1920x1200 will suffice IMO. I don't know of anyone making this resolution at this size. But there's been a lot of investment in new panel fabrication plants so we'll see. Plus a move to Displayport could make things a bit more affordable..even for a AiO computer.
I really don't want to run two monitors. One huge monitor with a decent resoultion is what I want.
But what's the benefit to consumers? They immediately understand the benefit of a larger screen. Having a high rez monitor but smaller screen is a harder sell. Sure the higher rez will make huge photographs look good but if given parity pricing between a hi rez 24" and a HD 30" I think Apple would be smart to go with the larger size.
Personally, I'd love to see the 17" come back but with the hi res 1920-by-1200 panel from the 17" Macbook Pro. The 24" gives me neck ache.
While they're at it, stick it in the original iMac G5 case too. That was the best iMac design they've ever made.
I agree. Samsung, HP, Dell and others are selling their 30" 2500x1600 LCD for $1300 or less. And let's be honest Apple has been using mobile parts for the iMac. I'd like to see them move to Penryn desktop components now that power consumption should be manageable and that should result in lower pricing on procs and mobos.
By summer the iMac lineup should resemble
iMac 20"- $1099
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24"- $1599
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
iMac 30" $2499
Move away from mobile parts. Top configs are Quad Core.
Yes, but the alumin(i)um was known in Europe before large scale commercialisation from american companies. But anyway, I always thought that it is written as "aluminium" and not "aluminum" until I saw somewhere that it is more the latter than the former, so I used it thinking it is more correct. So, is this again the british vs. american version fight?
Yes, but the alumin(i)um was known in Europe before large scale commercialisation from american companies. But anyway, I always thought that it is written as "aluminium" and not "aluminum" until I saw somewhere that it is more the latter than the former, so I used it thinking it is more correct. So, is this again the british vs. american version fight?
No fight, just a jab. I don't really care what it's called, but I will comment that most common metals with many syllables seem to be truncated to -um, rather than -ium, and that "aluminum" fits into the general iambic pattern of english: odd that it was the English who opted for -ium based on [incorrect] aesthetic merit!
But, no, there's no "fight." Either way, it's the same stuff and no one is confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
By summer the iMac lineup should resemble
iMac 20"- $1099
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24"- $1599
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
iMac 30" $2499
Move away from mobile parts. Top configs are Quad Core.
I can't argue with any of that! I'm a big iMac advocate, and that lineup would be a beautiful thing. Maybe they'll toss in a Blu-ray option and make it even sweeter
I agree. Samsung, HP, Dell and others are selling their 30" 2500x1600 LCD for $1300 or less. And let's be honest Apple has been using mobile parts for the iMac. I'd like to see them move to Penryn desktop components now that power consumption should be manageable and that should result in lower pricing on procs and mobos.
By summer the iMac lineup should resemble
iMac 20"- $1099
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24"- $1599
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
iMac 30" $2499
Move away from mobile parts. Top configs are Quad Core.
Hmurchison strikes again. And with his usually commons sense and clarity of thought.
That would be the iMac line for me.
No reason we can't have a £1750 30 inch Conroe based iMac with the .45 Penryns...
It's the wet dream Mac.
30 inch panels are looking increasingly likely to get deep price cuts that put them well in line for the iMac treatment. And with the bigger area to cool all the components...quad core and a GT should be easy to do.
What's the thermal on Penryn Conroe? Anything stopping it going in a 30 inch enclosure?
Hmurchison strikes again. And with his usually commons sense and clarity of thought.
That would be the iMac line for me.
No reason we can't have a £1750 30 inch Conroe based iMac with the .45 Penryns...
It's the wet dream Mac.
30 inch panels are looking increasingly likely to get deep price cuts that put them well in line for the iMac treatment. And with the bigger area to cool all the components...quad core and a GT should be easy to do.
What's the thermal on Penryn Conroe? Anything stopping it going in a 30 inch enclosure?
Lemon Bon Bon.
The TDP for penryn "conroes" (code name: wolfdale, dual-core) is still 65W, for the quads (Yorkfield) it is 95W. There are some quad Xeons at 80W (up to 3.00GHz).
Even in a 30" enclosure, I don't think it can be easily cooled, especially if the enclosure is "air" thin.
The TDP for penryn "conroes" (code name: wolfdale, dual-core) is still 65W, for the quads (Yorkfield) it is 95W. There are some quad Xeons at 80W (up to 3.00GHz).
Even in a 30" enclosure, I don't think it can be easily cooled, especially if the enclosure is "air" thin.
But who knows ?
If Steve Jobs has one irritating flaw it is a persistent obsession with form factors that are needlessly wrought with limitation. The iMac gained little by Jobs slimming the depth and lost the ability to design in some sufficient cooling.
The 2.8Ghz X7900 currently used has a TDP of 44. I say get the message that Quad Core is the 2008 desktop standard for anything beyond the low end and redesign the iMac cases accordingly.
Apple is moving in the wrong direction here. They've raised the bar to get to a Mac Pro and frankly mobile parts for an expensive desktop are not a good compromise IMO.
One would think that the extra space afforded by a 30" form factor would leave plenty of room for heatsinks. Plus, the case is made of freakin' aluminum, a heatsink in itself.
One would think that the extra space afforded by a 30" form factor would leave plenty of room for heatsinks. Plus, the case is made of freakin' aluminum, a heatsink in itself.
Nods.
Quote:
If Steve Jobs has one irritating flaw it is a persistent obsession with form factors that are needlessly wrought with limitation. The iMac gained little by Jobs slimming the depth and lost the ability to design in some sufficient cooling.
The 2.8Ghz X7900 currently used has a TDP of 44. I say get the message that Quad Core is the 2008 desktop standard for anything beyond the low end and redesign the iMac cases accordingly.
Apple is moving in the wrong direction here. They've raised the bar to get to a Mac Pro and frankly mobile parts for an expensive desktop are not a good compromise IMO.
Valid points. Nods in agreement. They could make a 30 incher thicker and justify that. Looks how deep some LCD TVs are...
Comments
1920x1200 will suffice IMO. I don't know of anyone making this resolution at this size. But there's been a lot of investment in new panel fabrication plants so we'll see. Plus a move to Displayport could make things a bit more affordable..even for a AiO computer.
I really don't want to run two monitors. One huge monitor with a decent resoultion is what I want.
But what's the benefit to consumers? They immediately understand the benefit of a larger screen. Having a high rez monitor but smaller screen is a harder sell. Sure the higher rez will make huge photographs look good but if given parity pricing between a hi rez 24" and a HD 30" I think Apple would be smart to go with the larger size.
Personally, I'd love to see the 17" come back but with the hi res 1920-by-1200 panel from the 17" Macbook Pro. The 24" gives me neck ache.
While they're at it, stick it in the original iMac G5 case too. That was the best iMac design they've ever made.
And for god's sake, include a controller so we can get video IN not just out
Absolutely!
Quad Conroe. 2.4 gig. £150.
30 inch monitor? £800 in some quarters.
Ram? Cheap.
HD? CHeap.
GPU? GT? £135
That leaves plenty of room for a mark up.
Lemon Bon BOn.
They could do a 30 inch iMac now.
Quad Conroe. 2.4 gig. £150.
30 inch monitor? £800 in some quarters.
Ram? Cheap.
HD? CHeap.
GPU? GT? £135
That leaves plenty of room for a mark up.
Lemon Bon BOn.
I agree. Samsung, HP, Dell and others are selling their 30" 2500x1600 LCD for $1300 or less. And let's be honest Apple has been using mobile parts for the iMac. I'd like to see them move to Penryn desktop components now that power consumption should be manageable and that should result in lower pricing on procs and mobos.
By summer the iMac lineup should resemble
iMac 20"- $1099
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24"- $1599
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
iMac 30" $2499
Move away from mobile parts. Top configs are Quad Core.
Yes, but the alumin(i)um was known in Europe before large scale commercialisation from american companies. But anyway, I always thought that it is written as "aluminium" and not "aluminum" until I saw somewhere that it is more the latter than the former, so I used it thinking it is more correct. So, is this again the british vs. american version fight?
As usual, the "correct" usage is clear as mud...
Etymology of Aluminum
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
LOL, what's the "hero" configuration?
As usual, the "correct" usage is clear as mud...
Etymology of Aluminum
OK, thanks, it is "aluminium" for me then.
Yes, but the alumin(i)um was known in Europe before large scale commercialisation from american companies. But anyway, I always thought that it is written as "aluminium" and not "aluminum" until I saw somewhere that it is more the latter than the former, so I used it thinking it is more correct. So, is this again the british vs. american version fight?
No fight, just a jab. I don't really care what it's called, but I will comment that most common metals with many syllables seem to be truncated to -um, rather than -ium, and that "aluminum" fits into the general iambic pattern of english: odd that it was the English who opted for -ium based on [incorrect] aesthetic merit!
But, no, there's no "fight." Either way, it's the same stuff and no one is confused.
By summer the iMac lineup should resemble
iMac 20"- $1099
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24"- $1599
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
iMac 30" $2499
Move away from mobile parts. Top configs are Quad Core.
I can't argue with any of that! I'm a big iMac advocate, and that lineup would be a beautiful thing. Maybe they'll toss in a Blu-ray option and make it even sweeter
I agree. Samsung, HP, Dell and others are selling their 30" 2500x1600 LCD for $1300 or less. And let's be honest Apple has been using mobile parts for the iMac. I'd like to see them move to Penryn desktop components now that power consumption should be manageable and that should result in lower pricing on procs and mobos.
By summer the iMac lineup should resemble
iMac 20"- $1099
iMac 20" "Hero" config- $1299
iMac 24"- $1599
iMac 24" Hero config- $1799
iMac 30" $2499
Move away from mobile parts. Top configs are Quad Core.
Hmurchison strikes again. And with his usually commons sense and clarity of thought.
That would be the iMac line for me.
No reason we can't have a £1750 30 inch Conroe based iMac with the .45 Penryns...
It's the wet dream Mac.
30 inch panels are looking increasingly likely to get deep price cuts that put them well in line for the iMac treatment. And with the bigger area to cool all the components...quad core and a GT should be easy to do.
What's the thermal on Penryn Conroe? Anything stopping it going in a 30 inch enclosure?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Hmurchison strikes again. And with his usually commons sense and clarity of thought.
That would be the iMac line for me.
No reason we can't have a £1750 30 inch Conroe based iMac with the .45 Penryns...
It's the wet dream Mac.
30 inch panels are looking increasingly likely to get deep price cuts that put them well in line for the iMac treatment. And with the bigger area to cool all the components...quad core and a GT should be easy to do.
What's the thermal on Penryn Conroe? Anything stopping it going in a 30 inch enclosure?
Lemon Bon Bon.
The TDP for penryn "conroes" (code name: wolfdale, dual-core) is still 65W, for the quads (Yorkfield) it is 95W. There are some quad Xeons at 80W (up to 3.00GHz).
Even in a 30" enclosure, I don't think it can be easily cooled, especially if the enclosure is "air" thin.
But who knows ?
The TDP for penryn "conroes" (code name: wolfdale, dual-core) is still 65W, for the quads (Yorkfield) it is 95W. There are some quad Xeons at 80W (up to 3.00GHz).
Even in a 30" enclosure, I don't think it can be easily cooled, especially if the enclosure is "air" thin.
But who knows ?
If Steve Jobs has one irritating flaw it is a persistent obsession with form factors that are needlessly wrought with limitation. The iMac gained little by Jobs slimming the depth and lost the ability to design in some sufficient cooling.
The 2.8Ghz X7900 currently used has a TDP of 44. I say get the message that Quad Core is the 2008 desktop standard for anything beyond the low end and redesign the iMac cases accordingly.
Apple is moving in the wrong direction here. They've raised the bar to get to a Mac Pro and frankly mobile parts for an expensive desktop are not a good compromise IMO.
One would think that the extra space afforded by a 30" form factor would leave plenty of room for heatsinks. Plus, the case is made of freakin' aluminum, a heatsink in itself.
Nods.
If Steve Jobs has one irritating flaw it is a persistent obsession with form factors that are needlessly wrought with limitation. The iMac gained little by Jobs slimming the depth and lost the ability to design in some sufficient cooling.
The 2.8Ghz X7900 currently used has a TDP of 44. I say get the message that Quad Core is the 2008 desktop standard for anything beyond the low end and redesign the iMac cases accordingly.
Apple is moving in the wrong direction here. They've raised the bar to get to a Mac Pro and frankly mobile parts for an expensive desktop are not a good compromise IMO.
Valid points. Nods in agreement. They could make a 30 incher thicker and justify that. Looks how deep some LCD TVs are...
Lemon Bon Bon.