I'd like to see the Cube come back, as long as you could fit a regular video card inside (heat issues notwithstanding). The price should be a little more than an iMac without monitor. A $200 premium isn't very much for that.
Design wise, the good think about the new imac is that it may allow for a 17" LCD option later. Assuming the CPU counterbalance is heavy enough, I see no reason why apple couldn't offer the bigger screen without having to make an entirely bigger product like the 14" ibook. This was a serious limitation of the old imac. Considering none of us has had a close up look at it, there may even be a simple connection in the swivel arm that allows the user to upgrade, but I doubt it considering you would then have a useless 15" lcd on your hands.
At the consumer level an "all in one" makes tons of sense. Its Apple's heritage. Only the more serious user feels the need to have a monitor option and / or the abiltiy to upgrade the video card. The imac should have preceded the cube, unquestionably. The imac really would have paved the way for its acceptance.
In reality though, the cubes problem was that it was Apples foray into the "mid level" market somewhere between consumer and pro level. That market does not exist. As we have seen with the imac, new releases in the consumer market have the ability to obsolete the pro stuff. Leaving scant room for any middle market offferings. The only way now to differentiate the product lines will be with the G5. Otherwise the pro stuff is just alot more money for the ability to use a bigger/more monitors. ...hardly worth the cost.
the point here was to make a cheap yet powerful mac, not whine about the monitor size. IMO the iMac's most expensive part is the LCD, and some people want a G4 to run OSX well, don't have a need for a new monitor, and find the towers too expensive. A headless iMac would appeal to those few.
As far as the iMac competing with the PowerMacs... Will you guys stop whining some day? For its price, I think the iMac is quite impressive, given it has the same CPU as the top PowerMac.
And of course, this can only mean the PowerMac speed update will be noticeable...
<strong>Seriously. Looking at the design, it wouldn't cost Apple too much in R&D to make an iMac without LCD. It would still look as cool, and if priced under 1k$, would sell like crazy IMO (G4 700 at that price +2mx is a real deal), especially to the crowd interested but for who it might be a bit expensive.
It would also, IMO, attract potential and waiting Wintel converts waiting for a real bargain.
Attaching a traditional CRT would of course look odd, but that isn't Apple's problem anymore. It's a cube without the price/performance problems.
Non?</strong><hr></blockquote>Your nuts! Gateway has an LCD all in one pc thats cheaper then the new idiot mac that looks way better and it isn't selling good at all! This new idiot mac is going the way of the cube!
I don't think they could attach a larger screen because of the weight in the base and the added weight of the larger screen, it would tip over. SJ even said something about it in the keynote. A counter weight would have to be added in the base to keep everything balanced, they might not even have any space in the base to put a counter weight in.
Since you can plug a monitor into the VGA Video Port on the back of the new iMac (which Apple says it support video mirroring at resolution up to 1,024 by 768). Do you think anybody would try to disassemble the new iMac to remove the monitor and just use the VGA Video Port with a different monitor?
At $1799 you get 800 MHz G4, SuperDrive, 60 GB Hard Drive, 256 MB of memory. Would seem like still a deal even if you removed the monitor and used the VGA Video Port?
[quote] I think it is f*ckin' hilarious that when the old iMac is out everyone cried because Apple never made a 17" iMac. Now you've got the viewable area the 17-incher would have had, and you're still whining. <hr></blockquote>
A 17" CRT display typically has a viewable area of 16", so you are the one who needs to stop whining.
I think it would serve Apple's interests better if instead of offering the iMac base separately, they sold the iMac with different sized displays. A 17" LCD iMac would be awesome! It would meet demand for a Mac system with a large display for under $2000, and it would make Apple more money than a headless iMac would.
If Apple offered a 17" LCD G4 iMac, I would buy one in an instant, for sure. Even if I had to take out a loan, I'd want it so bad that lust would rule over rational thought. Luckily, the 15" LCD is a bit too small for me, so I'm safe for now.
[quote]A 17" CRT display typically has a viewable area of 16", so you are the one who needs to stop whining. <hr></blockquote>
You are mistaken. The screen on my PowerBook G3/500 almost has the same viewable area as the 17" Dell Monitor I have at work. The new iMac's viewable area definitely matches the Dell 17" CRT.
As much as I "hate" to say this to all of you out there, if you need something larger than a 15" LCD, the iMac is not for you. It's not designed for you, it's not targeted at you.
You need to get something with a little more expandability and power than the new iMac. That would be the Power Mac. If you really need a larger screen, as in absolutely have to have the largest screen possible, then you are probably using it for a professional purpose (Photoshop, FCP 3, etc.). You probably need the ability to put in more than 1 GB of RAM, put in a 64-128 MB video card, throw in a few additional drives for storage, etc. The new iMac is NOT for you.
If you are buying this computer to play games and REALLY feel that you need to have a larger screen, then that's your decision. You're going to have to buy a Power Mac for that as well, because you're in the minority of Mac users. The new iMac is a GREAT gaming machine. 32 MB video card, G4 processor, lots of storage space, and an awesome 15" LCD screen. If that's not enough for you, than you need a Power Mac, not a 'headless iMac'.
A lot of iMacs were used in professional environments even when they had a crappy CRT. There are people who NEED a mac to work but can't AFFORD a powermac. They work slow, perhaps at times a little inconveniently, but they work. I think this new mac will find a lot of Pro users, just because of the value that it represents.
That said, a larger display is simply a matter of cost. The 17 ASD weighs only 3lbs more than the 15"ASD. But that's with all the plastic surround, feet, base etc... A scale mock-up on these boards has shown that the 17" LCD will fit in the current 15" LCD's bezel if the bezel is made thinner. Probably wouln't weigh more than 1-2 pounds more than the 15". The base is heavy enough for that, if not they can just make that bottom cover out of a heavier material. Problem solved. Done. 17" iMac on the top model only by this time next year. You read it here first.
[quote]You are mistaken. The screen on my PowerBook G3/500 almost has the same viewable area as the 17" Dell Monitor I have at work. The new iMac's viewable area definitely matches the Dell 17" CRT.<hr></blockquote>
Ok, you found a 17" CRT with an unusually small viewable area, but it's a Dell, so what did you expect? I said that TYPICALLY, 17" CRTs have 16" viewable area, not that all of them do, but most do. Here's some links to 17" CRTs made by 5 different manufacturers:
All of these 17" CRTs have 16" viewable area. So you're wrong, the 15" LCD iMac does NOT have as much viewable area as a typical 17" CRT.
[quote]As much as I "hate" to say this to all of you out there, if you need something larger than a 15" LCD, the iMac is not for you. It's not designed for you, it's not targeted at you.<hr></blockquote>
Ooohh, I hate it when people say things like this! This is FUTURE hardware, we talk about what we think will be made, what we want to be made, etc. Obviously, if I want a larger display than the CURRENT iMac has, I should buy a different computer! That's not what I'm talking about. The point that I made was that IF, meaning, HYPOTHETICALLY, if the iMac had a 17" LCD, I would buy one. To make it clear for you, this means that if Apple decided to make a G4 iMac with a 17" LCD instead of the 15" LCD, and put it on the market for people to buy, then I would pull the cash out of my account and buy it, because the iMac design in this case would match my needs for a larger display.
[quote]You need to get something with a little more expandability and power than the new iMac. <hr></blockquote>
What the hell does expandability and power have to do with the size of the iMac's display? Nothing. If Apple sold a 17" LCD iMac, then it would be fine for me. Expandability is nice, but I could live with Firewire/USB expandability...it's an ok trade off for me considering how cool the new iMac is. As for power, I'm not sure which cave you live in but the new iMac is nearly as powerful as the current Powermacs, and it most certainly could match the last powermac revision in performance. The new G4 iMac is one bad motherfu[ker, by any standard of home computer performance.
I get sick of all the people whining about other poster's desire for larger displays on the iMacs. The call for larger iMac displays stems from a desire to see Apple sell more iMacs. As I've noted before, among the Mac salesmen I've spoken with, they all feel that the iMac's display size is the biggest obstacle to more iMac sales. Thus, it follows that if the iMac had a 17" LCD, more people would buy it, Apple would become more profitable, they would have more money to spend on R&D, on OS X, the sorts of things that matter to all Mac users, not just iMac buyers.
The beauty of the new iMac is that Apple could easily, and with little design expenses, offer two G4 iMac models instead of one: the current 15" LCD model, and a 17" model. Apple could do this on a limited basis, just to see what demand is like. If the 17" iMac turns out to be a bust, then no great loss. But I'm confident that Apple would be stunned at how fast a 17" LCD iMac would fly off the shelves, as long as it's priced at around $1600-$1800.
Listen, if Apple can offer iBooks with two different display sizes, then they can do the same with the iMac. Both are consumer models. The main difference is that the iBook required an entire case redesign to fit the larger display, while an iMac would only require a few minor changes!
Comments
Seriously, I'd like Apple to offer an optional 17" LCD for the new iMac on the AppleStore, wouldn' you ?
[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: Prim ]</p>
Design wise, the good think about the new imac is that it may allow for a 17" LCD option later. Assuming the CPU counterbalance is heavy enough, I see no reason why apple couldn't offer the bigger screen without having to make an entirely bigger product like the 14" ibook. This was a serious limitation of the old imac. Considering none of us has had a close up look at it, there may even be a simple connection in the swivel arm that allows the user to upgrade, but I doubt it considering you would then have a useless 15" lcd on your hands.
At the consumer level an "all in one" makes tons of sense. Its Apple's heritage. Only the more serious user feels the need to have a monitor option and / or the abiltiy to upgrade the video card. The imac should have preceded the cube, unquestionably. The imac really would have paved the way for its acceptance.
In reality though, the cubes problem was that it was Apples foray into the "mid level" market somewhere between consumer and pro level. That market does not exist. As we have seen with the imac, new releases in the consumer market have the ability to obsolete the pro stuff. Leaving scant room for any middle market offferings. The only way now to differentiate the product lines will be with the G5. Otherwise the pro stuff is just alot more money for the ability to use a bigger/more monitors. ...hardly worth the cost.
<strong>If they make an iMac screenless, they'd better remove the swivel too, whereas everybody will call it "iBrator 2"
Seriously, I'd like Apple to offer an optional 17" LCD for the new iMac on the AppleStore, wouldn' you ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looks like a plunger to me. Another bathroom supply....
As far as the iMac competing with the PowerMacs... Will you guys stop whining some day? For its price, I think the iMac is quite impressive, given it has the same CPU as the top PowerMac.
And of course, this can only mean the PowerMac speed update will be noticeable...
<strong>If they make an iMac screenless, they'd better remove the swivel too, whereas everybody will call it "iBrator 2"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
ROFL!
<strong>Headless iMac=Flower vase?</strong><hr></blockquote>
HAHAHAHA
<strong>Seriously. Looking at the design, it wouldn't cost Apple too much in R&D to make an iMac without LCD. It would still look as cool, and if priced under 1k$, would sell like crazy IMO (G4 700 at that price +2mx is a real deal), especially to the crowd interested but for who it might be a bit expensive.
It would also, IMO, attract potential and waiting Wintel converts waiting for a real bargain.
Attaching a traditional CRT would of course look odd, but that isn't Apple's problem anymore. It's a cube without the price/performance problems.
Non?</strong><hr></blockquote>Your nuts! Gateway has an LCD all in one pc thats cheaper then the new idiot mac that looks way better and it isn't selling good at all! This new idiot mac is going the way of the cube!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
ROFL!
This new idiot mac is a piece of junk!!!
<strong>
This new idiot mac is a piece of junk!!!
PISS OFF TROLL. Go back to your trollville world of windblows asshole.
At $1799 you get 800 MHz G4, SuperDrive, 60 GB Hard Drive, 256 MB of memory. Would seem like still a deal even if you removed the monitor and used the VGA Video Port?
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
A 17" CRT display typically has a viewable area of 16", so you are the one who needs to stop whining.
I think it would serve Apple's interests better if instead of offering the iMac base separately, they sold the iMac with different sized displays. A 17" LCD iMac would be awesome! It would meet demand for a Mac system with a large display for under $2000, and it would make Apple more money than a headless iMac would.
If Apple offered a 17" LCD G4 iMac, I would buy one in an instant, for sure. Even if I had to take out a loan, I'd want it so bad that lust would rule over rational thought. Luckily, the 15" LCD is a bit too small for me, so I'm safe for now.
You are mistaken. The screen on my PowerBook G3/500 almost has the same viewable area as the 17" Dell Monitor I have at work. The new iMac's viewable area definitely matches the Dell 17" CRT.
As much as I "hate" to say this to all of you out there, if you need something larger than a 15" LCD, the iMac is not for you. It's not designed for you, it's not targeted at you.
You need to get something with a little more expandability and power than the new iMac. That would be the Power Mac. If you really need a larger screen, as in absolutely have to have the largest screen possible, then you are probably using it for a professional purpose (Photoshop, FCP 3, etc.). You probably need the ability to put in more than 1 GB of RAM, put in a 64-128 MB video card, throw in a few additional drives for storage, etc. The new iMac is NOT for you.
If you are buying this computer to play games and REALLY feel that you need to have a larger screen, then that's your decision. You're going to have to buy a Power Mac for that as well, because you're in the minority of Mac users. The new iMac is a GREAT gaming machine. 32 MB video card, G4 processor, lots of storage space, and an awesome 15" LCD screen. If that's not enough for you, than you need a Power Mac, not a 'headless iMac'.
[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
That said, a larger display is simply a matter of cost. The 17 ASD weighs only 3lbs more than the 15"ASD. But that's with all the plastic surround, feet, base etc... A scale mock-up on these boards has shown that the 17" LCD will fit in the current 15" LCD's bezel if the bezel is made thinner. Probably wouln't weigh more than 1-2 pounds more than the 15". The base is heavy enough for that, if not they can just make that bottom cover out of a heavier material. Problem solved. Done. 17" iMac on the top model only by this time next year. You read it here first.
Ok, you found a 17" CRT with an unusually small viewable area, but it's a Dell, so what did you expect? I said that TYPICALLY, 17" CRTs have 16" viewable area, not that all of them do, but most do. Here's some links to 17" CRTs made by 5 different manufacturers:
<a href="http://shop1.outpost.com/product/3170610/"; target="_blank">http://shop1.outpost.com/product/3170610/</a>;
<a href="http://shop1.outpost.com/template/games/"; target="_blank">http://shop1.outpost.com/template/games/</a>;
<a href="http://shop1.outpost.com/product/3161890/"; target="_blank">http://shop1.outpost.com/product/3161890/</a>;
<a href="http://shop1.outpost.com/product/2735723/"; target="_blank">http://shop1.outpost.com/product/2735723/</a>;
<a href="http://shop1.outpost.com/AdClick/accipiter/adclick.exe/AREA=HEADER.AD1A?7767620"; target="_blank">http://shop1.outpost.com/AdClick/accipiter/adclick.exe/AREA=HEADER.AD1A?7767620</a>;
All of these 17" CRTs have 16" viewable area. So you're wrong, the 15" LCD iMac does NOT have as much viewable area as a typical 17" CRT.
[quote]As much as I "hate" to say this to all of you out there, if you need something larger than a 15" LCD, the iMac is not for you. It's not designed for you, it's not targeted at you.<hr></blockquote>
Ooohh, I hate it when people say things like this! This is FUTURE hardware, we talk about what we think will be made, what we want to be made, etc. Obviously, if I want a larger display than the CURRENT iMac has, I should buy a different computer! That's not what I'm talking about. The point that I made was that IF, meaning, HYPOTHETICALLY, if the iMac had a 17" LCD, I would buy one. To make it clear for you, this means that if Apple decided to make a G4 iMac with a 17" LCD instead of the 15" LCD, and put it on the market for people to buy, then I would pull the cash out of my account and buy it, because the iMac design in this case would match my needs for a larger display.
[quote]You need to get something with a little more expandability and power than the new iMac. <hr></blockquote>
What the hell does expandability and power have to do with the size of the iMac's display? Nothing. If Apple sold a 17" LCD iMac, then it would be fine for me. Expandability is nice, but I could live with Firewire/USB expandability...it's an ok trade off for me considering how cool the new iMac is. As for power, I'm not sure which cave you live in but the new iMac is nearly as powerful as the current Powermacs, and it most certainly could match the last powermac revision in performance. The new G4 iMac is one bad motherfu[ker, by any standard of home computer performance.
I get sick of all the people whining about other poster's desire for larger displays on the iMacs. The call for larger iMac displays stems from a desire to see Apple sell more iMacs. As I've noted before, among the Mac salesmen I've spoken with, they all feel that the iMac's display size is the biggest obstacle to more iMac sales. Thus, it follows that if the iMac had a 17" LCD, more people would buy it, Apple would become more profitable, they would have more money to spend on R&D, on OS X, the sorts of things that matter to all Mac users, not just iMac buyers.
The beauty of the new iMac is that Apple could easily, and with little design expenses, offer two G4 iMac models instead of one: the current 15" LCD model, and a 17" model. Apple could do this on a limited basis, just to see what demand is like. If the 17" iMac turns out to be a bust, then no great loss. But I'm confident that Apple would be stunned at how fast a 17" LCD iMac would fly off the shelves, as long as it's priced at around $1600-$1800.
Listen, if Apple can offer iBooks with two different display sizes, then they can do the same with the iMac. Both are consumer models. The main difference is that the iBook required an entire case redesign to fit the larger display, while an iMac would only require a few minor changes!