly, why buy a monitor that I do not want or need in stead of just getting a decent pro or seme-pro headless for about or maybe under $1000
I've been using a 23" display attached to a PB in the office for over a year and prefer it over the 20" G5 imac. The PB needed a HD replacement (free thanks to AppleCare) and I brought the iMac to the office while it was in the shop. Right now they are sitting side by side and, I have to say, that the 23" kills the 20".
I think that a 23" iMac will be possible when the costs make it viable. That may be late this year or early next year - or it may be when the next generation of iMacs are announced.
The cost factor is going to be critical because it's an AIO form and people have to be willing to loose the display when they get rid of the iMac. If it isn't held too long then there will be a fair return when it's sold on ebay, or locally, making the AIO less critical. Hold on to it for 5 years and when you look at a replacement you will far prefer the new display over the current one - just a factor of improving the technology related to displays.
With all iMacs, but especially with a 23" Apple Care is going to be the most important "upgrade" you make when you buy it.
It's a simple issue of the differential aging rates of displays and computers. A quality display like the 23" Cinema display will have a far longer usable life-span than a computer. Simple.
With an AIO in which the display isn't the primary cost, this aging differential isn't so important. But when the display costs ten times what the CPU costs, then it raises some questions about the worth of such a pairing. At some point, the CPU won't even be able to run many new applications, but the display will still be usable. What then? Do you throw out the beautiful display because the CPU won't run the new Final Cut Pro? Do you set the giant iMac next to your TV/Stereo setup and use it as an iTunes server?
Why not buy a 23" Cinema display and run it with laptop or a Powermac? A 23" Cinema display will last through several Powermac upgrade cycles, probably 6-8 years, before it begins to show its age.
BTW, have you ever SEEN a 20" iMac? The things are freakin' HUGE! Why do you need such a large display? All of the things that would require a 23"+ display that I can think of would require something better than an iMac to run well.
BTW, have you ever SEEN a 20" iMac? The things are freakin' HUGE! Why do you need such a large display?
Have you ever seen a 30" ACD in person? Whoa. They needed a Shop Vac to pick up all my drool. Until I can justify the price, I'll have to continue suffering with a 20" Dell Ultrasharp. Believe it or not, some of us need lots of screen real estate. I have dual LCDs and it's still not enough.
Comments
Originally posted by synp
But then you lose the speakers, so the iMac becomes less All-in-one.
Why? Put them behind the panel, pointing towards the ground. They don't need to be supa hi-fi. They just need to work.
Edit: Jeez, 199 posts in 4 years. At this rate I'll crack 500 by the end of the decade.
Originally posted by a_greer
NOPE: if you are a real pro then you need expantion slots,
This gets repeated all the time, and I have to ask: For what? Current PowerMacs are so well equipped that I can't figure out what they'd really need PCIe for. Professional audio interface? They've got Firewire versions. 10Gbase-T Ethernet? Lots more USB ports? Apple can build those in if there's enough of a clamor, and they really should, since 2 or even 4 USB ports is pretty chintzy and they're cheap to add. Look at all the cheap PC motherboards that have 8 or 10 of them. Honestly, between Firewire and USB 2.0, there really isn't much that desperately needs to be internal. One PCIe slot for the graphics card really should be enough.
% of users want to buy PMs?
% of users upgrade their PMs?
I think gamers and Pro users may want to upgrade their Graphic Cards in frequent manner...I am sure there is a Market for PMs, but 20" & 23"iMac nice machines can last you long for 24 to 36 months.
Also the way the technology taking off, it is wiser to upgrade the entire machines every 24/36 months depending on ones Performance Needs...
now i am stuck in the AGP Graphic Cards in my PC, where now there is much performance from PCIe and whole lots of new features in the newer motherboard
The Cube was the answer to this, but Apple screwed it up. They need to try again, but this time with a mini tower that offers a small amount of expandability and upgradability (video card, for example). Then the user can keep using his old but still beautiful display, or buy a new one later, or whatever.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong.
It's only obsolete if it stops doing what you want it to do.
There aren't many - heck, there aren't any - metrics by which the G3 700 iBook I'm typing on isn't waaaaay obsolete. But Safari, Word, IRC, iChat and iTunes and the few others I use run fine.
I think Apple views the target market for the iMac as having similar demands.
Originally posted by jouster
It's only obsolete if it stops doing what you want it to do.
There aren't many - heck, there aren't any metrics by which the G3 700 iBook I'm typing on isn't waaaaay obsolete. But Safari, Word, IRC, iChat and iTunes and the few others I use run fine.
I think Apple views the target market for the iMac as having similar demands.
Your iBook cannot run Aperture and will probably look very weak running lightroom. It doesn't have bluetooth. It's limited in memory, which may be a problem when running photoshop, or large Excel worksheets, or a two-page document in Neooffice.
As more and more programs demand 10.4 or 10.5, you'll feel a pressure to upgrade. New OS versions assume you have a stronger machine and have more intricate GUI. If all that was available when OSX was first introduced was the 300 MHz G3, like I had at the time, they would not include the Genie effect which looked horribly slow.
I don't know if any of these applies to you, but there are many other reasons you might want to upgrade your computer.
I currently use a 6-year-old 20" CRT display. It's actually still very good. Why would I want to throw it away? If we're talking 23" LCDs, why would I want to permanently attach such an expensive piece of equipment to a computer I might want to replace in 3 years?
I seriously doubt that Apple's target audience is people who will keep their iMac for 5-6 years. They want you to upgrade every 2-3 years. Unfortunately the Mini is underpowered and the PM is a big, inelegant machine.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong. What a waste. That's why I hate AIO designs; displays and CPUs age at different rates so inevitably you end up junking a computer with a fine display but an outdated CPU.
The Cube was the answer to this, but Apple screwed it up. They need to try again, but this time with a mini tower that offers a small amount of expandability and upgradability (video card, for example). Then the user can keep using his old but still beautiful display, or buy a new one later, or whatever.
if machine outdated, do not the display outdated as well?, my 6 month cinema display already lose out in response time race to other displays...
that's what what exactly said technology rate far faster than one can catch. i said only if you need latest performance 24/36 months cycle, it could be shorter for someone longer someone else...
Originally posted by shanmugam
if machine outdated, do not the display outdated as well?, my 6 month cinema display already lose out in response time race to other displays...
It may lose some response time race, but unless you're a gamer, who cares? A lot more people need better CPU or better disk than a better screen.
If I had bought a 20" or 23" cinema display now, it would be useful for 5-6 years. For a desktop computer, I may want more power in just 2-3.
if some one need to upgrade they will get PowerMacs not iMac
the topic is not about whether we need iMac, we have to see the sale data and compare PMs and iMacs for that
Originally posted by synp
Your iBook cannot run Aperture and will probably look very weak running lightroom.
I could care less about either.
Originally posted by synp
It doesn't have bluetooth.
I have no need for it.
Originally posted by synp
It's limited in memory, which may be a problem when running photoshop,
Gimp runs fine. I have no need for PS, and barely even use Gimp anyway.
Originally posted by synp
or large Excel worksheets, or a two-page document in Neooffice.
Hasn't been a problem so far.
Originally posted by synp
As more and more programs demand 10.4 or 10.5, you'll feel a pressure to upgrade.
Only if there's a compelling reason to. That's kinda my point; I didn't feel the Tiger upgrade was worth $129 for my limited needs, so I stuck with Panther which is, for me, rock-solid. If 10.5 offers something compelling, maybe I will.
Originally posted by synp
I don't know if any of these applies to you, but there are many other reasons you might want to upgrade your computer.
What are they? If my current box - whatever it is - fulfills my needs, why drop $1700 on something new?
Originally posted by synp
I seriously doubt that Apple's target audience is people who will keep their iMac for 5-6 years. They want you to upgrade every 2-3 years.
Isn't it the case that Apple users tend to upgrade far less than do PC users? That said, I've never seen any evidence that PC users upgrade quickly.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic....
Back to the iMac 23, which is more interesting.
Originally posted by jouster
Isn't it the case that Apple users tend to upgrade far less than do PC users? That said, I've never seen any evidence that PC users upgrade quickly.
It is. I'm using a 500MHz TiBook. At home I have a Dual 867 MHz PM. PC users do tend to upgrade more often.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic....
Back to the iMac 23, which is more interesting.
It's not entirely off-topic. The price of 17" and 20" panels has gone down. Perhaps it's low enough that people don't mind getting a new one every time they upgrade their computer.
I don't think the same can be said for 23" panels.
Comparing prices for displays on bestbuy.com, I get that the 17", 20" and 23" are $320, $500 and $1400 respectively, for the lowest-cost monitor I can find in a given size.
I think this means that the 23" is too expensive to attach to a single computer.
Originally posted by synp
I think this means that the 23" is too expensive to attach to a single computer.
Good point. It most likely is right now. But I think I read that flat panels in general (especially TVs) were going to plummet this year, and be significantly cheaper by end '06/ start '07.
Maybe it'll be feasible by then.
Originally posted by synp
Comparing prices for displays on bestbuy.com, I get that the 17", 20" and 23" are $320, $500 and $1400 respectively, for the lowest-cost monitor I can find in a given size.
I think this means that the 23" is too expensive to attach to a single computer.
There's your problem. Best Buy prices stink. Dell's 24" costs less than $900, barely more than what Apple charges for its 20".
I think the solution would be to have separate but combinable CPU and display units. IIRC, Dell or HP used to do this a few years ago, where you could take a thin CPU and mount it on the back of an LCD. This way, when you want to upgrade, just snap off the old CPU and snap on a new one. There's really no need for a massive tower like a PowerMac. As I wrote, the vast majority of even "pro" users likely need only a single PCIe slot for the graphics card, and you can easily fit a single slot inside a thin, pizza box style enclosure. Apple already severely limits the number of drive bays inside a PowerMac, so it wouldn't be like we'd be losing any. Think a Mac Mini on steroids, just as thin but maybe 4x wider and 3x as deep. Or even like an Xserve. And if Apple can cool a G5 inside the confines of an iMac, they can do the same with Intel processors.
Originally posted by jouster
Isn't it the case that Apple users tend to upgrade far less than do PC users? That said, I've never seen any evidence that PC users upgrade quickly.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic....
Back to the iMac 23, which is more interesting.
I think for many people it depends on their financial situation. I had a P3 Dell from Sept 2001- August 2005 as my only computer. It did what I needed. It was slow, painful to use with the stock 128MB of Ram (Which I later upgraded to a whopping 256MB), but it worked.
After years of gradual saving I bought an iMac in August which all together cost me $2000 and change. Due to the price alone I know I will be using this machine for the next four years minimum.
Everyone wants the latest and greatest, but if what you have works, there really isn't any NEED to upgrade.
Mind you I got the Dell when I was 12, making me 16 now so of cource my funds are somewhat limited. But I see no reason to do other wise even if I was loaded. Also when you get something great (iMac) after waiting so long it seems extraordinary compared to what you had.
Originally posted by jouster
It's only obsolete if it stops doing what you want it to do.
There aren't many - heck, there aren't any - metrics by which the G3 700 iBook I'm typing on isn't waaaaay obsolete. But Safari, Word, IRC, iChat and iTunes and the few others I use run fine.
I think Apple views the target market for the iMac as having similar demands.
Exactly, I have the same ibook, and it's still chugging along great. I've had it for 3 years, 9 months.
I've got a new iMac on order because I want to do stuff with garageband, but I'm definitely keeping my ibook for couch internet duty! It'll be probably five years before I get something new, and I'm sure displays will be way way better by then.
Edit: Five years ago, the iMac had a 15 inch CRT. If these had been seperate entities, would someone really buy a new mac and keep the monitor?
I think not!
Four years ago, the iMac had a 1024x768 15" LCD
Again, would someone really buy a new mac and keep that monitor? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it.
so panel alone will be much cheaper
Generally we all know Appple Cinema Display are priced higher, so 23" iMac is doable.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
Ugh. So then in 3 years your iMac is obsolete, but your display is still going strong. What a waste. That's why I hate AIO designs; displays and CPUs age at different rates so inevitably you end up junking a computer with a fine display but an outdated CPU.
YES! If I buy a new display next week and a new computer in say May, or June why chuck everything?!?!? and more importantly, why buy a monitor that I do not want or need in stead of just getting a decent pro or seme-pro headless for about or maybe under $1000
I think that a 23" iMac will be possible when the costs make it viable. That may be late this year or early next year - or it may be when the next generation of iMacs are announced.
The cost factor is going to be critical because it's an AIO form and people have to be willing to loose the display when they get rid of the iMac. If it isn't held too long then there will be a fair return when it's sold on ebay, or locally, making the AIO less critical. Hold on to it for 5 years and when you look at a replacement you will far prefer the new display over the current one - just a factor of improving the technology related to displays.
With all iMacs, but especially with a 23" Apple Care is going to be the most important "upgrade" you make when you buy it.
It's a simple issue of the differential aging rates of displays and computers. A quality display like the 23" Cinema display will have a far longer usable life-span than a computer. Simple.
With an AIO in which the display isn't the primary cost, this aging differential isn't so important. But when the display costs ten times what the CPU costs, then it raises some questions about the worth of such a pairing. At some point, the CPU won't even be able to run many new applications, but the display will still be usable. What then? Do you throw out the beautiful display because the CPU won't run the new Final Cut Pro? Do you set the giant iMac next to your TV/Stereo setup and use it as an iTunes server?
Why not buy a 23" Cinema display and run it with laptop or a Powermac? A 23" Cinema display will last through several Powermac upgrade cycles, probably 6-8 years, before it begins to show its age.
BTW, have you ever SEEN a 20" iMac? The things are freakin' HUGE! Why do you need such a large display? All of the things that would require a 23"+ display that I can think of would require something better than an iMac to run well.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
BTW, have you ever SEEN a 20" iMac? The things are freakin' HUGE! Why do you need such a large display?
Have you ever seen a 30" ACD in person? Whoa. They needed a Shop Vac to pick up all my drool. Until I can justify the price, I'll have to continue suffering with a 20" Dell Ultrasharp. Believe it or not, some of us need lots of screen real estate. I have dual LCDs and it's still not enough.