This whole discussion of the iMac brings back memories from years (decades, actually) ago one night when Joan Rivers was guest-hosting on the Johnny Carson show. Rivers was poking fun at Elizabeth Taylor's large weight gain during her monologue:
"She has more chins than the Shanghai phone book".
Compared to the Sunflower, it looks pretty Dell-ish.
What is not Dell-ish about it, though, and Apple deserves credit for this, is that it is rather quiet.
But, frankly, the iMac could be improved by being a bit more Dell-ish in a few ways, such as having component and/or HDMI inputs for the display. Only Apple requires you to buy their display when you want a mid-range Mac and furthermore only they make it so that you can't use the display for much of anything else.
The basic design convention of the iMac comes from the Apple Cinema Display introduced in 2005. If their is any similarity to any product of Dell, it's because Dell is copying Apple's design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
The current iMac couldn't look any more "Dell-ish"
HDMI and component are audio/video ports, not computer ports.
The iMac is a computer not a television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phong
But, frankly, the iMac could be improved by being a bit more Dell-ish in a few ways, such as having component and/or HDMI inputs for the display. Only Apple requires you to buy their display when you want a mid-range Mac and furthermore only they make it so that you can't use the display for much of anything else.
Little of what you said made sense, but I can respond to this statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The iMac is a computer not a television.
Not a single television sold today comes without multiple computer chips working on various audio and imaging functions. The distinction between television and computer displays today is completely nonexistent. They're all computer displays. Furthermore, all computers are audio/video systems.
All electronic gadgets have at least some basic form of microprocessing. That's about what they all have in common.
Their are obvious and clear differnces between a computer and a television. An iMac is not sitting in the middle of my entertainment system. My 42" HDTV is not sitting in my office running OS X and it's software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phong
Little of what you said made sense, but I can respond to this statement.
Not a single television sold today comes without multiple computer chips working on various audio and imaging functions. The distinction between television and computer displays today is completely nonexistent. They're all computer displays. Furthermore, all computers are audio/video systems.
Most apple dealers in the u.k are out of stock on 24 inch imacs and only a few department stores have got the ones on display left.So could be sooner than later.
The basic design convention of the iMac comes from the Apple Cinema Display introduced in 2005. If their is any similarity to any product of Dell, it's because Dell is copying Apple's design.
The Apple Cinema display never had a cheap black back plastic with an embossed Apple- so Dell.
Will somebody please think of the CHILDREN? Why is nobody thinking of the CHILDREN!!
Edit:
Replace "CHILDREN" with GRAPHICS
WHY IS NOBODY THINKING ABOUT THE GRAPHICS? 9600GT 256MB IN ENTRY LEVEL IMAC COMEON APPLE PLEASSSSEE I don't want to have to build a PC just to play me games... Please please please
I seriously hope Apple does not have just a 9400M integrated in the new entry level 20" iMac ... Which means, they probably will ... The 9400M is no significant improvement from the ATI 2400XT 128MB.
Almost a year since the update of the iMac, the ATI 2400XT is old, old news, I hope they put a 9600GT in the *entry level* iMac. Sorry, but I couldn't give a flying frak about quad-core.
Letting the public know of updates hurts Apple's bottom line. If you were told today that new iMacs were coming out next month you'd wait until next month to get one right? Of course you would! The majority of others would do the same. So now, what does Apple do with the remaining old inventory? They either sell it off cheaply thus, not making as much money off it, or letting someone like overstock.com try and get rid of it which also would hurt Apple's bottom line. Yes there are people that will buy the old stock anyways between Apple's announcement of a new iMac and the day its actually introduced, but the majority of people would wait.
Plus it also gives Apple's competitors an opportunity to get a kick start on a competing product, possibly before Apple gets to release they're new/updated product.
As much as everyone hates it, this is not an uncommon practice by businesses. You don't see Chrysler telling you when the next Chrysler 300 will be out do you? You don't really know until its made available to order from the dealer.
I completely agree with you.
In the last 6 months we have heard rumors of the iPhone nano, Mac mini, iMacs etc... Its all rumors.
Apple wants to sell out old stock. Not warn people and then be stuck with it.
It may be true that new Macs are coming, duh the last refresh was almost a year ago for iMac, and years for everything else except the Macbooks.
I say in February a new iMac with Duo Core, nVidia card, FW800 and USB, LED displays, thinner all silver like the LED display today and bigger HD with Ram of 4 GB
1. I don't see any reason to have a blu-ray drive on an iMac or any Mac for that reason. There isn't any software on blu-ray discs. Apple wants you to use the iTunes Store to obtain TV Shows, Movies, etc instead of buying them on blu-ray. For HD, they want you to get an AppleTV. Or you could use something else via the internet to get your HD fix.
Well a good reason would be to let the user either watch Blu-ray movies, or burn Blu-ray disks...
If Apple wanted you to buy a AppleTV to view HD movies/TV shows, then why don't they star selling one that supports it properly. No HD audio support on either, and only 720p video support, and more expensive than purchasing physical media. Also, at least with a Blu-ray disk I can purchased it from any number of countries, rather than being restricted by what Apple wants to sell me.
It's not that simple their are other factors to be considered.
Apple would have to license and implement the various layers of Blu-ray DRM. I doubt Apple is interested in more DRM in OS X.
Their are no BD drives that fit into the MacBooks and iMac.
BD storage is more expensive per GB than HD storage.
I cannot see Apple TV and iTunes movies being more expensive than a BD player and BD discs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Well a good reason would be to let the user either watch Blu-ray movies, or burn Blu-ray disks...
If Apple wanted you to buy a AppleTV to view HD movies/TV shows, then why don't they star selling one that supports it properly. No HD audio support on either, and only 720p video support, and more expensive than purchasing physical media. Also, at least with a Blu-ray disk I can purchased it from any number of countries, rather than being restricted by what Apple wants to sell me.
It should be noted that should the iMacs adopt the Intel chips singled out by DigiTimes, it would mark a significant architectural shift for the desktop line, which has long relied on the same breed of mobile chips found in Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro lines. The quad-core chips in question are true desktop-oriented processors with a higher thermal design point.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop processors have been waiting for iMacs since last November 17, 2008. See:
The Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 65 nm CPU has been available for $266 since November 2007, and $224 since April 20, 2008, but was never used by Apple for the iMac because it was not a mobile processor (the iMac being a MacBook on a pedestal !!!). See:
Now that the quad-core desktop Core i7 CPU (code name: Nehalem) is available, fairly inexpensive and 20% more powerful than a quad-core Penryn desktop processor, it would be yet another mistake to delay the adoption of the Core i7 desktop processor in favor of a lower spec, previous generation Penryn quad-core processor for "all in one" computers. See:
Top dollars go for the latest technology. We deserve no less. Core i7 it will be if Apple wants to grow its market share with a competitive desktop computer.
Excellent- well put. How much thicker would it need to be anyway? Desktops are meant to stay put anyway not be mobile. It could also probably then be kept cooler as well.
Ya gotta have the chin..........where would you put the logo???
Comments
The current iMac couldn't look any more "Dell-ish"
Say what????
My name is Lisa Chin and I am very offended.
This whole discussion of the iMac brings back memories from years (decades, actually) ago one night when Joan Rivers was guest-hosting on the Johnny Carson show. Rivers was poking fun at Elizabeth Taylor's large weight gain during her monologue:
"She has more chins than the Shanghai phone book".
it could also just mean that Apple is trying to avoid having too much inventory
in a struggling economy.
Say what????
Compared to the Sunflower, it looks pretty Dell-ish.
What is not Dell-ish about it, though, and Apple deserves credit for this, is that it is rather quiet.
But, frankly, the iMac could be improved by being a bit more Dell-ish in a few ways, such as having component and/or HDMI inputs for the display. Only Apple requires you to buy their display when you want a mid-range Mac and furthermore only they make it so that you can't use the display for much of anything else.
The current iMac couldn't look any more "Dell-ish"
The iMac is a computer not a television.
But, frankly, the iMac could be improved by being a bit more Dell-ish in a few ways, such as having component and/or HDMI inputs for the display. Only Apple requires you to buy their display when you want a mid-range Mac and furthermore only they make it so that you can't use the display for much of anything else.
The iMac is a computer not a television.
Not a single television sold today comes without multiple computer chips working on various audio and imaging functions. The distinction between television and computer displays today is completely nonexistent. They're all computer displays. Furthermore, all computers are audio/video systems.
Their are obvious and clear differnces between a computer and a television. An iMac is not sitting in the middle of my entertainment system. My 42" HDTV is not sitting in my office running OS X and it's software.
Little of what you said made sense, but I can respond to this statement.
Not a single television sold today comes without multiple computer chips working on various audio and imaging functions. The distinction between television and computer displays today is completely nonexistent. They're all computer displays. Furthermore, all computers are audio/video systems.
Say what????
That cheap black plastic on the back with the embossed Apple is pure "DELL".
The basic design convention of the iMac comes from the Apple Cinema Display introduced in 2005. If their is any similarity to any product of Dell, it's because Dell is copying Apple's design.
The Apple Cinema display never had a cheap black back plastic with an embossed Apple- so Dell.
Edit:
Replace "CHILDREN" with GRAPHICS
WHY IS NOBODY THINKING ABOUT THE GRAPHICS? 9600GT 256MB IN ENTRY LEVEL IMAC COMEON APPLE PLEASSSSEE I don't want to have to build a PC just to play me games... Please please please
http://www.macworld.com/article/1362...kgraphics.html
I seriously hope Apple does not have just a 9400M integrated in the new entry level 20" iMac ... Which means, they probably will
Almost a year since the update of the iMac, the ATI 2400XT is old, old news, I hope they put a 9600GT in the *entry level* iMac. Sorry, but I couldn't give a flying frak about quad-core.
Letting the public know of updates hurts Apple's bottom line. If you were told today that new iMacs were coming out next month you'd wait until next month to get one right? Of course you would! The majority of others would do the same. So now, what does Apple do with the remaining old inventory? They either sell it off cheaply thus, not making as much money off it, or letting someone like overstock.com try and get rid of it which also would hurt Apple's bottom line. Yes there are people that will buy the old stock anyways between Apple's announcement of a new iMac and the day its actually introduced, but the majority of people would wait.
Plus it also gives Apple's competitors an opportunity to get a kick start on a competing product, possibly before Apple gets to release they're new/updated product.
As much as everyone hates it, this is not an uncommon practice by businesses. You don't see Chrysler telling you when the next Chrysler 300 will be out do you? You don't really know until its made available to order from the dealer.
I completely agree with you.
In the last 6 months we have heard rumors of the iPhone nano, Mac mini, iMacs etc... Its all rumors.
Apple wants to sell out old stock. Not warn people and then be stuck with it.
It may be true that new Macs are coming, duh the last refresh was almost a year ago for iMac, and years for everything else except the Macbooks.
I say in February a new iMac with Duo Core, nVidia card, FW800 and USB, LED displays, thinner all silver like the LED display today and bigger HD with Ram of 4 GB
Exactly how do you equate plastic or embossed logos to Dell? Or do you just make this stuff up as you go along?
The Apple Cinema display never had a cheap black back plastic with an embossed Apple- so Dell.
1. I don't see any reason to have a blu-ray drive on an iMac or any Mac for that reason. There isn't any software on blu-ray discs. Apple wants you to use the iTunes Store to obtain TV Shows, Movies, etc instead of buying them on blu-ray. For HD, they want you to get an AppleTV. Or you could use something else via the internet to get your HD fix.
Well a good reason would be to let the user either watch Blu-ray movies, or burn Blu-ray disks...
If Apple wanted you to buy a AppleTV to view HD movies/TV shows, then why don't they star selling one that supports it properly. No HD audio support on either, and only 720p video support, and more expensive than purchasing physical media. Also, at least with a Blu-ray disk I can purchased it from any number of countries, rather than being restricted by what Apple wants to sell me.
Apple would have to license and implement the various layers of Blu-ray DRM. I doubt Apple is interested in more DRM in OS X.
Their are no BD drives that fit into the MacBooks and iMac.
BD storage is more expensive per GB than HD storage.
I cannot see Apple TV and iTunes movies being more expensive than a BD player and BD discs.
Well a good reason would be to let the user either watch Blu-ray movies, or burn Blu-ray disks...
If Apple wanted you to buy a AppleTV to view HD movies/TV shows, then why don't they star selling one that supports it properly. No HD audio support on either, and only 720p video support, and more expensive than purchasing physical media. Also, at least with a Blu-ray disk I can purchased it from any number of countries, rather than being restricted by what Apple wants to sell me.
It should be noted that should the iMacs adopt the Intel chips singled out by DigiTimes, it would mark a significant architectural shift for the desktop line, which has long relied on the same breed of mobile chips found in Apple's MacBook and MacBook Pro lines. The quad-core chips in question are true desktop-oriented processors with a higher thermal design point.
The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop processors have been waiting for iMacs since last November 17, 2008. See:
- Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/
- Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/
- Intel Core i7 processor pricing @ http://files.shareholder.com/downloa..._1ku_Price.pdf
The Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 65 nm CPU has been available for $266 since November 2007, and $224 since April 20, 2008, but was never used by Apple for the iMac because it was not a mobile processor (the iMac being a MacBook on a pedestal !!!). See:
- Intel releases sixteen new Penryn processors for servers and high-end @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34800/118/
- Intel to cut 65 nm quad-core processor prices for 45 nm @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36136/139/
- Intel drops second quad-core CPU into the mainstream @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37038/135/
- Have quad-core processors arrived in the mainstream? @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36548/135/
- Intel adds cheap dual-core, quad-core @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39135/135/
- Intel lowers CPU prices up to 48% on server, quads, duals and mobile @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/41092/135/
Now that the quad-core desktop Core i7 CPU (code name: Nehalem) is available, fairly inexpensive and 20% more powerful than a quad-core Penryn desktop processor, it would be yet another mistake to delay the adoption of the Core i7 desktop processor in favor of a lower spec, previous generation Penryn quad-core processor for "all in one" computers. See:
- Intel to launch 65W desktop CPUs for all-in-one PCs @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40267/139/
Top dollars go for the latest technology. We deserve no less. Core i7 it will be if Apple wants to grow its market share with a competitive desktop computer.
Excellent- well put. How much thicker would it need to be anyway? Desktops are meant to stay put anyway not be mobile. It could also probably then be kept cooler as well.
Ya gotta have the chin..........where would you put the logo???