You would, becuase you're probably a Pro user. The iMac doesn't have a 17" for several reasons. One is to separate it from the PowerMac, which Apple *really* needs for the moment. With the new PowerMacs, expect studio displays to go 17"/19"/22" so that the iMac is separate once again from the pro line. And secondly, the iMac is priced about as high as it can go already. And thirdly, consumers do NOT need a 17" LCD display! Everyone wanted a 17" iMac for like 2 years - well, you've got it in terms of viewable area and look at you! If they put a 17" LCD on the damn thing you'd be asking why it doesn't have a Cinema display and say "I'd be happy to pay $4,000 for an iMac if they would make it identical to the PowerMac and then everyone could have a PowerMac..." WTF? Is it just me or is anyone else tired of this crap?
-S</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, your end-of-post bitchiness aside, I don't think it is unreasonable to offer a limited choice of screen size in the iMac. Maybe 1400xwhatever number I pulled out my butt is ambitious, but a 17" 1280x960 is not, especially if Apple does decide to add a 19" to the mix.
And yes, right now Apple does need some separation between the iMac on steroids, and the last-gasp-of the current Power products.
But who know what the next 6 months might portend.
And I'm still buying the iMac, lowish screen res and all, so you can save your criticism for someone whom dumping it upon might be appropriate.
The new iMac is the best product to come out of Apple since the Cube, which in hindsight I'm glad I don't own (it being discontinued and all), but I wanted with all my heart. (/me like small footprint computers)
[quote] And thirdly, consumers do NOT need a 17" LCD display! <hr></blockquote>
WRONG, WRONG.
Apple does not need to worry about powermac sales as there won't be any for the next little while. When the PM's are upgraded (Soon)they will make the iMac look tame. This iMac only uses PC100 ram and has a 100MHz bus and ATA66! so even with a 17" screen it coudn't damage PM sales.
The PM's look like bursting through the GHZ(1.2,1.4 1.6 anyone & Duel) barrier already support PC133 and could go DDR. The system bus is rumored to be as high as 400Mhz and I can't believe that we won't see a big jump in the ATA speed. Who would want an iMac with these kind of specs, a 17" screen on the iMac would NOT affect PM sales.
The real reason is COST. The new iMac is so cleaver as there is a real upgrade path to come.
1. Screens will get bigger
2. Bus speed will increase
3. HD will get larger
4. Processors will get faster and faster.
5. USB2
6. Firewire2
This is generation1 of iMac2 and it has a great future.
Personally I would like to see the firewire and USB ports moved to the side to make them more accessable.
The biggest issue facing Apple is still the Ghz gap. Apple will add as many featurers as possible for the price bracket it wants iMac2 to sit in. Clearly iMac2 can stand a higher top end than the CRT model. It won't give a damm about impact on PM sales. The PM will look after it self, the object is to sell as many boxes as they can at the prices they set for each product. It is true that the PM doesn't look that good value for money at the moment but it reeally won't be long before that issue is resolved.
I believe that I did say "for the moment" and it is not wrong that consumers do not need 17". Unless you've got a bunch of editing tools all over your screen there's very little reason to have more than 15" viewable. The only thing I use the extra space on my Ti for is tools and the dock. 15" is perfect for viewing a web page, writing, iApps, etc.
<strong>Oh I forgot to mention the dock and iTunes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My guess is that you have your dock too big or should have it hidden or something. It's really not that bad, and things can be minimized. You might have to have your messenger window open in the background while you're reading a newsgroup post, but you can't do both at once anyway......
If you absolutely can't stand that and need to have room for 3 applications in full windows without overlaps and be space-greedy like that, chances are you're going to need a dual monitor setup anyway.
What my point is, is that since you can't really focus on so many tasks at once, it's perfectly OK to have something minimized, hidden, or in the background - it can be pulled up easily enough by a simple click on the dock. Thus, I'm talking about whatever is in the *foreground* you have plenty of room for. I'd like to be able to keep Entourage, IMer, and IE all open so i can see them all at once too, but there's a reality we have to accept that Apple can't bundle a cinema display with all of its machines and remain cost-effective!!!
Pros, on the other hand, need space for tools, colors, mixers, etc. all accessable in the foreground at ANY ONE POINT IN TIME, as they all apply to the task at hand. There really is a difference. And if you're complaining about the iMac's screen size because you do these things, then guess what? Apple makes a computer for you and they call it a PowerMac!!
I honestly don't know why people can't understand that more expensive solutions simply can't make it into a machine built for consumers and those with only basic needs and not a lot of cash to spend. Eventually we will probably get a larger screen on an iMac and I don't mind people saying that it would be nice a year from now, but when you're saying that Apple *should have* put one in this week..
I don't think anyone is saying it NEEDS a 17" LCD right now. I think in 2 years, when the prices drop, it will be a natural extension for the top end model. My only concern is balance. I could see a 17" screen causing it to tip over.
As an aside - did anyone see the Microsoft MIRA presentation on CNet? They had a really cool concept PC with wireless monitor that turns into a tablet. Probably a while before it's in production, with very high costs, but it works, which is pretty impressive in itself.
JW Pepper brings up a valid point about what consumers are doing, and why they could indeed make use of a 17" or larger screen, and SpiffyGuyC tells him his dock is too big, or he just needs to stop complaining and buy a dual monitor setup. Ugh yourself, apologist.
Excuse me SpiffyGuyC I never said Apple *Should have* anything. I just disagree with you regarding consumer needs. I also believe that the reason the screen is 15" is cost.
I firmly believe that CONSUMERS do need larger screens than 15" and when costs fall they will become an option. Most PC users are buying machines for under $1000 including 19" CRT's just look in the papers.
The real reason is COST. The new iMac is so cleaver as there is a real upgrade path to come.
1. Screens will get bigger
2. Bus speed will increase
3. HD will get larger
4. Processors will get faster and faster.
5. USB2
6. Firewire2
This is generation1 of iMac2 and it has a great future.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. People kept clamoring for 'updates' to the old iMac that were really major case re-designs. There was only so much that could be done without changing the whole case and that was never anything worth the cost of a redesign.
But this new case has a lot of potential for display/feature updates. First they can address the display and the base seperately so that changing details in one doesn't have to affect the other. Secondly, this new iMac is starting out with much pricier components. That's a good thing because prices for both the LCD's and the drives have a lot of room to fall. 24x burner, combo, and superdrive are all pricier units. I was very surprised by the 24x drive. By the time it ships there will be 32X (there already are but they're hard to find) yet 24x will still be a near top-o-the-line drive for a while. Still, all those drives could drop in price by as much as half by the end of the year. (100-300 dollars retail) Add that to even a 100 dollar drop in LCD panels and all of a sudden Apple has a nice bit of extra room to play with their feature/price levels. The first two years of the classic iMacs life were the most vibrant, then it levelled off.
I just think the whole situation is summed up by "there's no pleasing some people." The *only* thing that upsets me about this is that Apple gave people what they asked for in the iMac, and now it's not adequate.
People asked for an LCD, and asked for a 15" viewable area. And now people complain that it's not a separate box so they can hook a large CRT to it.
Apple went with a lot of things that go well beyond the competition's consumer desktop and people start threads about how it's not enough and then go on to describe "what should have been," which often turns out to be a $4000 configuration in the real world.
Personally, I'd just as soon have seen Apple bring back the cube from $799-$1299 without a head, and let us choose a monitor. It's only one more cable to attach. But, I don't think it's absolutely necessary either and there's really no other way to have a footprint as small as the new iMac - and that's what Apple's strategy is - simplistic, minimalist, powerful.
Yes, I would like all the screen space in the world as much as the next guy. But considering what's practical and considering the market Apple is going for (which is educational as much as consumer - and for that it HAS to be small and it HAS to be simple because there's a lot to compete against), I honestly think they've made the best choices that they can. And the situation is not as "end of the world, going to buy a PC" as some would put it.
Note that I am not criticizing any one person in general, but it gets to me in general when these boards clamor for 2 years for a 17" (15" viewable) display on an iMac, and when Apple delievers a package beyond most expectations suddenly it's "perfect except for that 15-incher - it should be 17."
So I don't know how this even got turned around into an arguement on consumers needs, perhaps it was me misreading, but this is what my argument is really about.
However, I'll say that I do a sh*tload of pro graphic design/layout, and multitrack audio recording all from a TiBook, and also manage to email and IM and browse without feeling constrained by the proportions of my screen. A lot of people come by and tell me it's "friggin' huge." Maybe that's why I feel like 15" is plenty...but I don't think I'm a minority - there are plenty of people using Ti's as their main computer and I find 15"quite easy to deal with...and I have to stand by that.
<strong>Overall, I think the new iMac looks kinda cool, but I think it's a little bit too white and boring. I spent some time on a mockup and I hope rev. b will look a bit like this. It's more translucent and has a silver finish.. and therefore.. Ya wanna lick it.
But just look at it. It looks like an ass. A titanium ass, but still an ass. <-- hey look everybody, I just said ass three, nee four time fast. HEHEHE
I would add infared, make the apple logo the power button, and allow for more colors (how about brass!). Also, I believe that someone mentioned that the built-in microphone is in the back - it's actually in the front on the monitor (lower left corner). And there's a power indicator in the lower right hand corner of the monitor (purple light).
Comments
<strong>
You would, becuase you're probably a Pro user. The iMac doesn't have a 17" for several reasons. One is to separate it from the PowerMac, which Apple *really* needs for the moment. With the new PowerMacs, expect studio displays to go 17"/19"/22" so that the iMac is separate once again from the pro line. And secondly, the iMac is priced about as high as it can go already. And thirdly, consumers do NOT need a 17" LCD display! Everyone wanted a 17" iMac for like 2 years - well, you've got it in terms of viewable area and look at you! If they put a 17" LCD on the damn thing you'd be asking why it doesn't have a Cinema display and say "I'd be happy to pay $4,000 for an iMac if they would make it identical to the PowerMac and then everyone could have a PowerMac..." WTF? Is it just me or is anyone else tired of this crap?
-S</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, your end-of-post bitchiness aside, I don't think it is unreasonable to offer a limited choice of screen size in the iMac. Maybe 1400xwhatever number I pulled out my butt is ambitious, but a 17" 1280x960 is not, especially if Apple does decide to add a 19" to the mix.
And yes, right now Apple does need some separation between the iMac on steroids, and the last-gasp-of the current Power products.
But who know what the next 6 months might portend.
And I'm still buying the iMac, lowish screen res and all, so you can save your criticism for someone whom dumping it upon might be appropriate.
The new iMac is the best product to come out of Apple since the Cube, which in hindsight I'm glad I don't own (it being discontinued and all), but I wanted with all my heart. (/me like small footprint computers)
SdC
WRONG, WRONG.
Apple does not need to worry about powermac sales as there won't be any for the next little while. When the PM's are upgraded (Soon)they will make the iMac look tame. This iMac only uses PC100 ram and has a 100MHz bus and ATA66! so even with a 17" screen it coudn't damage PM sales.
The PM's look like bursting through the GHZ(1.2,1.4 1.6 anyone & Duel) barrier already support PC133 and could go DDR. The system bus is rumored to be as high as 400Mhz and I can't believe that we won't see a big jump in the ATA speed. Who would want an iMac with these kind of specs, a 17" screen on the iMac would NOT affect PM sales.
The real reason is COST. The new iMac is so cleaver as there is a real upgrade path to come.
1. Screens will get bigger
2. Bus speed will increase
3. HD will get larger
4. Processors will get faster and faster.
5. USB2
6. Firewire2
This is generation1 of iMac2 and it has a great future.
Personally I would like to see the firewire and USB ports moved to the side to make them more accessable.
The biggest issue facing Apple is still the Ghz gap. Apple will add as many featurers as possible for the price bracket it wants iMac2 to sit in. Clearly iMac2 can stand a higher top end than the CRT model. It won't give a damm about impact on PM sales. The PM will look after it self, the object is to sell as many boxes as they can at the prices they set for each product. It is true that the PM doesn't look that good value for money at the moment but it reeally won't be long before that issue is resolved.
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
This is what CONSUMERS are doing.
Good Luck.
<strong>Oh I forgot to mention the dock and iTunes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My guess is that you have your dock too big or should have it hidden or something. It's really not that bad, and things can be minimized. You might have to have your messenger window open in the background while you're reading a newsgroup post, but you can't do both at once anyway......
If you absolutely can't stand that and need to have room for 3 applications in full windows without overlaps and be space-greedy like that, chances are you're going to need a dual monitor setup anyway.
What my point is, is that since you can't really focus on so many tasks at once, it's perfectly OK to have something minimized, hidden, or in the background - it can be pulled up easily enough by a simple click on the dock. Thus, I'm talking about whatever is in the *foreground* you have plenty of room for. I'd like to be able to keep Entourage, IMer, and IE all open so i can see them all at once too, but there's a reality we have to accept that Apple can't bundle a cinema display with all of its machines and remain cost-effective!!!
Pros, on the other hand, need space for tools, colors, mixers, etc. all accessable in the foreground at ANY ONE POINT IN TIME, as they all apply to the task at hand. There really is a difference. And if you're complaining about the iMac's screen size because you do these things, then guess what? Apple makes a computer for you and they call it a PowerMac!!
I honestly don't know why people can't understand that more expensive solutions simply can't make it into a machine built for consumers and those with only basic needs and not a lot of cash to spend. Eventually we will probably get a larger screen on an iMac and I don't mind people saying that it would be nice a year from now, but when you're saying that Apple *should have* put one in this week..
ugh.
S
As an aside - did anyone see the Microsoft MIRA presentation on CNet? They had a really cool concept PC with wireless monitor that turns into a tablet. Probably a while before it's in production, with very high costs, but it works, which is pretty impressive in itself.
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
I firmly believe that CONSUMERS do need larger screens than 15" and when costs fall they will become an option. Most PC users are buying machines for under $1000 including 19" CRT's just look in the papers.
<strong>
The real reason is COST. The new iMac is so cleaver as there is a real upgrade path to come.
1. Screens will get bigger
2. Bus speed will increase
3. HD will get larger
4. Processors will get faster and faster.
5. USB2
6. Firewire2
This is generation1 of iMac2 and it has a great future.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep. People kept clamoring for 'updates' to the old iMac that were really major case re-designs. There was only so much that could be done without changing the whole case and that was never anything worth the cost of a redesign.
But this new case has a lot of potential for display/feature updates. First they can address the display and the base seperately so that changing details in one doesn't have to affect the other. Secondly, this new iMac is starting out with much pricier components. That's a good thing because prices for both the LCD's and the drives have a lot of room to fall. 24x burner, combo, and superdrive are all pricier units. I was very surprised by the 24x drive. By the time it ships there will be 32X (there already are but they're hard to find) yet 24x will still be a near top-o-the-line drive for a while. Still, all those drives could drop in price by as much as half by the end of the year. (100-300 dollars retail) Add that to even a 100 dollar drop in LCD panels and all of a sudden Apple has a nice bit of extra room to play with their feature/price levels. The first two years of the classic iMacs life were the most vibrant, then it levelled off.
This new model has a lot more potential. We
People asked for an LCD, and asked for a 15" viewable area. And now people complain that it's not a separate box so they can hook a large CRT to it.
Apple went with a lot of things that go well beyond the competition's consumer desktop and people start threads about how it's not enough and then go on to describe "what should have been," which often turns out to be a $4000 configuration in the real world.
Personally, I'd just as soon have seen Apple bring back the cube from $799-$1299 without a head, and let us choose a monitor. It's only one more cable to attach. But, I don't think it's absolutely necessary either and there's really no other way to have a footprint as small as the new iMac - and that's what Apple's strategy is - simplistic, minimalist, powerful.
Yes, I would like all the screen space in the world as much as the next guy. But considering what's practical and considering the market Apple is going for (which is educational as much as consumer - and for that it HAS to be small and it HAS to be simple because there's a lot to compete against), I honestly think they've made the best choices that they can. And the situation is not as "end of the world, going to buy a PC" as some would put it.
Note that I am not criticizing any one person in general, but it gets to me in general when these boards clamor for 2 years for a 17" (15" viewable) display on an iMac, and when Apple delievers a package beyond most expectations suddenly it's "perfect except for that 15-incher - it should be 17."
So I don't know how this even got turned around into an arguement on consumers needs, perhaps it was me misreading, but this is what my argument is really about.
However, I'll say that I do a sh*tload of pro graphic design/layout, and multitrack audio recording all from a TiBook, and also manage to email and IM and browse without feeling constrained by the proportions of my screen. A lot of people come by and tell me it's "friggin' huge." Maybe that's why I feel like 15" is plenty...but I don't think I'm a minority - there are plenty of people using Ti's as their main computer and I find 15"quite easy to deal with...and I have to stand by that.
-S
<strong>Overall, I think the new iMac looks kinda cool, but I think it's a little bit too white and boring. I spent some time on a mockup and I hope rev. b will look a bit like this. It's more translucent and has a silver finish.. and therefore.. Ya wanna lick it.
A-Graphics is presenting you..
iMac rev b. - 'Silver Sister'
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: /\\ldie ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
that little slit in the side looks like an ass. hehehe
[ 01-10-2002: Message edited by: Matsu ]</p>
Design a better iMac is the subject all I see is modified iMac's(colour) and internals of cubes. I wanna see mock ups, not all this crap
my design. The iDildo