JYD always goes with the popular vote. If it has become obvious that something positive is going to happen he will second the motion ( I found this out last January ) but, if things start sounding like the negative he panics and starts bad mouthing apple. Pretty strange huh?
Junkyard, focus for a second this stuff is coming from another web site not from Apple! MWSF hasn't happened yet!
Just like last year I think things are going to be looking up next monday. No, I don't have any special powers ( or drunk Apple employee friends ) I just watch things and colate the information. Be logical junky. Apple wouldn't be hyping this themselves if they had nothing. The resulting bad PR wouldn't go away for a long time ( long enough to be damaging ).
I don't think Steve wants another MW like the last one and hyping it when you know you have nothing is a sure way to make that happen. Here's to many new things on Monday ( what they are we will have to wait and see ).
PS. One more thing.......the digital something what ever it is won't be enough to match the hype ( and they have got to know this ) so there has to be some big product changes or I can hear the groans from the crowd already. You don't talk for two hours about one thing and a stale product line.
mine is fine for 1024x768.... Or maybe im just used to it...
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mine too! Who has and uses a slot loading iMac at 1024x768 and believes the display is crappy?
Bigger doesn't do any good unless there is a HIGHER RESOLUTION. So I say again, why bother with a 1024x768 LCD (which is the current resolution for Apple's 15" LCD). I PREDICT: iMac's will have a widescreen, with something like 1280x768. Those of you who want bigger screens really mean you want higher resolution. The new iMac's need to have a higher resolution than today's (and I believe they will).
Mine too! Who has and uses a slot loading iMac at 1024x768 and believes the display is crappy?
Bigger doesn't do any good unless there is a HIGHER RESOLUTION. So I say again, why bother with a 1024x768 LCD (which is the current resolution for Apple's 15" LCD). I PREDICT: iMac's will have a widescreen, with something like 1280x768. Those of you who want bigger screens really mean you want higher resolution. The new iMac's need to have a higher resolution than today's (and I believe they will).</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>As for the hype comment...think about it. The less Apple has to hype, the more they NEED to hype. A G5 hypes itself...but a 100 MHz speedbumped G4 needs hype.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with this thinking is that you forget about the fallout .
Jobs' knows very well he'd be castrated by investors and users if he hyped something this much and had nothing. In fact, he'd stand more to lose if he did this.
Mac loyalist would never again take his word and may just jump ship.
No, me thinks the big show will reveal something somewhere between what these rumour boards are saying (which some border on ludicrous) and what Jobs' truly believes is revolutionary (which may not be that at all).
<strong>There was a good post by Amorph in a different thread about how the hype isn't about chip speed, like everyone here thinks. It's about digital hub and software-hardware integration, like iTunes-iPod.
We all know that Apple's biggest limitation right now is their price-performance. So that's what we want to change. But Apple is limited by others in that respect. When the G5 is ready, they'll release it as fast as they possibly can. But in the meantime, Jobs sees Apple's uniqueness in their ability to create a total hardware-software solution.
What we know is that there will be a beautiful new iMac at about 700-800 Mhz, faster PowerMacs maybe even with a dual 1Ghz, and perhaps even speed bumps to some laptops.
But is that all? It could be, but probably not.
My guess is that the iMac will do something special. The only thing I can think of is some type of digital hub connection with home entertainment devices. Here are some guesses:
2. It could have the ability to link to third-party entertainment appliances like stereo equipment or TVs.
3. It could be another iPod-like device that uses some iTunes-like software to integrate with the Mac. Example: an Apple digital camera or camcorder specially made to link with Apple software like iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD.
4. Rather than a portable Apple device, it could be some appliance-like Apple device, like a DVD player/recorder that works seamlessly with bundled Apple software on the iMac.
4. It could be iPhoto software designed to work with third-party cameras, rather than an Apple camera.
5. It may have something to do with the new MPEG-4 standard and QuickTime. A TiVO-like PVR that compresses better with MPEG-4?
Just some hypotheses. Any other possibilities along these lines?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. A nice baby step would be front accessible Firewire Ports (either on the front or the side next to the front where you can find them without craning your neck or turning the unit. Firewire seems to be connection method Apple is going for with its digital lifestyle devices, which is very nice (speed, power through the bus, etc) but it's a pain in the hindquarters to play "fumble for the firewire port"
2. I am fairly nonplussed as how any of these options are worthy of the hype Apple has been dishing. To be worthy of "it's like a backstage pass to the future" the new products from Apple would need to be able to significantly improve the digital device-human interaction or be dramatically ahead of their time in features/capabilities (A 1.5 Ghz G5 that runs neck and neck with the 2 Ghz P4 while it is a very nice thing is not "the future", a system that runs at the speed Wintel is hoping to achieve 1-2 years from now is perhaps "the future").
What I would consider to be "the future" would be a much faster/more capable unit that uses its new "horsepower" to make it possible for me to interact with the computer in a much more refined way to get my work done and manage my life. "The future" is not a Mac that takes 1.9 seconds to scroll through a Word document instead of 2.5, it is a device that transcends our expectations for what a digital device can do to make our lives better. This takes more megahertz, RAM, etc, but that is really the easy part. Envisioning and creating the new paradigm-busting solutions is the hard part, and as witnessed by Apple's history does not guarantee profits for the innovator.
That is the future, Mr Jobs, and I hope you are able to deliver what you have promised. I have my doubts if today's Apple is anything more than a Macintosh box builder that has delusions of beating Sony in building gadgets. Still, I hope that the Pirate flag is still flying somewhere at one infinite loop.
I Just hope apple doesn't make TOO much of a thing about passing 1 Ghz. After banging on about the megahertz myth for them to say "1Ghz.. how impressive is that? " would just make them a laughing stock. Any kind of Ghz coming out party would just make apple look like they sucked. which they don't.
<strong>Right. And 800x600 is not really acceptable anymore for anyone that wants to use a web page. XGA is the minimum for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On my iMac I always thought that 1024x768 was the best but overall I got tired looking at that CRT after a while.
On my Bondi iMac I keep the resolution at 1024x768, mostly because I do a lot of web design, and anything less than that in OS X looks like sh!t (I never tire of looking at this screen, some say the Bondi's display was the best iMac display and it's all downhill from there). But if Apple is going to release a new LCD iMac, my hope is that they will increase the resolution significantly, because OS X needs it bad.
<strong>Who has and uses a slot loading iMac at 1024x768 and believes the display is crappy?</strong><hr></blockquote>I do, and I believe it is crappy. If you think it's great, your standards are too low. 75hz is objectively crappy. I agree with the other stuff you said about resolution, but too small is a problem. I stare at computer screen text just about all day every day, and size does matter, not just resolution.
<strong>I do, and I believe it is crappy. If you think it's great, your standards are too low. 75hz is objectively crappy. I agree with the other stuff you said about resolution, but too small is a problem. I stare at computer screen text just about all day every day, and size does matter, not just resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I used to have an imac and I have a bunch of them at school. I don't mind 1024x768, I actually can't stand 800x600. Course, then again I have a 17" with 1600x1200/75hz and it doesn't bother me so....
Applenut has a point (whats your real name by the way, it is so weird to call people applenut and other weird handles around here...)
Eventhough it would be nice to see a bigger res. screen like the TiBook's 1152x768 or just 1152x870 for more room on the screen, the overall plusses that applenut has laid out above (plus the power and heat savings) would be good enough for me.
Applenut has a point (whats your real name by the way, it is so weird to call people applenut and other weird handles around here...)
Eventhough it would be nice to see a bigger res. screen like the TiBook's 1152x768 or just 1152x870 for more room on the screen, the overall plusses that applenut has laid out above (plus the power and heat savings) would be good enough for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
name is Eric if you must know
agree that the res should be bumped up a bit though. I think it would make sent to make both the Powerbook and iMac the same DPI as the current iBook which is quite good
<strong>My real name is Chris, if that helps you be comfortable? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It just makes things easyer, I mean how many people have Mac or Apple in their names? Isnt it enough that you are on a website for the rumors about a company? How crazy do you need to get? You are still you! With so many people being similarly named, it can be hard to differenticate sometimes. Unless of course you talk in verse or ebonics like some other people on this board <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
anyways, back on topic, what were we talking about again?
1. A nice baby step would be front accessible Firewire Ports (either on the front or the side next to the front where you can find them without craning your neck or turning the unit. Firewire seems to be connection method Apple is going for with its digital lifestyle devices, which is very nice (speed, power through the bus, etc) but it's a pain in the hindquarters to play "fumble for the firewire port.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand it. Why can't you just leave a firewire cable plugged into the firewire ports and plug that into various devices (there aren't any devices I can think of that have the firewire cable permenantly attached). No fumbling necessary.
I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand it. Why can't you just leave a firewire cable plugged into the firewire ports and plug that into various devices (there aren't any devices I can think of that have the firewire cable permenantly attached). No fumbling necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just a cable flopping around on the desk in the way, not to mention when you take your iThingy to grandma's house and plug it in to her iMac I bet she wasn't so thoughtful as to have pre-strung a firewire cable for you
Comments
Junkyard, focus for a second this stuff is coming from another web site not from Apple! MWSF hasn't happened yet!
Just like last year I think things are going to be looking up next monday. No, I don't have any special powers ( or drunk Apple employee friends ) I just watch things and colate the information. Be logical junky. Apple wouldn't be hyping this themselves if they had nothing. The resulting bad PR wouldn't go away for a long time ( long enough to be damaging ).
I don't think Steve wants another MW like the last one and hyping it when you know you have nothing is a sure way to make that happen. Here's to many new things on Monday ( what they are we will have to wait and see ).
PS. One more thing.......the digital something what ever it is won't be enough to match the hype ( and they have got to know this ) so there has to be some big product changes or I can hear the groans from the crowd already. You don't talk for two hours about one thing and a stale product line.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
mine is fine for 1024x768.... Or maybe im just used to it...
-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mine too! Who has and uses a slot loading iMac at 1024x768 and believes the display is crappy?
Bigger doesn't do any good unless there is a HIGHER RESOLUTION. So I say again, why bother with a 1024x768 LCD (which is the current resolution for Apple's 15" LCD). I PREDICT: iMac's will have a widescreen, with something like 1280x768. Those of you who want bigger screens really mean you want higher resolution. The new iMac's need to have a higher resolution than today's (and I believe they will).
<strong>
Mine too! Who has and uses a slot loading iMac at 1024x768 and believes the display is crappy?
Bigger doesn't do any good unless there is a HIGHER RESOLUTION. So I say again, why bother with a 1024x768 LCD (which is the current resolution for Apple's 15" LCD). I PREDICT: iMac's will have a widescreen, with something like 1280x768. Those of you who want bigger screens really mean you want higher resolution. The new iMac's need to have a higher resolution than today's (and I believe they will).</strong><hr></blockquote>
why bother?
1.) bigger viewing area. 13.8 inch is a joke.
2.) brighter display
3.) sharper display
4.) better contrast ratio
5.) no flicker/easier on the eyes
6.) smaller footprint
<strong>As for the hype comment...think about it. The less Apple has to hype, the more they NEED to hype. A G5 hypes itself...but a 100 MHz speedbumped G4 needs hype.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with this thinking is that you forget about the fallout .
Jobs' knows very well he'd be castrated by investors and users if he hyped something this much and had nothing. In fact, he'd stand more to lose if he did this.
Mac loyalist would never again take his word and may just jump ship.
No, me thinks the big show will reveal something somewhere between what these rumour boards are saying (which some border on ludicrous) and what Jobs' truly believes is revolutionary (which may not be that at all).
<strong>There was a good post by Amorph in a different thread about how the hype isn't about chip speed, like everyone here thinks. It's about digital hub and software-hardware integration, like iTunes-iPod.
We all know that Apple's biggest limitation right now is their price-performance. So that's what we want to change. But Apple is limited by others in that respect. When the G5 is ready, they'll release it as fast as they possibly can. But in the meantime, Jobs sees Apple's uniqueness in their ability to create a total hardware-software solution.
What we know is that there will be a beautiful new iMac at about 700-800 Mhz, faster PowerMacs maybe even with a dual 1Ghz, and perhaps even speed bumps to some laptops.
But is that all? It could be, but probably not.
My guess is that the iMac will do something special. The only thing I can think of is some type of digital hub connection with home entertainment devices. Here are some guesses:
1. It could have some of the features of <a href="http://www.sonystyle.com/vaio/mx/index.shtml"; target="_blank">that Sony Vaio MX</a> we were talking about a few weeks ago.
2. It could have the ability to link to third-party entertainment appliances like stereo equipment or TVs.
3. It could be another iPod-like device that uses some iTunes-like software to integrate with the Mac. Example: an Apple digital camera or camcorder specially made to link with Apple software like iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD.
4. Rather than a portable Apple device, it could be some appliance-like Apple device, like a DVD player/recorder that works seamlessly with bundled Apple software on the iMac.
4. It could be iPhoto software designed to work with third-party cameras, rather than an Apple camera.
5. It may have something to do with the new MPEG-4 standard and QuickTime. A TiVO-like PVR that compresses better with MPEG-4?
Just some hypotheses. Any other possibilities along these lines?</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. A nice baby step would be front accessible Firewire Ports (either on the front or the side next to the front where you can find them without craning your neck or turning the unit. Firewire seems to be connection method Apple is going for with its digital lifestyle devices, which is very nice (speed, power through the bus, etc) but it's a pain in the hindquarters to play "fumble for the firewire port"
2. I am fairly nonplussed as how any of these options are worthy of the hype Apple has been dishing. To be worthy of "it's like a backstage pass to the future" the new products from Apple would need to be able to significantly improve the digital device-human interaction or be dramatically ahead of their time in features/capabilities (A 1.5 Ghz G5 that runs neck and neck with the 2 Ghz P4 while it is a very nice thing is not "the future", a system that runs at the speed Wintel is hoping to achieve 1-2 years from now is perhaps "the future").
What I would consider to be "the future" would be a much faster/more capable unit that uses its new "horsepower" to make it possible for me to interact with the computer in a much more refined way to get my work done and manage my life. "The future" is not a Mac that takes 1.9 seconds to scroll through a Word document instead of 2.5, it is a device that transcends our expectations for what a digital device can do to make our lives better. This takes more megahertz, RAM, etc, but that is really the easy part. Envisioning and creating the new paradigm-busting solutions is the hard part, and as witnessed by Apple's history does not guarantee profits for the innovator.
That is the future, Mr Jobs, and I hope you are able to deliver what you have promised. I have my doubts if today's Apple is anything more than a Macintosh box builder that has delusions of beating Sony in building gadgets. Still, I hope that the Pirate flag is still flying somewhere at one infinite loop.
<strong>Right. And 800x600 is not really acceptable anymore for anyone that wants to use a web page. XGA is the minimum for that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
On my iMac I always thought that 1024x768 was the best but overall I got tired looking at that CRT after a while.
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>Who has and uses a slot loading iMac at 1024x768 and believes the display is crappy?</strong><hr></blockquote>I do, and I believe it is crappy. If you think it's great, your standards are too low. 75hz is objectively crappy. I agree with the other stuff you said about resolution, but too small is a problem. I stare at computer screen text just about all day every day, and size does matter, not just resolution.
<strong>I do, and I believe it is crappy. If you think it's great, your standards are too low. 75hz is objectively crappy. I agree with the other stuff you said about resolution, but too small is a problem. I stare at computer screen text just about all day every day, and size does matter, not just resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I used to have an imac and I have a bunch of them at school. I don't mind 1024x768, I actually can't stand 800x600. Course, then again I have a 17" with 1600x1200/75hz and it doesn't bother me so....
<strong>
why bother?
1.) bigger viewing area. 13.8 inch is a joke.
2.) brighter display
3.) sharper display
4.) better contrast ratio
5.) no flicker/easier on the eyes
6.) smaller footprint</strong><hr></blockquote>
Applenut has a point (whats your real name by the way, it is so weird to call people applenut and other weird handles around here...)
Eventhough it would be nice to see a bigger res. screen like the TiBook's 1152x768 or just 1152x870 for more room on the screen, the overall plusses that applenut has laid out above (plus the power and heat savings) would be good enough for me.
<strong>
Applenut has a point (whats your real name by the way, it is so weird to call people applenut and other weird handles around here...)
Eventhough it would be nice to see a bigger res. screen like the TiBook's 1152x768 or just 1152x870 for more room on the screen, the overall plusses that applenut has laid out above (plus the power and heat savings) would be good enough for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
name is Eric if you must know
agree that the res should be bumped up a bit though. I think it would make sent to make both the Powerbook and iMac the same DPI as the current iBook which is quite good
<strong>My real name is Chris, if that helps you be comfortable? <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It just makes things easyer, I mean how many people have Mac or Apple in their names? Isnt it enough that you are on a website for the rumors about a company? How crazy do you need to get? You are still you! With so many people being similarly named, it can be hard to differenticate sometimes. Unless of course you talk in verse or ebonics like some other people on this board <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
anyways, back on topic, what were we talking about again?
-Paul
I have a feeling you'll get to know me over time
[ 01-03-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
<strong>
1. A nice baby step would be front accessible Firewire Ports (either on the front or the side next to the front where you can find them without craning your neck or turning the unit. Firewire seems to be connection method Apple is going for with its digital lifestyle devices, which is very nice (speed, power through the bus, etc) but it's a pain in the hindquarters to play "fumble for the firewire port.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand it. Why can't you just leave a firewire cable plugged into the firewire ports and plug that into various devices (there aren't any devices I can think of that have the firewire cable permenantly attached). No fumbling necessary.
<strong>
I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand it. Why can't you just leave a firewire cable plugged into the firewire ports and plug that into various devices (there aren't any devices I can think of that have the firewire cable permenantly attached). No fumbling necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just a cable flopping around on the desk in the way, not to mention when you take your iThingy to grandma's house and plug it in to her iMac I bet she wasn't so thoughtful as to have pre-strung a firewire cable for you