I can see that being a factor for hanging multiple devices in a daisy chain. On the other hand, a portable HDD with dual inputs isn't going to draw more power from the host computer just because it's connected via Firewire instead of USB.
What I meant is that each PORT on the PC has to be budgetted powerwise when designing the machine. This has nothing to do with what is connected.
As to your hard drive example it is very likely that the Firewire device would use marginally more power. This due to the high integration likely for the USB device.
Quote:
Is the chipset more expensive for a Firewire device? I seem to recall it is as it needs to "do more" being peer-to-peer capable. Apart from the licensing issue, did simple economics drive Firewire to the back seat opposite USB?
It is more expensive because it is a separate chip. It is common on intel hardware for the USB interfaces to be built into the support chip sets that handle everything else. In effect USB hardware is free as you have to buy a chipset anyways. No matter what it costs a Fitewire chip is always extra.
Macbook Mini - Either VIA C7m or Intel Atom. 1.8ghz. 32gb SSD or 120gb 2.5" SATA. 2gb Ram. 10.x screen. 4 Cell battery with 4-5hr battery. 30min 80% charge with 45watt mag-sage. Performance of VIA 1.8/800mhz/1mb is on par with 64bit support on x86-64 instruction set. There also the smallest and most efficient CPU's in the world. Intel's Atom, 3rd generation will not be avail until 2nd half 09' which is a bit far off for Apple to keep the hype. Using VIA's Unichrome 9 which is OpenGL 2.0 compliant they could build an ultra-mobile notebook capable of running Leopard and SnowLeopard with decent performance. They use almost half the power of the Atom too. If there not using it I'm sure they had to consider it. The built in encryption on the chip and it's memory bandwidth alone are worth testing.
MacMini - Core2Duo upgrade to current set. nVidia GPU. 800mhz DDR2/3 Ram. 160gb/250gb/320gb 7200 rpm drives. Displayport with DVI adapter, HDMI compatible. Enterprise ready. Would LOVE to see a MacPro Mini with 3.5" HD....
These iPhone Nano rumors seem interesting enough for me to add to my hypothetical observation. However I don't see it happening nor would it be needed. $199 is cheap enough for an iPhone to keep it as a premium product people desire.
What I meant is that each PORT on the PC has to be budgetted powerwise when designing the machine. This has nothing to do with what is connected.
As to your hard drive example it is very likely that the Firewire device would use marginally more power. This due to the high integration likely for the USB device.
It is more expensive because it is a separate chip. It is common on intel hardware for the USB interfaces to be built into the support chip sets that handle everything else. In effect USB hardware is free as you have to buy a chipset anyways. No matter what it costs a Fitewire chip is always extra.
Dave
What I was really wondering about is the cost difference on the peripherals side. Adding Firewire to the computer costs something but compared to the cost of the whole computer, it's not much. On the other hand, any cost difference incurred for portable HDDs and other devices might be more noticeable. Though USB might be "free" on a motherboard, it still requires a chipset in the peripheral. Anyone have a feel for the actual cost difference in a peripheral?
Macbook Mini - Either VIA C7m or Intel Atom. 1.8ghz. 32gb SSD or 120gb 2.5" SATA. 2gb Ram. 10.x screen. 4 Cell battery with 4-5hr battery. 30min 80% charge with 45watt mag-sage. Performance of VIA 1.8/800mhz/1mb is on par with 64bit support on x86-64 instruction set. There also the smallest and most efficient CPU's in the world. Intel's Atom, 3rd generation will not be avail until 2nd half 09' which is a bit far off for Apple to keep the hype. Using VIA's Unichrome 9 which is OpenGL 2.0 compliant they could build an ultra-mobile notebook capable of running Leopard and SnowLeopard with decent performance. They use almost half the power of the Atom too. If there not using it I'm sure they had to consider it. The built in encryption on the chip and it's memory bandwidth alone are worth testing.
MacMini - Core2Duo upgrade to current set. nVidia GPU. 800mhz DDR2/3 Ram. 160gb/250gb/320gb 7200 rpm drives. Displayport with DVI adapter, HDMI compatible. Enterprise ready. Would LOVE to see a MacPro Mini with 3.5" HD....
These iPhone Nano rumors seem interesting enough for me to add to my hypothetical observation. However I don't see it happening nor would it be needed. $199 is cheap enough for an iPhone to keep it as a premium product people desire.
I think if there were going to be major new product announcements, Phil wouldn't be making them, Jobs would. The Mac mini revision seems to be the only realistic thing on your list, though your imagined specs for it sound like a good deal of wishful thinking.
Apple has already stated that no new product announcements would be made at Macworld. If there were going to be, Phil wouldn't be making them, Jobs would. The Mac mini revision is the only one in your list that's realistic, though your imagined specs for it sound like a lot of wishful thinking.
I third that. Sorry, Apple had not said that about Macworld, but about the rest of 2008 not having new product announcements. Got my stories crossed. Jobs' absence does imply that no new product announcements will be made at Macworld (but rather product revisions and probably a Snow Leopard demo).
Nah, he just doesn't want to talk about the mini and is making Phil do that.
Well, do we know if Jobs will actually be there in the audience? Seems like all the news outlets are saying he won't, but maybe they're just assuming he won't because he's not the keynote speaker.
Well, do we know if Jobs will actually be there in the audience? Seems like all the news outlets are saying he won't, but maybe they're just assuming he won't because he's not the keynote speaker.
I'm thinking he will just give a short introduction and then turn it over, like the last media event they did.
It's been years since the iMac went flatscreen, and I still don't understand this irrational hatred of the so-called 'chin'.
It's a computer people. The circuitry has to go somewhere. The problem is the lack of access to the hard drive.
There is no problem with the aesthetics.
Agreed... In my mockups you'll notice that I actually *reduced* the "chin". I feel the new iMac will still need to have a "chin" and also a larger Apple logo to distinguish it from the LED Cinema Display.
Agreed... In my mockups you'll notice that I actually *reduced* the "chin". I feel the new iMac will still need to have a "chin" and also a larger Apple logo to distinguish it from the LED Cinema Display.
I think that would be the whole idea though. You'd get someone coming into a store and see the Cinema Display hooked up to a Mac Pro and then they'd see another display all by itself that looks exactly the same but hooked up to nothing obvious. Then they ask 'but where is the computer?'. You just whisper 'magic' in their ear and they fall down worshipping.
That is until they start using it and wonder where the quad core cubes are at with the matte screens .
Apple try to do this in their laptop range like the MBA. The wow factor is that it's the thinnest notebook around. When people see the iMac and other displays, they look for differences and the chin is that difference. As I say, people who don't understand computers simply assume the computer parts are in there and it ruins the illusion.
The Macbook range have writing to distinguish MB and MBP, otherwise people who didn't know that the display size distinguished them wouldn't know.
The assumption that the chin is necessary is false. Sony's AIOs don't have chins. Apple's 24" iMac has largely the same components in some models as the 20" so how can it need the chin when it has so much more room? Apple just need to think about their design a bit harder.
The assumption that the chin is necessary is false. Sony's AIOs don't have chins. Apple's 24" iMac has largely the same components in some models as the 20" so how can it need the chin when it has so much more room? Apple just need to think about their design a bit harder.
Perhaps Apple could reduce the 24" iMac's chin a bit, but looking at these tear down photos of the 20" model, the chin most certainly is used:
Sony's JS AIO PC does have a chin (albeit a smaller one), it's simply hidden better by using either all grey or all black and by slanting it a bit on the front. Their LV AIO PC/TV hides its components in a wider display bezel on the sides, but it's also around 10lbs heavier than the 24" iMac.
If Apple went with nividia2008's proposed color scheme, it would go a long way in hiding the iMac's chin.
I can't wait to see the upheaval when Apple drops Firewire from the mini and raises prices $200. You know that's what's going to happen if specs match the new MacBook. Don't you?
I expect some of that cost increase was due to the case and other improvements that won't be in the mini. Also, component costs will probably be lower by then.
I know I'd trade FW for HDMI in addition to Displayport. A DP+audio to HDMI dongle works for me too. I'd also gladly trade FW400 for eSATA.
This is with owning a FW400 video camera. I'd just get a new camera. I'm about due anyway.
I expect some of that cost increase was due to the case and other improvements that won't be in the mini. Also, component costs will probably be lower by then.
I know I'd trade FW for HDMI in addition to Displayport. A DP+audio to HDMI dongle works for me too. I'd also gladly trade FW400 for eSATA.
This is with owning a FW400 video camera. I'd just get a new camera. I'm about due anyway.
You think Apple would give the Mac mini eSATA before the MacBook Pro? Are you also suggesting Apple would equip any of their computers with HDMI after 1) having promised to standardize on Mini DisplayPort, 2) shipping their entire laptop line without HDMI, and 3) shipping their new 24" LED Cinema Display without HDMI!!??
Perhaps Apple could reduce the 24" iMac's chin a bit, but looking at these tear down photos of the 20" model, the chin most certainly is used
In those pictures, the hard drive and optical drive take up a decent amount of space. I think they should move these both into the base stand. This would give you a front-facing optical drive and a user-serviceable hard drive as well as a machine with no chin. Plus add some bottom weight to keep it steady. You could even put two hard drives in the base side by side with the optical unit above them.
One of Sony's new higher-end AIOs has a quad core CPU:
Check the video. It's pretty chunky and as you say heavy but surely the principle of the AIO is not thin and light but small footprint and easy to setup. They've done this already so weight and width aren't hugely important vs value for money and looking at a nice display front-on.
Having black surrounds does reduce the impact of it certainly but the massive bright Apple logo is happy to remind you there's a lot of space down there.
In those pictures, the hard drive and optical drive take up a decent amount of space. I think they should move these both into the base stand. This would give you a front-facing optical drive and a user-serviceable hard drive as well as a machine with no chin. Plus add some bottom weight to keep it steady. You could even put two hard drives in the base side by side with the optical unit above them.
How the hell would they fit an optical drive and HDD in the iMac's base stand!? You do realize that would completely disable the ability to detach the iMac from the stand, thus no more VESA mounting? Who cares in what direction the optical drive faces!!?? One can already replace their HDD by taking off the back cover. It'd be nice if it were easily replaceable from the chin, but the stock HDDs the iMacs ship with are more than enough for most people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
One of Sony's new higher-end AIOs has a quad core CPU:
Check the video. It's pretty chunky and as you say heavy but surely the principle of the AIO is not thin and light but small footprint and easy to setup.
Fair enough; weight isn't a major component. But guess what, the iMac already has a small footprint and is easy to setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
They've done this already so weight and width aren't hugely important vs value for money and looking at a nice display front-on.
Having black surrounds does reduce the impact of it certainly but the massive bright Apple logo is happy to remind you there's a lot of space down there.
While I recognize your irritation with the dreaded chin, I'd say you're in the minority. It's really not that big a deal - most people don't even realize the iMac is an AIO until someone tells them. Do you really believe Apple's tremendously popular iMac could be dethroned by Sony's knock-off running Windows Vista?
Seems to me DisplayPort and mini DisplayPort have all the capabilities of HDMI, although apparently Apple is not yet running audio through it.
DisplayPort as a technology CRUSHES HDMI. Perhaps not quiet yet when all the features aren't enabled but frankly I see HDMI getting replaced on CE equipment with DP in the future.
HDMI doesn't have the bandwidth that we're going to need moving forward. It's pretty much tapped out.
Apple was smart to get onto the DP bandwagon early and get working product out there despite the screams of the people who have already forgotten the screams about the original iMac and no floppy drive.
DisplayPort as a technology CRUSHES HDMI. Perhaps not quiet yet when all the features aren't enabled but frankly I see HDMI getting replaced on CE equipment with DP in the future.
HDMI doesn't have the bandwidth that we're going to need moving forward. It's pretty much tapped out.
Apple was smart to get onto the DP bandwagon early and get working product out there despite the screams of the people who have already forgotten the screams about the original iMac and no floppy drive.
Add to that the fact DisplayPort is royalty free and Apple's miniaturized version offers a far smaller port and connector, which requires no screws.
Comments
I can see that being a factor for hanging multiple devices in a daisy chain. On the other hand, a portable HDD with dual inputs isn't going to draw more power from the host computer just because it's connected via Firewire instead of USB.
What I meant is that each PORT on the PC has to be budgetted powerwise when designing the machine. This has nothing to do with what is connected.
As to your hard drive example it is very likely that the Firewire device would use marginally more power. This due to the high integration likely for the USB device.
Is the chipset more expensive for a Firewire device? I seem to recall it is as it needs to "do more" being peer-to-peer capable. Apart from the licensing issue, did simple economics drive Firewire to the back seat opposite USB?
It is more expensive because it is a separate chip. It is common on intel hardware for the USB interfaces to be built into the support chip sets that handle everything else. In effect USB hardware is free as you have to buy a chipset anyways. No matter what it costs a Fitewire chip is always extra.
Dave
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/
MacMini - Core2Duo upgrade to current set. nVidia GPU. 800mhz DDR2/3 Ram. 160gb/250gb/320gb 7200 rpm drives. Displayport with DVI adapter, HDMI compatible. Enterprise ready. Would LOVE to see a MacPro Mini with 3.5" HD....
These iPhone Nano rumors seem interesting enough for me to add to my hypothetical observation. However I don't see it happening nor would it be needed. $199 is cheap enough for an iPhone to keep it as a premium product people desire.
What I meant is that each PORT on the PC has to be budgetted powerwise when designing the machine. This has nothing to do with what is connected.
As to your hard drive example it is very likely that the Firewire device would use marginally more power. This due to the high integration likely for the USB device.
It is more expensive because it is a separate chip. It is common on intel hardware for the USB interfaces to be built into the support chip sets that handle everything else. In effect USB hardware is free as you have to buy a chipset anyways. No matter what it costs a Fitewire chip is always extra.
Dave
What I was really wondering about is the cost difference on the peripherals side. Adding Firewire to the computer costs something but compared to the cost of the whole computer, it's not much. On the other hand, any cost difference incurred for portable HDDs and other devices might be more noticeable. Though USB might be "free" on a motherboard, it still requires a chipset in the peripheral. Anyone have a feel for the actual cost difference in a peripheral?
Macbook Mini - Either VIA C7m or Intel Atom. 1.8ghz. 32gb SSD or 120gb 2.5" SATA. 2gb Ram. 10.x screen. 4 Cell battery with 4-5hr battery. 30min 80% charge with 45watt mag-sage. Performance of VIA 1.8/800mhz/1mb is on par with 64bit support on x86-64 instruction set. There also the smallest and most efficient CPU's in the world. Intel's Atom, 3rd generation will not be avail until 2nd half 09' which is a bit far off for Apple to keep the hype. Using VIA's Unichrome 9 which is OpenGL 2.0 compliant they could build an ultra-mobile notebook capable of running Leopard and SnowLeopard with decent performance. They use almost half the power of the Atom too. If there not using it I'm sure they had to consider it. The built in encryption on the chip and it's memory bandwidth alone are worth testing.
http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/nano/
MacMini - Core2Duo upgrade to current set. nVidia GPU. 800mhz DDR2/3 Ram. 160gb/250gb/320gb 7200 rpm drives. Displayport with DVI adapter, HDMI compatible. Enterprise ready. Would LOVE to see a MacPro Mini with 3.5" HD....
These iPhone Nano rumors seem interesting enough for me to add to my hypothetical observation. However I don't see it happening nor would it be needed. $199 is cheap enough for an iPhone to keep it as a premium product people desire.
I think if there were going to be major new product announcements, Phil wouldn't be making them, Jobs would. The Mac mini revision seems to be the only realistic thing on your list, though your imagined specs for it sound like a good deal of wishful thinking.
Apple has already stated that no new product announcements would be made at Macworld.
Really, when?
Apple has already stated that no new product announcements would be made at Macworld. If there were going to be, Phil wouldn't be making them, Jobs would. The Mac mini revision is the only one in your list that's realistic, though your imagined specs for it sound like a lot of wishful thinking.
I second the 'what'???
I second the 'what'???
I third that.
Jobs' absence does imply that no new product announcements will be made at Macworld...
Nah, he just doesn't want to talk about the mini and is making Phil do that.
Nah, he just doesn't want to talk about the mini and is making Phil do that.
Well, do we know if Jobs will actually be there in the audience? Seems like all the news outlets are saying he won't, but maybe they're just assuming he won't because he's not the keynote speaker.
Well, do we know if Jobs will actually be there in the audience? Seems like all the news outlets are saying he won't, but maybe they're just assuming he won't because he's not the keynote speaker.
I'm thinking he will just give a short introduction and then turn it over, like the last media event they did.
It's been years since the iMac went flatscreen, and I still don't understand this irrational hatred of the so-called 'chin'.
It's a computer people. The circuitry has to go somewhere. The problem is the lack of access to the hard drive.
There is no problem with the aesthetics.
Agreed... In my mockups you'll notice that I actually *reduced* the "chin". I feel the new iMac will still need to have a "chin" and also a larger Apple logo to distinguish it from the LED Cinema Display.
Agreed... In my mockups you'll notice that I actually *reduced* the "chin". I feel the new iMac will still need to have a "chin" and also a larger Apple logo to distinguish it from the LED Cinema Display.
I think that would be the whole idea though. You'd get someone coming into a store and see the Cinema Display hooked up to a Mac Pro and then they'd see another display all by itself that looks exactly the same but hooked up to nothing obvious. Then they ask 'but where is the computer?'. You just whisper 'magic' in their ear and they fall down worshipping.
That is until they start using it and wonder where the quad core cubes are at with the matte screens
Apple try to do this in their laptop range like the MBA. The wow factor is that it's the thinnest notebook around. When people see the iMac and other displays, they look for differences and the chin is that difference. As I say, people who don't understand computers simply assume the computer parts are in there and it ruins the illusion.
The Macbook range have writing to distinguish MB and MBP, otherwise people who didn't know that the display size distinguished them wouldn't know.
The assumption that the chin is necessary is false. Sony's AIOs don't have chins. Apple's 24" iMac has largely the same components in some models as the 20" so how can it need the chin when it has so much more room? Apple just need to think about their design a bit harder.
The assumption that the chin is necessary is false. Sony's AIOs don't have chins. Apple's 24" iMac has largely the same components in some models as the 20" so how can it need the chin when it has so much more room? Apple just need to think about their design a bit harder.
Perhaps Apple could reduce the 24" iMac's chin a bit, but looking at these tear down photos of the 20" model, the chin most certainly is used:
Sony's JS AIO PC does have a chin (albeit a smaller one), it's simply hidden better by using either all grey or all black and by slanting it a bit on the front. Their LV AIO PC/TV hides its components in a wider display bezel on the sides, but it's also around 10lbs heavier than the 24" iMac.
If Apple went with nividia2008's proposed color scheme, it would go a long way in hiding the iMac's chin.
I can't wait to see the upheaval when Apple drops Firewire from the mini and raises prices $200. You know that's what's going to happen if specs match the new MacBook. Don't you?
I expect some of that cost increase was due to the case and other improvements that won't be in the mini. Also, component costs will probably be lower by then.
I know I'd trade FW for HDMI in addition to Displayport. A DP+audio to HDMI dongle works for me too. I'd also gladly trade FW400 for eSATA.
This is with owning a FW400 video camera. I'd just get a new camera. I'm about due anyway.
I expect some of that cost increase was due to the case and other improvements that won't be in the mini. Also, component costs will probably be lower by then.
I know I'd trade FW for HDMI in addition to Displayport. A DP+audio to HDMI dongle works for me too. I'd also gladly trade FW400 for eSATA.
This is with owning a FW400 video camera. I'd just get a new camera. I'm about due anyway.
You think Apple would give the Mac mini eSATA before the MacBook Pro? Are you also suggesting Apple would equip any of their computers with HDMI after 1) having promised to standardize on Mini DisplayPort, 2) shipping their entire laptop line without HDMI, and 3) shipping their new 24" LED Cinema Display without HDMI!!??
Perhaps Apple could reduce the 24" iMac's chin a bit, but looking at these tear down photos of the 20" model, the chin most certainly is used
In those pictures, the hard drive and optical drive take up a decent amount of space. I think they should move these both into the base stand. This would give you a front-facing optical drive and a user-serviceable hard drive as well as a machine with no chin. Plus add some bottom weight to keep it steady. You could even put two hard drives in the base side by side with the optical unit above them.
One of Sony's new higher-end AIOs has a quad core CPU:
http://www.pcwb.com/catalogue/item/S...9?cidp=Froogle
Check the video. It's pretty chunky and as you say heavy but surely the principle of the AIO is not thin and light but small footprint and easy to setup. They've done this already so weight and width aren't hugely important vs value for money and looking at a nice display front-on.
Having black surrounds does reduce the impact of it certainly but the massive bright Apple logo is happy to remind you there's a lot of space down there.
In those pictures, the hard drive and optical drive take up a decent amount of space. I think they should move these both into the base stand. This would give you a front-facing optical drive and a user-serviceable hard drive as well as a machine with no chin. Plus add some bottom weight to keep it steady. You could even put two hard drives in the base side by side with the optical unit above them.
How the hell would they fit an optical drive and HDD in the iMac's base stand!? You do realize that would completely disable the ability to detach the iMac from the stand, thus no more VESA mounting? Who cares in what direction the optical drive faces!!?? One can already replace their HDD by taking off the back cover. It'd be nice if it were easily replaceable from the chin, but the stock HDDs the iMacs ship with are more than enough for most people.
One of Sony's new higher-end AIOs has a quad core CPU:
http://www.pcwb.com/catalogue/item/S...9?cidp=Froogle
Check the video. It's pretty chunky and as you say heavy but surely the principle of the AIO is not thin and light but small footprint and easy to setup.
Fair enough; weight isn't a major component. But guess what, the iMac already has a small footprint and is easy to setup.
They've done this already so weight and width aren't hugely important vs value for money and looking at a nice display front-on.
Having black surrounds does reduce the impact of it certainly but the massive bright Apple logo is happy to remind you there's a lot of space down there.
While I recognize your irritation with the dreaded chin, I'd say you're in the minority. It's really not that big a deal - most people don't even realize the iMac is an AIO until someone tells them. Do you really believe Apple's tremendously popular iMac could be dethroned by Sony's knock-off running Windows Vista?
Seems to me DisplayPort and mini DisplayPort have all the capabilities of HDMI, although apparently Apple is not yet running audio through it.
DisplayPort as a technology CRUSHES HDMI. Perhaps not quiet yet when all the features aren't enabled but frankly I see HDMI getting replaced on CE equipment with DP in the future.
HDMI doesn't have the bandwidth that we're going to need moving forward. It's pretty much tapped out.
Apple was smart to get onto the DP bandwagon early and get working product out there despite the screams of the people who have already forgotten the screams about the original iMac and no floppy drive.
DisplayPort as a technology CRUSHES HDMI. Perhaps not quiet yet when all the features aren't enabled but frankly I see HDMI getting replaced on CE equipment with DP in the future.
HDMI doesn't have the bandwidth that we're going to need moving forward. It's pretty much tapped out.
Apple was smart to get onto the DP bandwagon early and get working product out there despite the screams of the people who have already forgotten the screams about the original iMac and no floppy drive.
Add to that the fact DisplayPort is royalty free and Apple's miniaturized version offers a far smaller port and connector, which requires no screws.