Apparently the next iMac wont have a 17" version is what I gather. Remember = Rumor Mill. Nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says there is no more 17 inch model ever, and then there is still the possibility of one used for the educational market. So it's too hard to say anything at this point. .
as long as the 20" has the same price of the 17" I am fine with that.
In order to get the intel transition done in a timely fashion, Apple outsourced much of the design of the iMac CoreDuo to intel. The iMac G5 was all done in house, hense the difference in design. My guess is that this revision might be done in house again and will clean up the insides to meet Apple's high stadards.
That would be a lovely theory but for one thing: it wasn't the PPC --> Intel move that produced the "un-serviceable" iMac.
The very first G5 iMac did not have an iSight built-in, and was highly serviceable. The back of the machine was flat and it was Vesa-mount compatible.
The redesigned G5 iMac that brought built-in iSight also introduced a thinner case with curved back, lost the Vesa-mount compatibility, and made the machine significantly harder to service. The Intel iMac kept this case design.
We know the headless midrange tower won't appear anytime soon.
So I hope Apple will at least give us an iMac that will...
a) have an upgradeable video card (ha ha ha...yeah I know)
b) have a thin bezel like the cinema displays
c) more USB ports
d) give us the ability to use the internal display as a secondary monitor (ie. with a laptop).
I don't think the ability to upgrade the graphics card is particularly useful, but I think iMac users should have a few more choices in terms of which graphics cards to use. I would like to see a high-end card in there.
I don't think the ability to upgrade the graphics card is particularly useful, but I think iMac users should have a few more choices in terms of which graphics cards to use. I would like to see a high-end card in there.
Would indeed be nice to have more GPU options.
Something like a three step good(enough)/better/best option in the 24" model: 128MB/256MB/512MB (and corresponding better GPU) or skip the 128MB card entirely.
And what if the iMac also included some induction electronics to wirelessly recharge wireless keyboard & mouse?
The current problem with wireless keyboard & mouse is that they are not wireless: you have to plug in a sensor and plug the mouse/keyboard from time to time to recharge it.
The iMac with induction-recharging and included-receptor would free the iMac of two more connectors, more beautiful, more useful (it just works), like they integrated the webcam. Only Apple can do such seamless integration.
I do not know if this is technically doable. Perhapse not.
But there was a patent filled by Apple for wireless devices recharging, so one can dream :-)
Well, at least, of Apple is not studying this solution, I propose someone should tell them.
And what if the iMac also included some induction electronics to wirelessly recharge wireless keyboard & mouse?
The current problem with wireless keyboard & mouse is that they are not wireless: you have to plug in a sensor and plug the mouse/keyboard from time to time to recharge it.
The iMac with induction-recharging and included-receptor would free the iMac of two more connectors, more beautiful, more useful (it just works), like they integrated the webcam. Only Apple can do such seamless integration.
I do not know if this is technically doable. Perhapse not.
But there was a patent filled by Apple for wireless devices recharging, so one can dream :-)
Well, at least, of Apple is not studying this solution, I propose someone should tell them.
It's certainly doable. The base would have to contain the charger. The keyboard would have to be pushed to the base, and perhaps lifted over a small bump at the front for it to overlap slightly, so that it would be in proper position. The mouse could be put flat on the base further back.
Apple's models don't plug in. They have to have the batteries changed every few months. I use the keyboard.
Everything except SLI. I doubt any Mac programs would be compiled specifically for it so it would be largely useless.
It doesn't look as good as Sony's 'iMac', which has no chin and the same spec as the iMac. Even if they get rid of it, you can still hang stickies off the bottom like other LCD owners.
I suspected that they would get rid of the 17" iMac after seeing the insides. I don't think they could design the 17" without a chin but the 20" and 24" are easy. All they have to do is reduce the price of the 20" by £300. Now if they offer GMA and a combo drive and a smaller HD in the lower model, I think they'd be able to pull that off. Even if it was just £200 cheaper, I'm sure people wouldn't mind paying an extra £100 for a 20" machine.
My only concern over losing the chin is that the iMac may sound worse. ATM, the iMac is the best sounding machine in Apple's lineup.
Ack! We have a chance to lose the chin and you're worried about sound?!? If you cared at all about sound you'd be using external speakers.
I agree that it should be possible to offer an entry level 20" and expect to see the 17" last no longer than this year's education buying season.
I realize desktop sales are falling and notebook sales are rising, but I still want a mid-tower. I honestly think its absence from the Mac lineup has held back a significant number of switchers who want neither an all-in-one nor a $2500 tower that needs server RAM.
It's certainly doable. The base would have to contain the charger. The keyboard would have to be pushed to the base, and perhaps lifted over a small bump at the front for it to overlap slightly, so that it would be in proper position. The mouse could be put flat on the base further back.
Apple's models don't plug in. They have to have the batteries changed every few months. I use the keyboard.
It's a matter of will on Apple's part.
I had in mind to keep the keyboard and the mouse on the desk, so the user do not have to do anything: devices are charged automatically, as you use them. It just work: you do not have to know that those devices need power ;-) Moreover, you can put a next-generation-still-to-be-revealed iPod near your screen and it wirelessly sync and charge (what a very good dream!).
I asked if it was possible for that: how far away the device can be from its charger?
But what you propose seams a good compromise. When you shutdown your Mac, once a month, you "dock" the keyboard and the mouse on the iMac. Not that disturbing.
But from a design point of view, the iMac would need to have something to dock the keyboard on, and that is not aestetical at all. So perhapse they will not do it.
Perhapse an iMac like that (the points are to take spaces into account:
Code:
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
....|..\\
.......|
.\\_____/
The big "|" is the screen, the rest is the foot of the iMac.
You could box your keyboard in like that (the second "|" line):
It's certainly doable. The base would have to contain the charger. The keyboard would have to be pushed to the base, and perhaps lifted over a small bump at the front for it to overlap slightly, so that it would be in proper position. The mouse could be put flat on the base further back.
Apple's models don't plug in. They have to have the batteries changed every few months. I use the keyboard.
It's a matter of will on Apple's part.
Whilst it's doable, it is IMHO a waste of engineering effort. For the process to work, the charging device (containing the primary coil that will couple to the coil in the device to be charged, e.g. a keyboard) and device to be charged have to be in physical contact, or at least, very very close to each other. Even then, the process is inefficient (you lose about 30-40% of the energy put into the charging device, i.e. only 50-60% of the input energy goes into actually charging the device to be charged).
Given this poor level of efficiency, the use of inductive charging for keyboards/mice is not only inelegant, it is environmentally irresponsible. Since you have to bring the charging device and device to be charged close together anyway, you may as well use a proper physical connection. Something along the lines of an electric kettle where the charging base has a male connector and the kettle a female connector would make charging the keyboard/mouse straightforward. Indeed, I fail to see how the use of inductive coupling instead makes the process any easier for the user.
In the case of toothbrushes, there is an advantage to inductive coupling due to the presence of water. With inductive coupling, there are no exposed metal contacts to get wet. Keyboard and mouse recharging has no such requirement.
Whilst it's doable, it is IMHO a waste of engineering effort. For the process to work, the charging device (containing the primary coil that will couple to the coil in the device to be charged, e.g. a keyboard) and device to be charged have to be in physical contact, or at least, very very close to each other. Even then, the process is inefficient (you lose about 30-40% of the energy put into the charging device, i.e. only 50-60% of the input energy goes into actually charging the device to be charged).
Ah... The devices need to be in physical contact each together...
I had in mind to keep the keyboard and the mouse on the desk, so the user do not have to do anything: devices are charged automatically, as you use them. It just work: you do not have to know that those devices need power ;-) Moreover, you can put a next-generation-still-to-be-revealed iPod near your screen and it wirelessly sync and charge (what a very good dream!).
I asked if it was possible for that: how far away the device can be from its charger?
But what you propose seams a good compromise. When you shutdown your Mac, once a month, you "dock" the keyboard and the mouse on the iMac. Not that disturbing.
But from a design point of view, the iMac would need to have something to dock the keyboard on, and that is not aestetical at all. So perhapse they will not do it.
Perhapse an iMac like that (the points are to take spaces into account:
Code:
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
....|..\\
.......|
.\\_____/
The big "|" is the screen, the rest is the foot of the iMac.
You could box your keyboard in like that (the second "|" line):
Code:
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
..|.|..\\
..|....|
.\\|___/
Just ideas
While constant "trickle charging" is possible, the device has to be right on the charger. Induction requires almost total contact for it to be efficient. The power loss occurs as the square of the distance.
Most of the circuitry could be in the computer itself, with just the wires coming down in the foot. The coils could be in the foot. They wouldn't have to be thick, so the foot wouldn't have to be too thick, and the bump would only have to be an eighth of an inch high, just enough to lock the two together. not too much of a design esthetic problem.
But, the idea of a wireless keyboard and mouse is to allow them to be used somewhere else than the standard position. On your lap, for example.
Whilst it's doable, it is IMHO a waste of engineering effort. For the process to work, the charging device (containing the primary coil that will couple to the coil in the device to be charged, e.g. a keyboard) and device to be charged have to be in physical contact, or at least, very very close to each other. Even then, the process is inefficient (you lose about 30-40% of the energy put into the charging device, i.e. only 50-60% of the input energy goes into actually charging the device to be charged).
Given this poor level of efficiency, the use of inductive charging for keyboards/mice is not only inelegant, it is environmentally irresponsible. Since you have to bring the charging device and device to be charged close together anyway, you may as well use a proper physical connection. Something along the lines of an electric kettle where the charging base has a male connector and the kettle a female connector would make charging the keyboard/mouse straightforward. Indeed, I fail to see how the use of inductive coupling instead makes the process any easier for the user.
In the case of toothbrushes, there is an advantage to inductive coupling due to the presence of water. With inductive coupling, there are no exposed metal contacts to get wet. Keyboard and mouse recharging has no such requirement.
I know all of that. That's why I said they had to be in contact. We discussed this issue in a previous thread, you might remember, about an induction charger that was constructed as a flat surfaced block. We didn't like that one.
Your reply should have been directed to Sebien, rather than to me.
I know all of that. That's why I said they had to be in contact. We discussed this issue in a previous thread, you might remember, about an induction charger that was constructed as a flat surfaced block. We didn't like that one.
Your reply should have been directed to Sebien, rather than to me.
Sorry dude. Of course I'm aware of your background so would have thought you already knew all that. The only part of my post that was intended for you directly was the first short sentence. The rest was more of a general-information-for-everyone-who's-reading-the-thread sort of a thing rather than intended solely for your consumption. After all, this is a forum .
Something like a three step good(enough)/better/best option in the 24" model: 128MB/256MB/512MB (and corresponding better GPU) or skip the 128MB card entirely.
I'm not keen on having a "good/better/best" method. I really hate how the popular PC makers excessively long pages of options. I'm very involved with technology and I find it overwhelming, I can't imagine what the average consumer thinks.
However, I do think Apple should have two (and only two) GPU options for the iMac. I'd also like to see a new Quad2Duo Mac Cube with 3 or 4 options for a GPU, space for 2 HDDs and the ability for easy access to the afore mentioned hardware.
Sorry dude. Of course I'm aware of your background so would have thought you already knew all that. The only part of my post that was intended for you directly was the first short sentence. The rest was more of a general-information-for-everyone-who's-reading-the-thread sort of a thing rather than intended solely for your consumption. After all, this is a forum .
I'm not keen on having a "good/better/best" method. I really hate how the popular PC makers excessively long pages of options. I'm very involved with technology and I find it overwhelming, I can't imagine what the average consumer thinks.
However, I do think Apple should have two (and only two) GPU options for the iMac. I'd also like to see a new Quad2Duo Mac Cube with 3 or 4 options for a GPU, space for 2 HDDs and the ability for easy access to the afore mentioned hardware.
Here's an interesting article on Apple's philosophy about designing systems and products vs Microsoft and the PC industry. The article starts with a product from a totally different company, then moves on.
It's not about the latest intel chips being less hot than previous. It's about the current case being designed for g5 chips. Apple was very wise in transitioning most of their computers to Intel without changing the case - it made people less nervous (on both sides of the fence). Now they are free to continue with new designs.
Lets look at Apple's laptops.
1) Apple could not put a G5 into a laptop because of heat/power consumption issues.
2) Apple was able to put a Core2Duo into a laptop (though it's warm).
... and the Intel-iMac is currently the same form factor as the original G5-iMac
Also, Steve said that the Intel chips had more power per watt - it was a big reason for switching.
So certainly the iMac could be made smaller.
The G5 iMacs ran pretty hot. People that had both the Intel and G5 units generally seem to say that the Intel based ones are cool and pretty much nearly silent, and the G5s weren't. I think the current limitation on the iMac thickness is the hard drive. I can see Apple switching to the notebook style drives in a year or two, that can knock out half an inch right there, as well as reduce the cooling needs a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by satchmo
We know the headless midrange tower won't appear anytime soon.
So I hope Apple will at least give us an iMac that will...
a) have an upgradeable video card (ha ha ha...yeah I know)
The 24" units supposedly use MXM cards, but I hadn't found the pictures of the guts of the 24" model yet to know for sure.
Comments
Apparently the next iMac wont have a 17" version is what I gather. Remember = Rumor Mill. Nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says there is no more 17 inch model ever, and then there is still the possibility of one used for the educational market. So it's too hard to say anything at this point. .
as long as the 20" has the same price of the 17" I am fine with that.
20" is the new 17"!
In order to get the intel transition done in a timely fashion, Apple outsourced much of the design of the iMac CoreDuo to intel. The iMac G5 was all done in house, hense the difference in design. My guess is that this revision might be done in house again and will clean up the insides to meet Apple's high stadards.
That would be a lovely theory but for one thing: it wasn't the PPC --> Intel move that produced the "un-serviceable" iMac.
The very first G5 iMac did not have an iSight built-in, and was highly serviceable. The back of the machine was flat and it was Vesa-mount compatible.
The redesigned G5 iMac that brought built-in iSight also introduced a thinner case with curved back, lost the Vesa-mount compatibility, and made the machine significantly harder to service. The Intel iMac kept this case design.
We know the headless midrange tower won't appear anytime soon.
So I hope Apple will at least give us an iMac that will...
a) have an upgradeable video card (ha ha ha...yeah I know)
b) have a thin bezel like the cinema displays
c) more USB ports
d) give us the ability to use the internal display as a secondary monitor (ie. with a laptop).
I don't think the ability to upgrade the graphics card is particularly useful, but I think iMac users should have a few more choices in terms of which graphics cards to use. I would like to see a high-end card in there.
I don't think the ability to upgrade the graphics card is particularly useful, but I think iMac users should have a few more choices in terms of which graphics cards to use. I would like to see a high-end card in there.
Would indeed be nice to have more GPU options.
Something like a three step good(enough)/better/best option in the 24" model: 128MB/256MB/512MB (and corresponding better GPU) or skip the 128MB card entirely.
I think that Apple could possibly go back to the first iMac LCD design or something similar, with the base as the main machine and an ultra-thin LCD.
The current problem with wireless keyboard & mouse is that they are not wireless: you have to plug in a sensor and plug the mouse/keyboard from time to time to recharge it.
The iMac with induction-recharging and included-receptor would free the iMac of two more connectors, more beautiful, more useful (it just works), like they integrated the webcam. Only Apple can do such seamless integration.
I do not know if this is technically doable. Perhapse not.
But there was a patent filled by Apple for wireless devices recharging, so one can dream :-)
Well, at least, of Apple is not studying this solution, I propose someone should tell them.
And what if the iMac also included some induction electronics to wirelessly recharge wireless keyboard & mouse?
The current problem with wireless keyboard & mouse is that they are not wireless: you have to plug in a sensor and plug the mouse/keyboard from time to time to recharge it.
The iMac with induction-recharging and included-receptor would free the iMac of two more connectors, more beautiful, more useful (it just works), like they integrated the webcam. Only Apple can do such seamless integration.
I do not know if this is technically doable. Perhapse not.
But there was a patent filled by Apple for wireless devices recharging, so one can dream :-)
Well, at least, of Apple is not studying this solution, I propose someone should tell them.
It's certainly doable. The base would have to contain the charger. The keyboard would have to be pushed to the base, and perhaps lifted over a small bump at the front for it to overlap slightly, so that it would be in proper position. The mouse could be put flat on the base further back.
Apple's models don't plug in. They have to have the batteries changed every few months. I use the keyboard.
It's a matter of will on Apple's part.
Everything except SLI. I doubt any Mac programs would be compiled specifically for it so it would be largely useless.
It doesn't look as good as Sony's 'iMac', which has no chin and the same spec as the iMac. Even if they get rid of it, you can still hang stickies off the bottom like other LCD owners.
I suspected that they would get rid of the 17" iMac after seeing the insides. I don't think they could design the 17" without a chin but the 20" and 24" are easy. All they have to do is reduce the price of the 20" by £300. Now if they offer GMA and a combo drive and a smaller HD in the lower model, I think they'd be able to pull that off. Even if it was just £200 cheaper, I'm sure people wouldn't mind paying an extra £100 for a 20" machine.
My only concern over losing the chin is that the iMac may sound worse. ATM, the iMac is the best sounding machine in Apple's lineup.
Ack! We have a chance to lose the chin and you're worried about sound?!? If you cared at all about sound you'd be using external speakers.
I agree that it should be possible to offer an entry level 20" and expect to see the 17" last no longer than this year's education buying season.
I realize desktop sales are falling and notebook sales are rising, but I still want a mid-tower. I honestly think its absence from the Mac lineup has held back a significant number of switchers who want neither an all-in-one nor a $2500 tower that needs server RAM.
It's certainly doable. The base would have to contain the charger. The keyboard would have to be pushed to the base, and perhaps lifted over a small bump at the front for it to overlap slightly, so that it would be in proper position. The mouse could be put flat on the base further back.
Apple's models don't plug in. They have to have the batteries changed every few months. I use the keyboard.
It's a matter of will on Apple's part.
I had in mind to keep the keyboard and the mouse on the desk, so the user do not have to do anything: devices are charged automatically, as you use them. It just work: you do not have to know that those devices need power ;-) Moreover, you can put a next-generation-still-to-be-revealed iPod near your screen and it wirelessly sync and charge (what a very good dream!).
I asked if it was possible for that: how far away the device can be from its charger?
But what you propose seams a good compromise. When you shutdown your Mac, once a month, you "dock" the keyboard and the mouse on the iMac. Not that disturbing.
But from a design point of view, the iMac would need to have something to dock the keyboard on, and that is not aestetical at all. So perhapse they will not do it.
Perhapse an iMac like that (the points are to take spaces into account:
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
....|..\\
.......|
.\\_____/
The big "|" is the screen, the rest is the foot of the iMac.
You could box your keyboard in like that (the second "|" line):
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
..|.|..\\
..|....|
.\\|___/
Just ideas
It's certainly doable. The base would have to contain the charger. The keyboard would have to be pushed to the base, and perhaps lifted over a small bump at the front for it to overlap slightly, so that it would be in proper position. The mouse could be put flat on the base further back.
Apple's models don't plug in. They have to have the batteries changed every few months. I use the keyboard.
It's a matter of will on Apple's part.
Whilst it's doable, it is IMHO a waste of engineering effort. For the process to work, the charging device (containing the primary coil that will couple to the coil in the device to be charged, e.g. a keyboard) and device to be charged have to be in physical contact, or at least, very very close to each other. Even then, the process is inefficient (you lose about 30-40% of the energy put into the charging device, i.e. only 50-60% of the input energy goes into actually charging the device to be charged).
Given this poor level of efficiency, the use of inductive charging for keyboards/mice is not only inelegant, it is environmentally irresponsible. Since you have to bring the charging device and device to be charged close together anyway, you may as well use a proper physical connection. Something along the lines of an electric kettle where the charging base has a male connector and the kettle a female connector would make charging the keyboard/mouse straightforward. Indeed, I fail to see how the use of inductive coupling instead makes the process any easier for the user.
In the case of toothbrushes, there is an advantage to inductive coupling due to the presence of water. With inductive coupling, there are no exposed metal contacts to get wet. Keyboard and mouse recharging has no such requirement.
Whilst it's doable, it is IMHO a waste of engineering effort. For the process to work, the charging device (containing the primary coil that will couple to the coil in the device to be charged, e.g. a keyboard) and device to be charged have to be in physical contact, or at least, very very close to each other. Even then, the process is inefficient (you lose about 30-40% of the energy put into the charging device, i.e. only 50-60% of the input energy goes into actually charging the device to be charged).
Ah... The devices need to be in physical contact each together...
That's where the magic is uncovered.
Forget the idea, then
I had in mind to keep the keyboard and the mouse on the desk, so the user do not have to do anything: devices are charged automatically, as you use them. It just work: you do not have to know that those devices need power ;-) Moreover, you can put a next-generation-still-to-be-revealed iPod near your screen and it wirelessly sync and charge (what a very good dream!).
I asked if it was possible for that: how far away the device can be from its charger?
But what you propose seams a good compromise. When you shutdown your Mac, once a month, you "dock" the keyboard and the mouse on the iMac. Not that disturbing.
But from a design point of view, the iMac would need to have something to dock the keyboard on, and that is not aestetical at all. So perhapse they will not do it.
Perhapse an iMac like that (the points are to take spaces into account:
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
....|..\\
.......|
.\\_____/
The big "|" is the screen, the rest is the foot of the iMac.
You could box your keyboard in like that (the second "|" line):
....|
....|
....|\\
....|.\\
..|.|..\\
..|....|
.\\|___/
Just ideas
While constant "trickle charging" is possible, the device has to be right on the charger. Induction requires almost total contact for it to be efficient. The power loss occurs as the square of the distance.
Most of the circuitry could be in the computer itself, with just the wires coming down in the foot. The coils could be in the foot. They wouldn't have to be thick, so the foot wouldn't have to be too thick, and the bump would only have to be an eighth of an inch high, just enough to lock the two together. not too much of a design esthetic problem.
But, the idea of a wireless keyboard and mouse is to allow them to be used somewhere else than the standard position. On your lap, for example.
Whilst it's doable, it is IMHO a waste of engineering effort. For the process to work, the charging device (containing the primary coil that will couple to the coil in the device to be charged, e.g. a keyboard) and device to be charged have to be in physical contact, or at least, very very close to each other. Even then, the process is inefficient (you lose about 30-40% of the energy put into the charging device, i.e. only 50-60% of the input energy goes into actually charging the device to be charged).
Given this poor level of efficiency, the use of inductive charging for keyboards/mice is not only inelegant, it is environmentally irresponsible. Since you have to bring the charging device and device to be charged close together anyway, you may as well use a proper physical connection. Something along the lines of an electric kettle where the charging base has a male connector and the kettle a female connector would make charging the keyboard/mouse straightforward. Indeed, I fail to see how the use of inductive coupling instead makes the process any easier for the user.
In the case of toothbrushes, there is an advantage to inductive coupling due to the presence of water. With inductive coupling, there are no exposed metal contacts to get wet. Keyboard and mouse recharging has no such requirement.
I know all of that. That's why I said they had to be in contact. We discussed this issue in a previous thread, you might remember, about an induction charger that was constructed as a flat surfaced block. We didn't like that one.
Your reply should have been directed to Sebien, rather than to me.
I know all of that. That's why I said they had to be in contact. We discussed this issue in a previous thread, you might remember, about an induction charger that was constructed as a flat surfaced block. We didn't like that one.
Your reply should have been directed to Sebien, rather than to me.
Sorry dude. Of course I'm aware of your background so would have thought you already knew all that. The only part of my post that was intended for you directly was the first short sentence. The rest was more of a general-information-for-everyone-who's-reading-the-thread sort of a thing rather than intended solely for your consumption. After all, this is a forum
Would indeed be nice to have more GPU options.
Something like a three step good(enough)/better/best option in the 24" model: 128MB/256MB/512MB (and corresponding better GPU) or skip the 128MB card entirely.
I'm not keen on having a "good/better/best" method. I really hate how the popular PC makers excessively long pages of options. I'm very involved with technology and I find it overwhelming, I can't imagine what the average consumer thinks.
However, I do think Apple should have two (and only two) GPU options for the iMac. I'd also like to see a new Quad2Duo Mac Cube with 3 or 4 options for a GPU, space for 2 HDDs and the ability for easy access to the afore mentioned hardware.
Sorry dude. Of course I'm aware of your background so would have thought you already knew all that. The only part of my post that was intended for you directly was the first short sentence. The rest was more of a general-information-for-everyone-who's-reading-the-thread sort of a thing rather than intended solely for your consumption. After all, this is a forum
That's ok. It's just that he asked the question.
I'm not keen on having a "good/better/best" method. I really hate how the popular PC makers excessively long pages of options. I'm very involved with technology and I find it overwhelming, I can't imagine what the average consumer thinks.
However, I do think Apple should have two (and only two) GPU options for the iMac. I'd also like to see a new Quad2Duo Mac Cube with 3 or 4 options for a GPU, space for 2 HDDs and the ability for easy access to the afore mentioned hardware.
Here's an interesting article on Apple's philosophy about designing systems and products vs Microsoft and the PC industry. The article starts with a product from a totally different company, then moves on.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/16/maga...ce=yahoo_quote
This next one gives another view of the same thing.
http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2...t-marketing-it
Not all time poor people have to be rich in money, however. Just keep that in mind.
It's not about the latest intel chips being less hot than previous. It's about the current case being designed for g5 chips. Apple was very wise in transitioning most of their computers to Intel without changing the case - it made people less nervous (on both sides of the fence). Now they are free to continue with new designs.
Lets look at Apple's laptops.
1) Apple could not put a G5 into a laptop because of heat/power consumption issues.
2) Apple was able to put a Core2Duo into a laptop (though it's warm).
... and the Intel-iMac is currently the same form factor as the original G5-iMac
Also, Steve said that the Intel chips had more power per watt - it was a big reason for switching.
So certainly the iMac could be made smaller.
The G5 iMacs ran pretty hot. People that had both the Intel and G5 units generally seem to say that the Intel based ones are cool and pretty much nearly silent, and the G5s weren't. I think the current limitation on the iMac thickness is the hard drive. I can see Apple switching to the notebook style drives in a year or two, that can knock out half an inch right there, as well as reduce the cooling needs a little.
We know the headless midrange tower won't appear anytime soon.
So I hope Apple will at least give us an iMac that will...
a) have an upgradeable video card (ha ha ha...yeah I know)
The 24" units supposedly use MXM cards, but I hadn't found the pictures of the guts of the 24" model yet to know for sure.
This is certainly a popular thread. I just get here, and there are already 80 posts!...
You need to sleep less than the 2 hours a night you do, ya lazy bastard..!!
You need to sleep less than the 2 hours a night you do, ya lazy bastard..!!
You know me too well!