new imac

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
hi all this is my first post here at appleinsider but i've been an Apple fan for a long time.



a few days ago, i was reading a review of the core duo iMac at anandtech, and it ended saying that the new iMac was great and all, but that it felt like it was the beggining of the development of the next iMac. it had old design, but new hardware. the conclusion is that, if you can, you should wait t'ill the brand-new completely redesigned iMac, which, according to the article, shouldn't be many months away (pure speculation).



so the question is: is there any possibility of a newly designed iMac in the next months, perhaps along the introduction of the new PowerMac (MacPro)?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    I seriously doubt you'll see a drastically new iMac anytime soon. They still have other products to migrate over to Intel, and the iMac saw 2 revisions in about a day and half not too long ago.
  • Reply 2 of 35
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    Is that site trying ot say that the best looking Desktop on the market, looks old fashioned! Any design revisions will be slight and wont happen for at least the next year.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    netdognetdog Posts: 244member
    It doesn't need a redesign. It is light years ahead of PCs in its form. It defined the all in one, and continues to be the best of class.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    irelandireland Posts: 17,684member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by netdog

    It doesn't need a redesign. It is light years ahead of PCs in its form. It defined the all in one, and continues to be the best of class.



    That didn't even need to be said. It's more than obvious!
  • Reply 5 of 35
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,294member
    The only thing the iMac needs IMO is



    more color choices. White is getting a bit stale. And perhaps something nifty like an expresscard slot. Toss Merom into a 20in iMac and you have one hell of a nifty computer system that can run damn near anything.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Old design?



    The iMacs current incarnation is introduced in october 2005 along with the iPod video.



    This formfactor is just 1.5 years old.



    If you call that an old design take a look at the current iBook: it has the "same" design as it was in may 2001.

    Or the 17"MacBookPro: exact the same design as in januari 2003.

    Or the 15"MacBookPro: it sports the same squar formfactor as the january 2001 titanium 15"PB G4... well... almost



    And maybe 1,5 year is long from a windows PC user point of view. (but hey, their OS, windows XP hasn't changed for over half a decade, so they have to try something to make their products look new)



    Add a model with a larger (23") screen and add an aluminium finished case or a Black One)))

    (something like hmurchison just said)



    [edit typo]
  • Reply 7 of 35
    resres Posts: 711member
    I don't think that they will make major changes in the design. The question is will they make some small improvements anytime soon, or will they leave the iMac untouched until this fall/winter.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by netdog

    It doesn't need a redesign. It is light years ahead of PCs in its form. It defined the all in one, and continues to be the best of class.



    Definately. I have a friend that has a g5 iMac and the Gateway all in one design. No comparisson. The Gateway is a joke.
  • Reply 9 of 35
    The iMac is great as it is now... it needs but one upgrad and I am not sure how Apple will do it, but I wouldn't mind just right slap on the front:



    It needs easy to access FW and USB for when you sit down to transfer photos or video from you camera. I ended up leaving the cords plugged in to the iMac so I don't have to shift around to the back of the machine, but then I plug or unplug a camera 5 or more times a day as is the nature of my work.
  • Reply 10 of 35
    netdognetdog Posts: 244member
    Why not just put a small attractive hub in that sits under the lip of your monitor/cpu?
  • Reply 11 of 35
    Nice idea, but then I have to plug in things twice... as it is the wires just get tossed over to the side where all the other wires and fed out and so get "lost" in the spaghetti.



    Also, that would mean having to fork out another 20-30 bucks, which my company would prefer to spend on truly needed items.



    Design does not need to be impractical... it can be practical and aesthetic. For example, they could hide it behind the Apple emblem, which would then move out of the way when you wanted to use the jack. Apple could do it and do it right.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bergermeister

    The iMac is great as it is now... it needs but one upgrad and I am not sure how Apple will do it, but I wouldn't mind just right slap on the front:



    It needs easy to access FW and USB for when you sit down to transfer photos or video from you camera. I ended up leaving the cords plugged in to the iMac so I don't have to shift around to the back of the machine, but then I plug or unplug a camera 5 or more times a day as is the nature of my work.




    THE CHIN IS SACRED! IT MUST NOT BE DESECRATED BY FUNCTIONALITY!



    I read a post here a few weeks ago literally defending the iMac's "chin" as some sort of aesthetic marker as to where the desk stops and the monitor begins. Like a "picture frame" or "matte." No, he was serious.



    Oh that innovative jobs, putting extra plastic around the monitors.. makes you wonder why they gave up CRTs...



    I'm not going off on the iMac today, I'd never buy one even if they put a 20 inch monitor and a dual opteron and fit it in the current cinema display enclosure. It's got functionality, but I need a PCI slot more than I need an iSight. Some don't, but I do.
  • Reply 13 of 35
    gargar Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    [snip]

    It's got functionality, but I need a PCI slot more than I need an iSight. Some don't, but I do.




    Most don't, but you do.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    I read a post here a few weeks ago literally defending the iMac's "chin" as some sort of aesthetic marker as to where the desk stops and the monitor begins. Like a "picture frame" or "matte." No, he was serious.



    It wasn't me, but I will say that any PC maker would have littered ports all over the front had they been given the iMac design. The fact that Apple didn't makes them different. . . and classy. Despite the lack of function, you do have to admit that the iMac is striking, and some of the affect may be lost if the facade is altered.



    Not a manifesto -- just a thought.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by gar

    Most don't, but you do.



    Fair enough



    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    any PC maker would have littered ports all over the front had they been given the iMac design. The fact that Apple didn't makes them different. . . and classy. Despite the lack of function, you do have to admit that the iMac is striking, and some of the affect may be lost if the facade is altered.



    It's pretty cool, I gotta say, that Apple made the iMac look so streamlined--so it's like it's floating over the desk.



    I know what it looks like inside the box, and I know that they couldn't put ports on the chin even if they tried, but I think that they should just make the thing an inch thicker and try to lose the chin altogether. Nobody looks behind the monitor, that's why the ports are there. Therefore, having another inch of depth wouldn't hurt either



    Also, the thing is so big now, I think just ONE PCIe slot would be nice. It wouldn't add much thickness (have it parallel to the mobo with a perpedicular daughter card; make a small dent in the case to accomidate cables coming out of it). Oh no, I still wouldn't buy an iMac, but I think that alone, over time, could create a huge demand for video cards for mac so Apple would have more options in future machines (people make cards, people write drivers, Apple can use the cards and the drivers). Not to mention that using off-the-shelf cards in a PCIe slot would be cheaper than custom designed cards, thus Apple would make a few bucks more profit. Just a thought.



    The demand increase goes like this:

    1) Currently, the only Mac that has the potential to use PCIe cards is the PowerMac, which happens to be the worst-selling computer Apple makes (I own one, just saying people buy way more of everything else)

    2) If the new iMac had a PCIe, that's a million, eventually two million, macs that can use 3rd party cards

    3) More potential sales = more demand.

    4) Apple has retail stores, so imagine people bringing in their iMacs with an x1600 and upgrading to an x1800 within 20 minutes. This might kill Apple's little deal with having iMac buyers replace their machines in leui of upgrading though.. I donno, let Apple figure that out.



    We'll see what they do with the new iMac design. I'd imagine January '07 is the time to look for it.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    vf208vf208 Posts: 49member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    but I need a PCI slot more than I need an iSight. Some don't, but I do.



    What's a PCI slot?



    Ok ok so I have an idea but I can't see my dad calling me asking "Son - I like those new iApple thingies - does it have PCI slot?" but I could see him asking "Son - this new iMac computer looks fantastic - just one thing - where do I plug my camera in"



    My point is this. The iMac is a consumer computer and I think additions like PCI slots just bump up the price when only a small minority would use them.



    As for the ports - I think a trade off would be to have the slot on the bottom or the side but not the front - it would compromise the aesthetics of the machine..
  • Reply 17 of 35
    vf208vf208 Posts: 49member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by slughead

    Fair enough



    2) If the new iMac had a PCIe, that's a million, eventually two million, macs that can use 3rd party cards

    3) More potential sales = more demand.

    4) Apple has retail stores, so imagine people bringing in their iMacs with an x1600 and upgrading to an x1800 within 20 minutes. This might kill Apple's little deal with having iMac buyers replace their machines in leui of upgrading though.. I donno, let Apple figure that out.







    I prefer macs for their simplicity. I never upgrade individual components because by the time there is a quicker graphics card say - there is usually a quicker processor and more to the point there's probably a new fancy design or feature like a remote control that makes buying a whole new machine more far more attractive than updating individual components.



    Computers for me are consumer goods and the only analogy i can think of is the fact I wouldn't buy a new card for my TV or try and upgrade the speakers - I'd much rather get a new telly. In my mind, apple computers have more in common with Sony TVs than dell desktops. Plus, Macs have a good resale value so for me changing them every 2 years isn't that painful. I can't speak for everyone but I'm sure apple is aware of consumers like me and more to the point - make far more money from people like me.



    Oh and remember - not all countries have apple stores and apple don't make the graphics cards...



    Sorry - I didn't mean to dismiss some very valid points but I just think that more options can sometimes put people off rather than make something more appealing. The apple remote is a good example of this...
  • Reply 18 of 35
    shanmugamshanmugam Posts: 1,200member
    my wishes



    1. lighter in weight

    2. Chinless iMac

    3. Two colors (black & white)

    4. Conore CPU instead of Merom

    5. PCIe

    6. Aluminum Casing (to make it lighter)

    7. As thin as possible



    and



    23" iMac
  • Reply 19 of 35
    bergermeisterbergermeister Posts: 6,784member
    I agree (with one above). Keep the iMac simple (of course add some USB ports and make them a little more accessible). I get 25% for a 3 year old iMac. Let's see: 1,600 bucks for a new iMac set up right. Three years of hard use where the Mac saves me endless hours of work, impresses my friends and coworkers, entertains me, and overall does what a computer should do. Sell it for 400... comes out to 1200 which is 400 per year, less than 40 bucks per month, a little less than 2 bucks a day, 7-8 hours per day comes out to pennies per hour and no reason in Hell I should complain. Of course, this does not consider cost of apps, but more and more those are included with the Mac in the first place.



    The iMac is a great buy right now as it is. I have been a computer user for almost 20 years now and have only added USB and FW cars to one my 19 machines (13 personal ones along the way, 6 at work) mainly because some of my older periphs don't work off hubs.



    Adding PCI slots adds costs most people don't need.



    The iMac plus an all-in-one printer, plus a couple of apps, comes to about 2500 and will last 3 years easily, more likely 5, and can still be resold for good money.
  • Reply 20 of 35
    slugheadslughead Posts: 1,169member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Bergermeister

    Adding PCI slots adds costs most people don't need.



    It could potentially save money in the long-run, as Apple could use the same mobo to do both CPU AND GPU revisions.. economy of scale and whatnot.. Not to mention the economy of scale of using off-the-shelf video cards, and having demand for 3rd party drivers (which would be filled by 3rd parties, saving development costs of drivers).



    This is all purely speculatory, however, I don't think it would require a thicker case--just a smaller mobo.



    I used to test HP/Compaq/Dell/IBM motherboards (for moneys!). One of the servers had an AGP slot that just stuck out the side of the motherboard--making the AGP card colinear (co-planar ??) with it. It could use any single-slot AGP card (probably 8 inches long, tops) and it fit into a 1U (1.75 inch thick) case. It was both easy to install and added no thickness to the mainboard.



    Full disclosure: that particular mobo tested 'bad.' Me and my collegue then attempted the "mallot" test, which it passed with flying colors [er.. capacitors].
Sign In or Register to comment.