Originally many of us thought the iHome media center /PVR/ device could bring on the reintroduction of the cube. I know I would buy one. Hopefully it would come in 3, or 4 colors so it could match up with some existing equipment in your living room. White, black, gunmetal grey, and a wood shade. Maybe even a few wood shades.
Quad Cores coming in late 2006, mmm it wil be cool if available for Mac Cube
do not think Quad Core Conroe fit into iMac, certainly there is a opportunity for Mac Cube, but success of Mac Cube not sure ...
last time why Apple pulled the Cube out? bad sales?
It was overpriced then. Maybe they've learned a lesson there.
The dual core Conroe has a thermal requirement of 65W which is why it's not in the iMac. The extreme edition has a TDP of 75W. The Quad when it lands is being badged as an Extreme chip so I'd guess 75W also. I doubt a cube would allow 65W never mind 75W. It's probably just as densely packed as an iMac.
I am new to all things Mac after being a PC user for the past 6 years (it was and is my first computer). I am considering making the jump to a Mac for most of the same reason everyone does...just sick of the way Windows does things.
I guess this is an exciting time to make the move with the introduction of the new 24" iMac. Very sweet looking indeed! However, after coming from the PC side of things, I take it for granted that I can swap, upgrade, or add parts, as I have done during the lifetime of my Dell Dimension 4100. While the iMac looks like it has everything I would want, I still have reservations. The idea of an iMac staying exactly "as configured" and not being left behind by say, whatever HD DVD drive becomes the standard in PCs in the next couple years, makes me want to wait and see if a Tower is in the future. Speed doesn't bother me as much as I am still getting by OK with my old pIII @933Mhz. There is alwaysgoing to be a faster chip in a few months. The other issue is that everything like a TV tuner or second HD I guess has to be plugged in as a peripheral? Sounds messy, which is what I thought the Apple design concept wants to avoid.
The MacPro is waaay overkill and out of my budget, and I have been following the posts about Apple releasing (or not) a more affordable tower. Question is, didn't they use to have different levels of towers before the Intel switch came about?
I understand Apple's reasoning about not going the way of PCs and declaring an open market on hardware add-ons, which is one reason Windows has so many issues. However, it seems like if they kept the list of which parts will work best in a Mac to a reasonable limit, wouldn't that keep things running smoothly inside?
However, after coming from the PC side of things, I take it for granted that I can swap, upgrade, or add parts, as I have done during the lifetime of my Dell Dimension 4100. While the iMac looks like it has everything I would want, I still have reservations. The idea of an iMac staying exactly "as configured" and not being left behind by say, whatever HD DVD drive becomes the standard in PCs in the next couple years, makes me want to wait and see if a Tower is in the future. Speed doesn't bother me as much as I am still getting by OK with my old pIII @933Mhz.
Buy an external one when they come down in price. At the moment they're stupidly expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
There is alwaysgoing to be a faster chip in a few months. The other issue is that everything like a TV tuner or second HD I guess has to be plugged in as a peripheral? Sounds messy, which is what I thought the Apple design concept wants to avoid.
Messier than having a big old plastic tower box stuck beside your monitor? I've a couple of Lacie D2 drives stacked next to my iMac. It's a lot nicer than a PC tower next to my monitor. If you stick them behind your iMac you don't even now they are there. TV tuners just plug into a USB port. No more messy than a cable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
The MacPro is waaay overkill and out of my budget, and I have been following the posts about Apple releasing (or not) a more affordable tower. Question is, didn't they use to have different levels of towers before the Intel switch came about?
No. You had the PowerMac G5 which came in three configs. Same as the Intel Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak
I understand Apple's reasoning about not going the way of PCs and declaring an open market on hardware add-ons, which is one reason Windows has so many issues. However, it seems like if they kept the list of which parts will work best in a Mac to a reasonable limit, wouldn't that keep things running smoothly inside?
It's up to 3rd party manufacturers to ensure compatibility on BOTH Windows and Macintosh. Not Microsoft or Apple. Apple's market for 3rd party addons is as open as Windows. The difference is that less manufacturers choose to be in that market and we don't tend to have a gazillion far eastern cheap cloners producing cheap crap that barely works.
haha kinda looks like a drawing of a Game Cube with a handle. I wonder what they would use this for...Now with the new iMacs, I really can't see Apple making another line of computers, the iMac seems to cover what people were complaining about with no middle, to me anyway. Time will tell though I guess.
Why is it so hard for folks to "understand" that there are billions of monitors outthere that are just fine and those same owners may want more then Mini's crapo GMA950 graphics but less then PowerMacs 4 core beast. Why?
Why is it so hard for folks to "understand" that there are billions of monitors outthere that are just fine and those same owners may want more then Mini's crapo GMA950 graphics but less then PowerMacs 4 core beast. Why?
There's nothing wrong with the iMac for most businesses but yes, a Conroe could go in anything that doesn't currently exist (Duh!).
I would have been satisfied if you had stopped after saying you believe the iMac is fine for business, as I interpret what you wrote. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
However, the last half is an offensive reply that nobody deserves, no matter how uninformed they may be. Your use of "Duh" at the end just drives it home harder.
Yes, of course a Conroe could go into any new product, provided it can adequately deal with the heat generated. That is not the point, which you obviously missed. Some of us are interested in what kind of product Apple might introduce with that chip.
The MacPro is waaay overkill and out of my budget, and I have been following the posts about Apple releasing (or not) a more affordable tower. Question is, didn't they use to have different levels of towers before the Intel switch came about?
There used to (G3-G4 days) be a $1200-1500 Power Mac. That got dropped when the G5s came around (no cheap G5s back then), but Apple tended to occaisonally keep around older models to try to preserve a semi-low-end, but that ended with the Intel switch.
I would have been satisfied if you had stopped after saying you believe the iMac is fine for business, as I interpret what you wrote. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
However, the last half is an offensive reply that nobody deserves, no matter how uninformed they may be. Your use of "Duh" at the end just drives it home harder.
Yes, of course a Conroe could go into any new product, provided it can adequately deal with the heat generated. That is not the point, which you obviously missed. Some of us are interested in what kind of product Apple might introduce with that chip.
Comments
did you saw the new iOmega 640 GB External Harddisk?
http://sg.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=5386&cid=10
or Apple only orders from intel?
here is the bulder !!!!
http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/gallery/g5cube.html
http://www.intel.com/viiv/
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/12/29.5.shtml
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/...04233043.shtml
do not think Quad Core Conroe fit into iMac, certainly there is a opportunity for Mac Cube, but success of Mac Cube not sure ...
last time why Apple pulled the Cube out? bad sales?
Is it just me or does anyone think the plastic cube looks better seeing them side by side?
more than looks, it shd be able to easily change the parts, atleast the Graphic cards (for gamers) ...
Quad Cores coming in late 2006, mmm it wil be cool if available for Mac Cube
do not think Quad Core Conroe fit into iMac, certainly there is a opportunity for Mac Cube, but success of Mac Cube not sure ...
last time why Apple pulled the Cube out? bad sales?
It was overpriced then. Maybe they've learned a lesson there.
The dual core Conroe has a thermal requirement of 65W which is why it's not in the iMac. The extreme edition has a TDP of 75W. The Quad when it lands is being badged as an Extreme chip so I'd guess 75W also. I doubt a cube would allow 65W never mind 75W. It's probably just as densely packed as an iMac.
I am new to all things Mac after being a PC user for the past 6 years (it was and is my first computer). I am considering making the jump to a Mac for most of the same reason everyone does...just sick of the way Windows does things.
I guess this is an exciting time to make the move with the introduction of the new 24" iMac. Very sweet looking indeed! However, after coming from the PC side of things, I take it for granted that I can swap, upgrade, or add parts, as I have done during the lifetime of my Dell Dimension 4100. While the iMac looks like it has everything I would want, I still have reservations. The idea of an iMac staying exactly "as configured" and not being left behind by say, whatever HD DVD drive becomes the standard in PCs in the next couple years, makes me want to wait and see if a Tower is in the future. Speed doesn't bother me as much as I am still getting by OK with my old pIII @933Mhz. There is alwaysgoing to be a faster chip in a few months. The other issue is that everything like a TV tuner or second HD I guess has to be plugged in as a peripheral? Sounds messy, which is what I thought the Apple design concept wants to avoid.
The MacPro is waaay overkill and out of my budget, and I have been following the posts about Apple releasing (or not) a more affordable tower. Question is, didn't they use to have different levels of towers before the Intel switch came about?
I understand Apple's reasoning about not going the way of PCs and declaring an open market on hardware add-ons, which is one reason Windows has so many issues. However, it seems like if they kept the list of which parts will work best in a Mac to a reasonable limit, wouldn't that keep things running smoothly inside?
However, after coming from the PC side of things, I take it for granted that I can swap, upgrade, or add parts, as I have done during the lifetime of my Dell Dimension 4100. While the iMac looks like it has everything I would want, I still have reservations. The idea of an iMac staying exactly "as configured" and not being left behind by say, whatever HD DVD drive becomes the standard in PCs in the next couple years, makes me want to wait and see if a Tower is in the future. Speed doesn't bother me as much as I am still getting by OK with my old pIII @933Mhz.
Buy an external one when they come down in price. At the moment they're stupidly expensive.
There is alwaysgoing to be a faster chip in a few months. The other issue is that everything like a TV tuner or second HD I guess has to be plugged in as a peripheral? Sounds messy, which is what I thought the Apple design concept wants to avoid.
Messier than having a big old plastic tower box stuck beside your monitor? I've a couple of Lacie D2 drives stacked next to my iMac. It's a lot nicer than a PC tower next to my monitor. If you stick them behind your iMac you don't even now they are there. TV tuners just plug into a USB port. No more messy than a cable.
The MacPro is waaay overkill and out of my budget, and I have been following the posts about Apple releasing (or not) a more affordable tower. Question is, didn't they use to have different levels of towers before the Intel switch came about?
No. You had the PowerMac G5 which came in three configs. Same as the Intel Mac Pro.
I understand Apple's reasoning about not going the way of PCs and declaring an open market on hardware add-ons, which is one reason Windows has so many issues. However, it seems like if they kept the list of which parts will work best in a Mac to a reasonable limit, wouldn't that keep things running smoothly inside?
It's up to 3rd party manufacturers to ensure compatibility on BOTH Windows and Macintosh. Not Microsoft or Apple. Apple's market for 3rd party addons is as open as Windows. The difference is that less manufacturers choose to be in that market and we don't tend to have a gazillion far eastern cheap cloners producing cheap crap that barely works.
haha kinda looks like a drawing of a Game Cube with a handle. I wonder what they would use this for...Now with the new iMacs, I really can't see Apple making another line of computers, the iMac seems to cover what people were complaining about with no middle, to me anyway. Time will tell though I guess.
Why is it so hard for folks to "understand" that there are billions of monitors outthere that are just fine and those same owners may want more then Mini's crapo GMA950 graphics but less then PowerMacs 4 core beast. Why?
Why is it so hard for folks to "understand" that there are billions of monitors outthere that are just fine and those same owners may want more then Mini's crapo GMA950 graphics but less then PowerMacs 4 core beast. Why?
And that's what an iMac is for.
this doesn't strike anyone as odd...
there isn't a Conroe among any Mac...
this doesn't strike anyone as odd...
No. There isn't a Mac it fits.
There isn't a Mac with a Celeron M in either. Does that mean Apple are about to come out with a beige econobox?
No. There isn't a Mac it fits.
It could go into a business Mac, if Apple introduces something new for that market. Some people think this is a possibility.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09...vpro_shipping/
It could go into a business Mac, if Apple introduces something new for that market. Some people think this is a possibility.
There's nothing wrong with the iMac for most businesses but yes, a Conroe could go in anything that doesn't currently exist (Duh!).
There's nothing wrong with the iMac for most businesses but yes, a Conroe could go in anything that doesn't currently exist (Duh!).
I would have been satisfied if you had stopped after saying you believe the iMac is fine for business, as I interpret what you wrote. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
However, the last half is an offensive reply that nobody deserves, no matter how uninformed they may be. Your use of "Duh" at the end just drives it home harder.
Yes, of course a Conroe could go into any new product, provided it can adequately deal with the heat generated. That is not the point, which you obviously missed. Some of us are interested in what kind of product Apple might introduce with that chip.
The MacPro is waaay overkill and out of my budget, and I have been following the posts about Apple releasing (or not) a more affordable tower. Question is, didn't they use to have different levels of towers before the Intel switch came about?
There used to (G3-G4 days) be a $1200-1500 Power Mac. That got dropped when the G5s came around (no cheap G5s back then), but Apple tended to occaisonally keep around older models to try to preserve a semi-low-end, but that ended with the Intel switch.
I would have been satisfied if you had stopped after saying you believe the iMac is fine for business, as I interpret what you wrote. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
However, the last half is an offensive reply that nobody deserves, no matter how uninformed they may be. Your use of "Duh" at the end just drives it home harder.
Yes, of course a Conroe could go into any new product, provided it can adequately deal with the heat generated. That is not the point, which you obviously missed. Some of us are interested in what kind of product Apple might introduce with that chip.
It is entirely the point, Duh!
Get over it.