It already happened to the Nano, the Shuffle and the Mac Pro.
I am curious to witness the imminent successor of the Shuffle and the Nano design. I guess they can still play with colours, textures and materials though, but what to do with the Mac Pro?!
One can't improve a perfect design, can one?
By its very nature, perfect is, to make up a word, unimprovable.
So, the various iPods were different, but not necessarily better, or worse.
The interesting thing about design is that if the designs were switched in time, the same popularity would occur.
I'm not talking about technical improvements, just the design. So if the Mini came out after the Nano, it would have become the bigger hit. The Nano had the benefit of the Mini building up the user base first. Switch them, and the same thing would have happened.
Look at what the Nano is now! A small Mini!
This often happens, as design concepts float around in a circular route in time.
As for the Mac Pro, that's much more difficult.
Many love it, and many hate it.
But, a pro machine should do what it must do. And the Mac Pro case certainly does that. The transition from G5 to Core proved that.
So, what would Apple do?
Hopefully not diminish the excellent design just for the sake of being new. How would they do that? I haven't the faintest idea right now.
The new iMacs are a big letdown in many respects. Here's a list of missing features:
1) Core 2 Quad processor @ 2.4 GHz. The new pricing for 1000 unit purchases is only $266 since July 22, 2007 for the Q6600 quad-core processor (2.40 GHz @ 1066 MHz FSB). See "Quad-cores for all ? Intel?s price cut" at http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33027/135/
2) More powerful, desktop class processor in a ticker enclosure leaving enough room for adequate ventilation. If I want a laptop class, slower processor, I'll buy a MacBook, not an iMac with a large screen.
3) A faster, higher quality, desktop class, Intel Front Side Bus @ 1066 GHz or 1333 GHz, not an outdated, slower, laptop class FSB @ 667 MHz. If I want a laptop, I won't buy an iMac.
4) Faster DRAM to go with the missing, faster, desktop class Front Side Bus. 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) doesn't cut it on today's desktops.
5) 2 GB of RAM standard on all iMac models for the upcoming graphic user interface of Mac OS X Leopard and new, more demanding applications to come.
6) ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256 MB of GDDR3 memory standard with all models of 20 or 24 inches iMacs. 256 MB of graphic RAM was never a luxury, especially for 20 inches LCD monitors.
7) Blue-Ray disk drives to save a copy of our digital lifestyle.
8) The 50 cents chip needed to decode Blue-Ray films and .H264 content.
9) Standard, minimum 500 GB Serial ATA hard drives on all iMac models, with inexpensive upgrades for 750 GB and 1 TB hard drives. iMacs are not laptops and should not be outfitted with small, cheap hard drives. Give us room to expand our digital collections.
10) Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, included or with a coupon for a free upgrade when it becomes available. The $129 or $149 upgrade fee is unacceptable on a brand new computer.
11) eSATA connector for faster, external hard drives which have been on the market for more than a year now. FireWire 800 is great for some, but has no future.
12) Digital TV tuner to take advantage of the LCD displays. You can't sell electronic or home appliances in Japan unless you include digital TV reception with cellphones or home appliances. Be a leader, Apple, or a follower if you can't innovate, but give us the features available from other manufacturers.
13) 1080p High definition capability with all iMac LCD displays.
Give us the features we want, for a reasonable price, like every other computer manufacturer. MacPro computers are for graphic professionals, not home, family or office users.
As a computer buyer, and corporate governance observer, I don't like Apple 36% fat profit margins, nor the lavish, demented, insane payoffs of $750 millions to 5 individuals for the year 2006. Apple is so severely mismanaged that it will be a textbook example of wasteful mismanagement for decades to come.
Steve Jobs and the whole board of puppet directors have to go. Steve Jobs has been the Apple CEO for 10 years and he is under SEC investigation for an illegal, backdated, fraudulent $650 millions stock option grant. Stockholder class actions are still pending, as the SEC investigation. Enough said.
The reasonable price you're talking about for a 20" has just now risen to at least $2,000.
Melgross, I had to erase my first couple of attempts at replying. For some reason, I find many of your posts condescending and overly self assured. It tends to make me want to respond back in kind. This is one of those instances.
While it is true that product placements are normally accompanied by a contract, this is not always the case. You simply don't know if Apple receives compensation for their products placements. Your claim to absolute certainty is arrogant at best.
Say what you like. I just say what I like. I talk in a straightfoward way. I'm sorry if some don't like that.
I've been involved in advertising since 1969, and I've worked with any number of ad agencies, Tv studios, movie companies, etc. I did a lot of the work that you think I don't know anything about.
I speak as though I know, when I know. When I don't know, I ask questions of others, and if someone can show definitively, that I'm wrong, then I will say so. Otherwise, just like most everyone else here, I stick to what I say.
But, when articles linked to, for example, show contrasting statements, a careful read will show the truth.
When it comes to opinions of what we migh prefer, that's different, everyone has the right to prefer something.
I think the design is fine, however I think they made a mistake in axing the 17 inch. It could have hit the $999 price point and would have been a huge seller, IMHO.
I also have issues with the glare, however I will check it out at the store before harping anymore about it.
1) Core 2 Quad processor @ 2.4 GHz. The new pricing for 1000 unit purchases is only $266 since July 22, 2007 for the Q6600 quad-core processor (2.40 GHz @ 1066 MHz FSB). See "Quad-cores for all ? Intel?s price cut" at http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33027/135/
2) More powerful, desktop class processor in a ticker enclosure leaving enough room for adequate ventilation. If I want a laptop class, slower processor, I'll buy a MacBook, not an iMac with a large screen.
3) A faster, higher quality, desktop class, Intel Front Side Bus @ 1066 GHz or 1333 GHz, not an outdated, slower, laptop class FSB @ 667 MHz. If I want a laptop, I won't buy an iMac.
All the same point. You want the iMac to have a desktop processor. It doesn't. It doesn't need a desktop processor. It's designed to be a "pull it out of the box, plug it in, it works" device. Unlike most PCs. You can't easily make a All-in-One with a desktop processor. Perhaps come Penryn time (Q1 2008) this will be feasible.
I would also dispute the value of quad-core chips at this point. They're nice and all, but given the state of multi-threading right now, not really valuable. It'll be 2008 or 2009 before the Xcode improvements result in apps optimized for quad-core machines. A dual-core iMac at 2.2 to 2.8 GHz is plenty fast for just about everything people need. I have a Mac Pro, and I'll attest that 90% of the time, I could shut off one of the processors and not notice (actually, I run 2 BOINC instances, so I basically do). Only in the event of doing simultaneous encodes or compilation do the quad-cores help. A single quicktime H.264 encode maxes out at 120% on my computer. So one can encode and do light work in addition on a dual-2.2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
4) Faster DRAM to go with the missing, faster, desktop class Front Side Bus. 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) doesn't cut it on today's desktops.
You don't provide any evidence (and I haven't seen any elsewhere) that memory bandwidth or latency would be a massive performance issue here. Additionally, I'm not sure there are 800 MHz SO-DIMMS. And if there are, they'd be like the FB-DIMM situation ? too expensive relative to normal chips for minimal gain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
5) 2 GB of RAM standard on all iMac models for the upcoming graphic user interface of Mac OS X Leopard and new, more demanding applications to come.
While I would have liked to see a 2 GB standard on the top end model, expecting it on the lower models is unrealistic. At the moment, the plan seems to be that Pro machines get 2 GB, and the consumer machines 1 GB.
As for Leopard, it can be run on 1 GB of RAM. It'll probably be able to run (unpleasantly) on 512 MB or 768 MB. In fact, since Leopard pushes even more of the GUI work to the GPU, the extra gizmos shouldn't work performance much
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
6) ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256 MB of GDDR3 memory standard with all models of 20 or 24 inches iMacs. 256 MB of graphic RAM was never a luxury, especially for 20 inches LCD monitors.
I think you'll find that 128 MB of video RAM is a plenty large framebuffer for WSXGA+ (1680x1050), and I know plenty of people who run it at that. Since the monitor's probably limited to 60 Hz anyways, you should have no problem even if you had half that video RAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
7) Blue-Ray disk drives to save a copy of our digital lifestyle.
If you want to add $400 for Blu-Ray read-only. If you honestly want a BR burner in an iMac, you're looking at a $3000 machine right there. A BR burner will easily run you a thousand dollars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
8) The 50 cents chip needed to decode Blue-Ray films and .H264 content.
Others have already pointed out that that's what the graphics card is for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
9) Standard, minimum 500 GB Serial ATA hard drives on all iMac models, with inexpensive upgrades for 750 GB and 1 TB hard drives. iMacs are not laptops and should not be outfitted with small, cheap hard drives. Give us room to expand our digital collections.
250 GB is plenty of room. At 256kbps, a GB is 500 minutes of music. At 1000 kbps (a decent 480i/p bitrate in H.264), a GB is over two hours of video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
10) Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, included or with a coupon for a free upgrade when it becomes available. The $129 or $149 upgrade fee is unacceptable on a brand new computer.
It's at least 2 months away. Wait until it comes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
11) eSATA connector for faster, external hard drives which have been on the market for more than a year now. FireWire 800 is great for some, but has no future.
For a single HDD, FW 800 is fine for an external hard drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
12) Digital TV tuner to take advantage of the LCD displays. You can't sell electronic or home appliances in Japan unless you include digital TV reception with cellphones or home appliances. Be a leader, Apple, or a follower if you can't innovate, but give us the features available from other manufacturers.
A Digital TV tuner would add $50 to the final price for something many, many people wouldn't use. Especially given the whole encryption thing on digital cable and satellite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
13) 1080p High definition capability with all iMac LCD displays.
There is no such thing as a standard 20 inch 1920x1200 monitor. There are a few 17 or 19 inch laptop panels at that res, but the industry standard resolution for 20-22 inch widescreen monitors is 1680x1050. And the DPI on a 1920x1200 20-incher would be too high for easy computer use until Leopard comes around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
Give us the features we want, for a reasonable price, like every other computer manufacturer.
These aren't the features consumers want, these are the features you want. And if you expect some of what you're asking for in a sub-$2000 price range, you're nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan
Apple is so severely mismanaged that it will be a textbook example of wasteful mismanagement for decades to come.
Steve Jobs and the whole board of puppet directors have to go.
In the space of 10 years, Steve Jobs and his "puppet directors" took Apple from "Apple is dying" to "Holy crap! The sky's the limit for Apple!" If that's mismanagement, then I hate to think what you expect from well-managed companies.
Seriously, Apple's gone from hemorrhaging money and having no realistic next-gen plan to massive profits and being widely recognized as a pioneer. If you told someone in 1997 that Apple would be worth what it's worth now, they'd say you're nuts.
----
Overall, please do some basic research or at least look around a little bit before posting. Some of your claims had merit (wanting a desktop Mac), but an awful lot of them were pretty out there. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just saying that your post was unrealistic. You want Apple to make a $3500 computer and sell it to you for $1500. That's mismanagement.
I think the design is fine, however I think they made a mistake in axing the 17 inch. It could have hit the $999 price point and would have been a huge seller, IMHO.
I also have issues with the glare, however I will check it out at the store before harping anymore about it.
Have you seen these Engadget pics? As with any other glossy screen, the glare on the new iMac is actually quite bad. Headaches, eyestrain, reflections... I just don't understand why anyone would choose glossy if given a choice. More than that, I can't understand why Apple is not giving us a choice.
Have you seen these Engadget pics? As with any other glossy screen, the glare on the new iMac is actually quite bad.
That's because the iMac is facing a window and the picture is taken at an angle. Fire an iMac away from a window and sit in front of it, and you won't see any reflections.
Art directors have little leeway in placing directly recognizable products in a scene. You overestimate their power. They design a scene, and then take it for approval. The "shirts" make all the decisions. Often the "shirts" tell the art director exactly what they want to do, and the AD merely follows their instructions so that it looks correct.
Apparently, the suits have gone along with many art director's decision to include Apple computers for sympathetic characters.
Beyond this squabbling, the larger issue is Apple's successful guerilla marketing strategy of which media exposure is a part. Analysts estimated the PR value of the iPhone campaign at 400 million dollars. However, very little of that was paid by Apple, most of it was provided free by the media and propelled by the numerous channels of buzz the company, the products, the fans, and the CEO generate. Apple's ability to place products in film and TV is part of their successful strategy to generate exposure without paying for it.
I am not sure of the point you are pursuing, but it sounds as if you are trying to suggest that whenever you see an Apple computer in a movie or TV show, it is because Apple has paid for the privalege. No one argues that there isn't rampant paid product placement in film and TV. However, you are mistaken if you think that widespread use of Apple computers in film and TV is a result of that practice. On the contrary, widespread use of Apple products in film and TV is because the filmakers themselves, art directors and "suits" included, tend to prefer Macs. And to accomodate their preference, there is a dept at Apple that facilitates their requests, but doesn't pay to play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Then why are you saying what you don't know to be true or not?
I'm not. Let me clarify:
I know this is true: Many TV/film producers place Apple computers in their productions without receiving payment from Apple. Filmaker wants an Apple computer in the scene, contacts Apple's film liason, receives loaner computer for production. Period.
I don't know if this is true: whether or not Apple pays for opportunities for product placement in movies and TV shows above and beyond opportunities that fall into their lap and for which they do not pay. It may be that Apple has a policy of not ever paying for product placement. Or it may be that Apple pays for product placement in film and TV productions that are particularly valuable for them. I don't know.
But what i do know is that there are a lot of placements simply because Apple is Apple, and the producers' interest in including Apple products is sufficient that they do not require payment from Apple.
The products themselves tend to be more beautiful than the competition, look nice on screen, and connote modernity and hippness for characters that use them. As others pointed out, they are also popular among the people who make films and TV, which also contributes to their on-screen use. Hence, lots of Apple cameos on screen, no payment neccessary.
I think it would be safe to say, for example, that if the Carrie Bradshaw character in Sex In The City typed her column on a Dell, Dell might have paid for the placement. But Carrie's Mac was a design decision in keeping with her personality and the show's personality. I am sure the producers would rather go to their local Apple store and pay out of their own pocket for a Mac for Carrie to use rather than receive gobs of money from Dell. Carrie's Apple laptop helped the audience understand her character and is part of a successful network of largely unpaid positive media exposure for Apple products. (Or negative exposure if you don't like Carrie).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You don't know, as you said. Why don't you leave it at that?
Because you misunderstood what I said, and you seem to misunderstand the dynamic between Apple and the film and TV industry.
That's because the iMac is facing a window and the picture is taken at an angle. Fire an iMac away from a window and sit in front of it, and you won't see any reflections.
I understand that the glare is coming from the window, but that's the whole point.. With a glossy screen, you will get glare and reflections from windows and overhead lights, with matte screens, you don't. Most iMacs will likely be in dens, offices or rooms with windows and overhead lights.
Have you seen these Engadget pics? As with any other glossy screen, the glare on the new iMac is actually quite bad. Headaches, eyestrain, reflections... I just don't understand why anyone would choose glossy if given a choice. More than that, I can't understand why Apple is not giving us a choice.
They did? Where? This first impressions article states "Turning on the iMac gave me the chance to see the bright, glossy display in action, which looked more pleasing than the previous iMacs."
That's because the iMac is facing a window and the picture is taken at an angle. Fire an iMac away from a window and sit in front of it, and you won't see any reflections.
Mmm, yeah. That is an option, but my desk is in our den (3 large windows) and is part of a built-in entertainment center. Kinda hard to turn it away from the windows. It's not directly at them as is, and I have glare problems with my current iMac with matte screen, depending on sun angle.
What about overhead lights, such as an office/professional environment?
The angle the picture is taken at is very slight also, maybe 10 degrees off center? Not an uncommon angle if you want to show somebody a document, etc. on your screen.
This has got to be the dumbest post ever. Or... the wittiest, most satirical Future Hardware post ever!
His post was actually very good, it's what most people would like to see from Apple. The issue however isn't with the iMac, even Sony AIO is a moble processor, ram and video. The issue with Apple is their unwillingness to come up with a midrange desktop system that offers options.
Apple switchers which have become more and more and are use to options, their not use to one version of what Steve Jobs thinks everyone should have. Thats the real issue.
They did? Where? This first impressions article states "Turning on the iMac gave me the chance to see the bright, glossy display in action, which looked more pleasing than the previous iMacs."
I think if you're concerned about the glossy screen see it for yourself before deciding. I wouldn't take anyones word for it. You might like it or find it acceptable even if you prefer matte. I like matte, especially on a laptop where I think one is more likely to encounter glare. On a desktop I don't think it would be to bad as long as the location of the machine was thought out and measures taken to control lighting. Heck blinds are cheap and might be all you need. I don't think the glossy is necessarily the deal breaker some make it out to be.
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but for those who were wondering what the inside looks like, kodawarisan has disassembled the new iMac...
I think someone was asking what kind of display they're using. I'm not sure about the 24", but this one (the 20") is using a LG PHILIPS LM201WE3 (TN Film 16.7 (8-Bit) 1680 x 1050 5ms 800:1 2000:1 300 / 450 160 / 160)
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but for those who were wondering what the inside looks like, kodawarisan has disassembled the new iMac...
I think someone was asking what kind of display they're using. I'm not sure about the 24", but this one (the 20") is using a LG PHILIPS LM201WE3 (specs)
Thank you very much for the kodawariwan link in particular. Very interesting to see the placements.
...On a desktop I don't think it would be to bad as long as the location of the machine was thought out and measures taken to control lighting. Heck blinds are cheap and might be all you need. I don't think the glossy is necessarily the deal breaker some make it out to be.
Exactly. I've got a 20inch iMac ordered. I know which room of my house it is going in. I control the environment. I will deal with any glares that may be there. Glossy screen is not a deal breaker.
Comments
It already happened to the Nano, the Shuffle and the Mac Pro.
I am curious to witness the imminent successor of the Shuffle and the Nano design. I guess they can still play with colours, textures and materials though, but what to do with the Mac Pro?!
One can't improve a perfect design, can one?
By its very nature, perfect is, to make up a word, unimprovable.
So, the various iPods were different, but not necessarily better, or worse.
The interesting thing about design is that if the designs were switched in time, the same popularity would occur.
I'm not talking about technical improvements, just the design. So if the Mini came out after the Nano, it would have become the bigger hit. The Nano had the benefit of the Mini building up the user base first. Switch them, and the same thing would have happened.
Look at what the Nano is now! A small Mini!
This often happens, as design concepts float around in a circular route in time.
As for the Mac Pro, that's much more difficult.
Many love it, and many hate it.
But, a pro machine should do what it must do. And the Mac Pro case certainly does that. The transition from G5 to Core proved that.
So, what would Apple do?
Hopefully not diminish the excellent design just for the sake of being new. How would they do that? I haven't the faintest idea right now.
why are you attacking me on this one i don't know.
It's not an attack. People are just trying to point out to you that what you desire probably would require Apple to break the laws of physics.
The new iMacs are a big letdown in many respects. Here's a list of missing features:
1) Core 2 Quad processor @ 2.4 GHz. The new pricing for 1000 unit purchases is only $266 since July 22, 2007 for the Q6600 quad-core processor (2.40 GHz @ 1066 MHz FSB). See "Quad-cores for all ? Intel?s price cut" at http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33027/135/
2) More powerful, desktop class processor in a ticker enclosure leaving enough room for adequate ventilation. If I want a laptop class, slower processor, I'll buy a MacBook, not an iMac with a large screen.
3) A faster, higher quality, desktop class, Intel Front Side Bus @ 1066 GHz or 1333 GHz, not an outdated, slower, laptop class FSB @ 667 MHz. If I want a laptop, I won't buy an iMac.
4) Faster DRAM to go with the missing, faster, desktop class Front Side Bus. 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) doesn't cut it on today's desktops.
5) 2 GB of RAM standard on all iMac models for the upcoming graphic user interface of Mac OS X Leopard and new, more demanding applications to come.
6) ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256 MB of GDDR3 memory standard with all models of 20 or 24 inches iMacs. 256 MB of graphic RAM was never a luxury, especially for 20 inches LCD monitors.
7) Blue-Ray disk drives to save a copy of our digital lifestyle.
8) The 50 cents chip needed to decode Blue-Ray films and .H264 content.
9) Standard, minimum 500 GB Serial ATA hard drives on all iMac models, with inexpensive upgrades for 750 GB and 1 TB hard drives. iMacs are not laptops and should not be outfitted with small, cheap hard drives. Give us room to expand our digital collections.
10) Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, included or with a coupon for a free upgrade when it becomes available. The $129 or $149 upgrade fee is unacceptable on a brand new computer.
11) eSATA connector for faster, external hard drives which have been on the market for more than a year now. FireWire 800 is great for some, but has no future.
12) Digital TV tuner to take advantage of the LCD displays. You can't sell electronic or home appliances in Japan unless you include digital TV reception with cellphones or home appliances. Be a leader, Apple, or a follower if you can't innovate, but give us the features available from other manufacturers.
13) 1080p High definition capability with all iMac LCD displays.
Give us the features we want, for a reasonable price, like every other computer manufacturer. MacPro computers are for graphic professionals, not home, family or office users.
As a computer buyer, and corporate governance observer, I don't like Apple 36% fat profit margins, nor the lavish, demented, insane payoffs of $750 millions to 5 individuals for the year 2006. Apple is so severely mismanaged that it will be a textbook example of wasteful mismanagement for decades to come.
Steve Jobs and the whole board of puppet directors have to go. Steve Jobs has been the Apple CEO for 10 years and he is under SEC investigation for an illegal, backdated, fraudulent $650 millions stock option grant. Stockholder class actions are still pending, as the SEC investigation. Enough said.
The reasonable price you're talking about for a 20" has just now risen to at least $2,000.
Is that ok with you?
Melgross, I had to erase my first couple of attempts at replying. For some reason, I find many of your posts condescending and overly self assured. It tends to make me want to respond back in kind. This is one of those instances.
While it is true that product placements are normally accompanied by a contract, this is not always the case. You simply don't know if Apple receives compensation for their products placements. Your claim to absolute certainty is arrogant at best.
Say what you like. I just say what I like. I talk in a straightfoward way. I'm sorry if some don't like that.
I've been involved in advertising since 1969, and I've worked with any number of ad agencies, Tv studios, movie companies, etc. I did a lot of the work that you think I don't know anything about.
I speak as though I know, when I know. When I don't know, I ask questions of others, and if someone can show definitively, that I'm wrong, then I will say so. Otherwise, just like most everyone else here, I stick to what I say.
But, when articles linked to, for example, show contrasting statements, a careful read will show the truth.
When it comes to opinions of what we migh prefer, that's different, everyone has the right to prefer something.
Am I condesending, nope!
Am I self assured? Yup!
I also have issues with the glare, however I will check it out at the store before harping anymore about it.
1) Core 2 Quad processor @ 2.4 GHz. The new pricing for 1000 unit purchases is only $266 since July 22, 2007 for the Q6600 quad-core processor (2.40 GHz @ 1066 MHz FSB). See "Quad-cores for all ? Intel?s price cut" at http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33027/135/
2) More powerful, desktop class processor in a ticker enclosure leaving enough room for adequate ventilation. If I want a laptop class, slower processor, I'll buy a MacBook, not an iMac with a large screen.
3) A faster, higher quality, desktop class, Intel Front Side Bus @ 1066 GHz or 1333 GHz, not an outdated, slower, laptop class FSB @ 667 MHz. If I want a laptop, I won't buy an iMac.
All the same point. You want the iMac to have a desktop processor. It doesn't. It doesn't need a desktop processor. It's designed to be a "pull it out of the box, plug it in, it works" device. Unlike most PCs. You can't easily make a All-in-One with a desktop processor. Perhaps come Penryn time (Q1 2008) this will be feasible.
I would also dispute the value of quad-core chips at this point. They're nice and all, but given the state of multi-threading right now, not really valuable. It'll be 2008 or 2009 before the Xcode improvements result in apps optimized for quad-core machines. A dual-core iMac at 2.2 to 2.8 GHz is plenty fast for just about everything people need. I have a Mac Pro, and I'll attest that 90% of the time, I could shut off one of the processors and not notice (actually, I run 2 BOINC instances, so I basically do). Only in the event of doing simultaneous encodes or compilation do the quad-cores help. A single quicktime H.264 encode maxes out at 120% on my computer. So one can encode and do light work in addition on a dual-2.2
4) Faster DRAM to go with the missing, faster, desktop class Front Side Bus. 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (PC2-5300) doesn't cut it on today's desktops.
You don't provide any evidence (and I haven't seen any elsewhere) that memory bandwidth or latency would be a massive performance issue here. Additionally, I'm not sure there are 800 MHz SO-DIMMS. And if there are, they'd be like the FB-DIMM situation ? too expensive relative to normal chips for minimal gain.
5) 2 GB of RAM standard on all iMac models for the upcoming graphic user interface of Mac OS X Leopard and new, more demanding applications to come.
While I would have liked to see a 2 GB standard on the top end model, expecting it on the lower models is unrealistic. At the moment, the plan seems to be that Pro machines get 2 GB, and the consumer machines 1 GB.
As for Leopard, it can be run on 1 GB of RAM. It'll probably be able to run (unpleasantly) on 512 MB or 768 MB. In fact, since Leopard pushes even more of the GUI work to the GPU, the extra gizmos shouldn't work performance much
6) ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256 MB of GDDR3 memory standard with all models of 20 or 24 inches iMacs. 256 MB of graphic RAM was never a luxury, especially for 20 inches LCD monitors.
I think you'll find that 128 MB of video RAM is a plenty large framebuffer for WSXGA+ (1680x1050), and I know plenty of people who run it at that. Since the monitor's probably limited to 60 Hz anyways, you should have no problem even if you had half that video RAM.
7) Blue-Ray disk drives to save a copy of our digital lifestyle.
If you want to add $400 for Blu-Ray read-only. If you honestly want a BR burner in an iMac, you're looking at a $3000 machine right there. A BR burner will easily run you a thousand dollars.
8) The 50 cents chip needed to decode Blue-Ray films and .H264 content.
Others have already pointed out that that's what the graphics card is for.
9) Standard, minimum 500 GB Serial ATA hard drives on all iMac models, with inexpensive upgrades for 750 GB and 1 TB hard drives. iMacs are not laptops and should not be outfitted with small, cheap hard drives. Give us room to expand our digital collections.
250 GB is plenty of room. At 256kbps, a GB is 500 minutes of music. At 1000 kbps (a decent 480i/p bitrate in H.264), a GB is over two hours of video.
10) Mac OS X Leopard, version 10.5, included or with a coupon for a free upgrade when it becomes available. The $129 or $149 upgrade fee is unacceptable on a brand new computer.
It's at least 2 months away. Wait until it comes out.
11) eSATA connector for faster, external hard drives which have been on the market for more than a year now. FireWire 800 is great for some, but has no future.
For a single HDD, FW 800 is fine for an external hard drive.
12) Digital TV tuner to take advantage of the LCD displays. You can't sell electronic or home appliances in Japan unless you include digital TV reception with cellphones or home appliances. Be a leader, Apple, or a follower if you can't innovate, but give us the features available from other manufacturers.
A Digital TV tuner would add $50 to the final price for something many, many people wouldn't use. Especially given the whole encryption thing on digital cable and satellite.
13) 1080p High definition capability with all iMac LCD displays.
There is no such thing as a standard 20 inch 1920x1200 monitor. There are a few 17 or 19 inch laptop panels at that res, but the industry standard resolution for 20-22 inch widescreen monitors is 1680x1050. And the DPI on a 1920x1200 20-incher would be too high for easy computer use until Leopard comes around.
Give us the features we want, for a reasonable price, like every other computer manufacturer.
These aren't the features consumers want, these are the features you want. And if you expect some of what you're asking for in a sub-$2000 price range, you're nuts.
Apple is so severely mismanaged that it will be a textbook example of wasteful mismanagement for decades to come.
Steve Jobs and the whole board of puppet directors have to go.
In the space of 10 years, Steve Jobs and his "puppet directors" took Apple from "Apple is dying" to "Holy crap! The sky's the limit for Apple!" If that's mismanagement, then I hate to think what you expect from well-managed companies.
Seriously, Apple's gone from hemorrhaging money and having no realistic next-gen plan to massive profits and being widely recognized as a pioneer. If you told someone in 1997 that Apple would be worth what it's worth now, they'd say you're nuts.
----
Overall, please do some basic research or at least look around a little bit before posting. Some of your claims had merit (wanting a desktop Mac), but an awful lot of them were pretty out there. I'm not trying to be mean, I'm just saying that your post was unrealistic. You want Apple to make a $3500 computer and sell it to you for $1500. That's mismanagement.
I think the design is fine, however I think they made a mistake in axing the 17 inch. It could have hit the $999 price point and would have been a huge seller, IMHO.
I also have issues with the glare, however I will check it out at the store before harping anymore about it.
Have you seen these Engadget pics? As with any other glossy screen, the glare on the new iMac is actually quite bad. Headaches, eyestrain, reflections... I just don't understand why anyone would choose glossy if given a choice. More than that, I can't understand why Apple is not giving us a choice.
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/appl...nds-on/343535/
Have you seen these Engadget pics? As with any other glossy screen, the glare on the new iMac is actually quite bad.
That's because the iMac is facing a window and the picture is taken at an angle. Fire an iMac away from a window and sit in front of it, and you won't see any reflections.
Art directors have little leeway in placing directly recognizable products in a scene. You overestimate their power. They design a scene, and then take it for approval. The "shirts" make all the decisions. Often the "shirts" tell the art director exactly what they want to do, and the AD merely follows their instructions so that it looks correct.
Apparently, the suits have gone along with many art director's decision to include Apple computers for sympathetic characters.
Beyond this squabbling, the larger issue is Apple's successful guerilla marketing strategy of which media exposure is a part. Analysts estimated the PR value of the iPhone campaign at 400 million dollars. However, very little of that was paid by Apple, most of it was provided free by the media and propelled by the numerous channels of buzz the company, the products, the fans, and the CEO generate. Apple's ability to place products in film and TV is part of their successful strategy to generate exposure without paying for it.
I am not sure of the point you are pursuing, but it sounds as if you are trying to suggest that whenever you see an Apple computer in a movie or TV show, it is because Apple has paid for the privalege. No one argues that there isn't rampant paid product placement in film and TV. However, you are mistaken if you think that widespread use of Apple computers in film and TV is a result of that practice. On the contrary, widespread use of Apple products in film and TV is because the filmakers themselves, art directors and "suits" included, tend to prefer Macs. And to accomodate their preference, there is a dept at Apple that facilitates their requests, but doesn't pay to play.
Then why are you saying what you don't know to be true or not?
I'm not. Let me clarify:
I know this is true: Many TV/film producers place Apple computers in their productions without receiving payment from Apple. Filmaker wants an Apple computer in the scene, contacts Apple's film liason, receives loaner computer for production. Period.
I don't know if this is true: whether or not Apple pays for opportunities for product placement in movies and TV shows above and beyond opportunities that fall into their lap and for which they do not pay. It may be that Apple has a policy of not ever paying for product placement. Or it may be that Apple pays for product placement in film and TV productions that are particularly valuable for them. I don't know.
But what i do know is that there are a lot of placements simply because Apple is Apple, and the producers' interest in including Apple products is sufficient that they do not require payment from Apple.
The products themselves tend to be more beautiful than the competition, look nice on screen, and connote modernity and hippness for characters that use them. As others pointed out, they are also popular among the people who make films and TV, which also contributes to their on-screen use. Hence, lots of Apple cameos on screen, no payment neccessary.
I think it would be safe to say, for example, that if the Carrie Bradshaw character in Sex In The City typed her column on a Dell, Dell might have paid for the placement. But Carrie's Mac was a design decision in keeping with her personality and the show's personality. I am sure the producers would rather go to their local Apple store and pay out of their own pocket for a Mac for Carrie to use rather than receive gobs of money from Dell. Carrie's Apple laptop helped the audience understand her character and is part of a successful network of largely unpaid positive media exposure for Apple products. (Or negative exposure if you don't like Carrie).
You don't know, as you said. Why don't you leave it at that?
Because you misunderstood what I said, and you seem to misunderstand the dynamic between Apple and the film and TV industry.
That's because the iMac is facing a window and the picture is taken at an angle. Fire an iMac away from a window and sit in front of it, and you won't see any reflections.
I understand that the glare is coming from the window, but that's the whole point.. With a glossy screen, you will get glare and reflections from windows and overhead lights, with matte screens, you don't. Most iMacs will likely be in dens, offices or rooms with windows and overhead lights.
Have you seen these Engadget pics? As with any other glossy screen, the glare on the new iMac is actually quite bad. Headaches, eyestrain, reflections... I just don't understand why anyone would choose glossy if given a choice. More than that, I can't understand why Apple is not giving us a choice.
http://www.engadget.com/gallery/appl...nds-on/343535/
Macworld just panned the glossy screen. I may have to go with a Mini and buy a 17 inch LCD monitor. Any suggestions?
Macworld just panned the glossy screen.
They did? Where? This first impressions article states "Turning on the iMac gave me the chance to see the bright, glossy display in action, which looked more pleasing than the previous iMacs."
That's because the iMac is facing a window and the picture is taken at an angle. Fire an iMac away from a window and sit in front of it, and you won't see any reflections.
Mmm, yeah. That is an option, but my desk is in our den (3 large windows) and is part of a built-in entertainment center. Kinda hard to turn it away from the windows. It's not directly at them as is, and I have glare problems with my current iMac with matte screen, depending on sun angle.
What about overhead lights, such as an office/professional environment?
The angle the picture is taken at is very slight also, maybe 10 degrees off center? Not an uncommon angle if you want to show somebody a document, etc. on your screen.
This has got to be the dumbest post ever. Or... the wittiest, most satirical Future Hardware post ever!
His post was actually very good, it's what most people would like to see from Apple. The issue however isn't with the iMac, even Sony AIO is a moble processor, ram and video. The issue with Apple is their unwillingness to come up with a midrange desktop system that offers options.
Apple switchers which have become more and more and are use to options, their not use to one version of what Steve Jobs thinks everyone should have. Thats the real issue.
They did? Where? This first impressions article states "Turning on the iMac gave me the chance to see the bright, glossy display in action, which looked more pleasing than the previous iMacs."
Lookee here:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...tion/index.php
I'm surprised that MacWorld would print such dribble.
Lookee here:
http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...tion/index.php
I think if you're concerned about the glossy screen see it for yourself before deciding. I wouldn't take anyones word for it. You might like it or find it acceptable even if you prefer matte. I like matte, especially on a laptop where I think one is more likely to encounter glare. On a desktop I don't think it would be to bad as long as the location of the machine was thought out and measures taken to control lighting. Heck blinds are cheap and might be all you need. I don't think the glossy is necessarily the deal breaker some make it out to be.
I think someone was asking what kind of display they're using. I'm not sure about the 24", but this one (the 20") is using a LG PHILIPS LM201WE3 (TN Film 16.7 (8-Bit) 1680 x 1050 5ms 800:1 2000:1 300 / 450 160 / 160)
I don't know if anyone has seen this yet, but for those who were wondering what the inside looks like, kodawarisan has disassembled the new iMac...
I think someone was asking what kind of display they're using. I'm not sure about the 24", but this one (the 20") is using a LG PHILIPS LM201WE3 (specs)
Thank you very much for the kodawariwan link in particular. Very interesting to see the placements.
...On a desktop I don't think it would be to bad as long as the location of the machine was thought out and measures taken to control lighting. Heck blinds are cheap and might be all you need. I don't think the glossy is necessarily the deal breaker some make it out to be.
Exactly. I've got a 20inch iMac ordered. I know which room of my house it is going in. I control the environment. I will deal with any glares that may be there. Glossy screen is not a deal breaker.