1. Firewire 2 - I think that if anything changes next week, this will be introduced.
2. USB 2 - why would I want to connect my keyboard at "speeds up to 480 Mbps" I can't type at 7,345,653.7 words per second, so I would see no advantage. USB is fine the way it is. If you want somehting faster, I have an idea - FIREWIRE! I think firewire is a billion times more stable, and has a better name.
3. The new case design is VERY cool, I have seen promo poster designs for MWNY that show the case, and they are very much like Dorsal M described. Kind of xserve-ish, but with some white plastic that really makes it look awesome. And by the way, i hope you all realize (I am sure you do) that COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!
4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)
<strong>Well, the guy from railheaddesign.com has weighed in on the subject.
Here's what he's got to say:
QuickSilver is dead. Long live the White Apple (for a year or so, at least).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMO, I don't think the current towers would look good in that white colored plastic. I'd prefer a new tower that had a case that resembled the xserves.
3. The new case design is VERY cool, I have seen promo poster designs for MWNY that show the case, and they are very much like Dorsal M described. Kind of xserve-ish, but with some white plastic that really makes it look awesome. And by the way, i hope you all realize (I am sure you do) that COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!
1. Firewire 2 - I think that if anything changes next week, this will be introduced.
2. USB 2 - why would I want to connect my keyboard at "speeds up to 480 Mbps" I can't type at 7,345,653.7 words per second, so I would see no advantage. USB is fine the way it is. If you want somehting faster, I have an idea - FIREWIRE! I think firewire is a billion times more stable, and has a better name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, USB 2-only peripherals are starting to appear, unfortunately. Not keyboards, but external drives and similar things that really can use the higher bandwidth.
It's a tough call: If Apple adopts USB 2, they risk marginalizing FireWire, but if they don't, they risk marginalizing themselves. It depends on just how much momentum USB 2 has in the peripherals industry.
[quote]<strong>COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What?! No pea soup green TiBook!? That's it! Apple is GOING OUT OF BUSINESS!
[quote]<strong>While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it happens, certainly. It would also be, AFAIK, the first 50% jump in clockspeed since clock speeds were single digit MHz. Paired with Quartz Extreme and better mobo bandwidth, this should result in a much better than 50% jump in capability.
As Mandricard is fond of saying, hope springs eternal.
4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 500 Mhz increase without any additional pipelines would be rather nice.
A 500 Mhz increase without any additional pipelines would be rather nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As the current offerings are already nearly suffocated by the Logic Board a 1.5GZH all by itself would be a tragedy. There would never be the performance gains desired... and nowhere close to related percentile increases in speed.
? It seems that the total RAM amount will still max-out at 1.5GB ? but that seems odd to me?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually talked to an apple guy who was working on the classic module for OSX in January (just before MWSF) and I asked about RAM and 64Bit processing. His response was that in order to have more than 2gb of RAM you must have 64bit processing. He also said that the applications that *potentially* use 2gb of RAM had major errors/problems when they maxed it out in some of the early G4 machines that WERE capable of having 2gb ram (4 slots). He said that once 1.5gb was exceded stability dropped rappidly until you got to 64bit.
-He also made note that there are very few applications (litteral meaning, not necessarily programs) that use more than a gig of solid RAM at a time....
To put in my 2 cents I have 1 gig of ram in a B&W G3 and never really tap it all. It DOES make a heck of a lot of differene with OS X though. I usually use that much ram to run a million programs at once. (contrary to popular belief this seems to improve stability rather then lose it). I guess having extra ram keeps the system 'fed' as well as the applications. There is no question that I will max out the ram on whatever new system I get. I sure hope it has 2 gigs +.
The New York Macworld will be special and important. With a new store opening in the most artsy section of New York (SOHO). The is not a discount store shopping area, it's a art gallery $2000 and up section of town. Very classy. The World Trade Center will be on the minds of many, and I think Steve Jobs wants to make a lasting impression to lift up our collective spirits. Corporations can't afford to lie or mislead use anymore, they risk losing us forever. What ever comes will be what they can deliver, and deliver now not 2 to 3 months from now. I think this is why Apple is being so restrictive on information and press passes. But, this is just my hopeful opinion.
"I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit, or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so."
(Shakes head.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why shake your head? KidRed's point is quite valid. You're one of the most frequent bashers of Apple's performance lineup. Yet, I'm quite confident you have no first hand experience with a dual 1GHZ G4. Otherwise, you would complain so much about Apple's performance.
[quote]<strong>
Got an iBook. Well, it's my wife's. Despite 384 megs of ram...it don't handle 300 dpi Photoshop files at all well without being 'out of memory'...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great! This completely validates KidRed's point. Your basis for Apple's poor performance is from using Photoshop on an iBook (the slowest machine Apple sells). Based on your memory errors, I'll bet that you're not even using OS X, but using OS 9 and probably don't know how to set the memory allocation for the application manually.
[quote]<strong>
Am I in the market for an out of date machine? Nope.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's your definition of out of date? You are the typical type that likes to complain about the lack of DDR, yet completely dismisses the use of L3 cache and cannot possibly quantify the performance difference that DDR will add to real applications (not theoretical bandwidth) without the L3 cache, etc. In short, I doubt your definition of "up to date" will ever be satisfied based on what you believe "up to date" means. For most people, "up to date" means the latest offering.
[quote]<strong>
If Apple could do a 1.5 G4 at say £1,200 inc Vat. I'd think about that. But £2,400? Even for a dual processor...that's alot of money. Especially with a generational leap around the corner ie some kind of G5 on Rio.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great... Even if Apple produces a machine to your liking, you'll complain about the price and use that as an excuse to not upgrade. Then you'll use the "something better is around the corner" excuse. Guess what, something better will always be around the corner. Personally, I'd rather have the last version of the G4 than the first version of the G5. I intend to upgrade after MWNY, despite what may come out in January of next year.
[quote]<strong>
I really don't mind the premium. I didn't when I bought my last tower. Back then? Apple were competitive. Now? They're...well...it aint even funny. (Says through choked disbelief...y'know...at facing the 'reality' of where Apple's specs currently are...)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't think a dual 1.3 - 1.5 GHZ G4 is competitive with a P4 2.5 GHZ or Athlon 2100+, etc.? I'd be willing to bet you otherwise...
<strong>4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looking towards Cupertino, then closing my eyes, face lifting heavenward, aging Apple rainbow-logo keychain clenched firmly in my right hand:
I do believe! I do believe! I do believe!
Quick! Where are all of the naysayers!? I'm getting too excited, and I can feel my credit card twitching in my back pocket.
Well, if it aint Zealot Apologist Steve...complete with non-detachable RDF!
The guy who thinks 'power'Macs are competitive when most objective Mac people think otherwise and realise the shortcomings of the current 'power'Macs. Gee, wonder why people are debating the cpu so much? The lack of DDR? The single pumped bus? The lack of monitor or high end graphic card included? For twice the price of an Athlon system that can whup its ass?
My 'loyalty' to the Mac platform (stretched by poor hardware specs over the last year or so...)doesn't mean I'm going to shell out £2,500 for a beautiful but aged specced 'tower'.
But I know who you like to compare like with like...so how about you show me one benchmark where the latest dual Athlon crumples before the majestic power of the dual G4$?
Or perhaps we'll show how competitive Apple are on their 'cheapest' Tower and see how that compares with a competitive PC?
Like for like...Apple are competing worse now in the tower market than they did years ago... We don't get crappy rage cards anymore...but we pay a full premium to get access to Mac versions of Geforce Titaniums...
In a saturated market...Dell still thumps Apple! And Apple have 95% to go at!
The Stevie-guy who likes to think that the ponderous dual Gig G4 is a match for the latest Athlon single cpu machine half its price. And even if it was (in your fantasy land...) Mac users have to pay twice as much to get 'hanging in there performance?' We have to get two G4s to 'almost' beat 1 Athlon? What a pathetic loser argument.
Gee, well, if I don't know how to set my memory allocation then you can't read PC prices or use a dictionary because in no way are Apple's 'power'Macs in any way competitive at the moment with any comparable machine in their price brackets. Not on:
Price.
Memory.
Bus.
Graphic card.
Monitor included?
1.5 G4$? Catch up.
I'll buy when we have something like a next generation CPU/memory system on something like Hypertransport or Rio.
If you can waste your money on current machines...then do so. It's your choice afterall.
There is no way Apple is hosing my cheque book with antiquated tech'. And with our most optimistic or 'realistic' predictions...Apple will still be behind.
'Apple's Year' implies something really special is going to happen. A 'bumped' G4 isn't special.
Well, not to me it isn't.
I'd like to see Apple move to the next generation of PPC cpu. The symbolic 'G5'...with high speed memory and bus...don't care who makes it.
Last year we thought it'd be January 2002 for the G5. Yeesh. How wrong we were...it looks like late next year if Moki's hints ring true.
At current tower prices, the G5 would make Apple competitive again. In terms of marketability re: its Mhz and in terms of raw power to go with those high end apps they've bought. With Jaguar, a G5 system makes sense. Jaguar shouldn't be a crutch for aged glorified G3/G4s.
The only special thing Apple have done re: hardware this year is the LCD iMac. But bar the superdrive and superb styling...aged spec. Bus, memory, graphics and cpu poor for the price. Boost these to Geforce 4mx, 1 gig - 1.2 gig with DDR and improved bus with 17 inch LCD for top and hey. Not bad. Great for an iMac. Not for your 'Pentium' killing machine.
Boost the iMacs. Give the Towers the next gen' they desperately need. I'll buy. I'm sure others will too. In droves. But a stop gap machine?
You talk to me about this being 'Apple's year'?
I say it belongs to Jaguar which is really what the Mac is truly about.
But the hardware specs suck. They will do until we see a G5. Maybe next year will be 'Apple's Year' on the hardware front.
Yes Jaguar is the key to what ever is coming, Apple has hyped it enough..it's payoff time. i think low price is one of the major changes coming, people don't have the money they use to just for a computer they don't make money from.
Exactly illume. In a saturated PC market Apple must offer a compelling reason to upgrade/switch etc.
Jaguar may well be it. But Apple won't get the numbers they're after (10%...Steve Jobs wants to double market share...) unless it is 'compelling.'
Define 'compelling' for this years Mac show? I'll leave it up to you guys.
For me? If no G5 then Special Edition 1 gig G4, 17 inch LCD iMac with better bus, memory and Geforce 4mx.
If no bump then cut the damned prices. Under a grand at old imac prices? With only the top iMac over a grand. I'd buy!
What frustrates me most about Apple is when they are so close...in many respects. Just price the damn thing to go. Even in a rough economy...people know a bargain when the see one.
Comments
<strong>
Where did you see that? I can't see any mention of that anywhere on his site.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Scroll down my friend, it's at the bottom of the page
1. Firewire 2 - I think that if anything changes next week, this will be introduced.
2. USB 2 - why would I want to connect my keyboard at "speeds up to 480 Mbps" I can't type at 7,345,653.7 words per second, so I would see no advantage. USB is fine the way it is. If you want somehting faster, I have an idea - FIREWIRE! I think firewire is a billion times more stable, and has a better name.
3. The new case design is VERY cool, I have seen promo poster designs for MWNY that show the case, and they are very much like Dorsal M described. Kind of xserve-ish, but with some white plastic that really makes it look awesome. And by the way, i hope you all realize (I am sure you do) that COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!
4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)
<strong>Well, the guy from railheaddesign.com has weighed in on the subject.
Here's what he's got to say:
QuickSilver is dead. Long live the White Apple (for a year or so, at least).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMO, I don't think the current towers would look good in that white colored plastic. I'd prefer a new tower that had a case that resembled the xserves.
<strong>
3. The new case design is VERY cool, I have seen promo poster designs for MWNY that show the case, and they are very much like Dorsal M described. Kind of xserve-ish, but with some white plastic that really makes it look awesome. And by the way, i hope you all realize (I am sure you do) that COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good news. Any pics for us?
<strong>Let's see:
1. Firewire 2 - I think that if anything changes next week, this will be introduced.
2. USB 2 - why would I want to connect my keyboard at "speeds up to 480 Mbps" I can't type at 7,345,653.7 words per second, so I would see no advantage. USB is fine the way it is. If you want somehting faster, I have an idea - FIREWIRE! I think firewire is a billion times more stable, and has a better name.</strong><hr></blockquote>
However, USB 2-only peripherals are starting to appear, unfortunately. Not keyboards, but external drives and similar things that really can use the higher bandwidth.
It's a tough call: If Apple adopts USB 2, they risk marginalizing FireWire, but if they don't, they risk marginalizing themselves. It depends on just how much momentum USB 2 has in the peripherals industry.
[quote]<strong>COLORS ARE DEAD! There wont be a black imac, or a pea soup green titanium Powerbook. EVER!</strong><hr></blockquote>
What?! No pea soup green TiBook!? That's it! Apple is GOING OUT OF BUSINESS!
[quote]<strong>While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it happens, certainly. It would also be, AFAIK, the first 50% jump in clockspeed since clock speeds were single digit MHz. Paired with Quartz Extreme and better mobo bandwidth, this should result in a much better than 50% jump in capability.
As Mandricard is fond of saying, hope springs eternal.
<strong>
4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 500 Mhz increase without any additional pipelines would be rather nice.
a little more description please?
handles?
does it look like the El Capitan?
Curvey?
Boxy?
and did they keep the door??
(please say yes)
<strong>
A 500 Mhz increase without any additional pipelines would be rather nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As the current offerings are already nearly suffocated by the Logic Board a 1.5GZH all by itself would be a tragedy. There would never be the performance gains desired... and nowhere close to related percentile increases in speed.
<strong>
? It seems that the total RAM amount will still max-out at 1.5GB ? but that seems odd to me?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually talked to an apple guy who was working on the classic module for OSX in January (just before MWSF) and I asked about RAM and 64Bit processing. His response was that in order to have more than 2gb of RAM you must have 64bit processing. He also said that the applications that *potentially* use 2gb of RAM had major errors/problems when they maxed it out in some of the early G4 machines that WERE capable of having 2gb ram (4 slots). He said that once 1.5gb was exceded stability dropped rappidly until you got to 64bit.
-He also made note that there are very few applications (litteral meaning, not necessarily programs) that use more than a gig of solid RAM at a time....
<strong>To these people describing the new case . . .
a little more description please?
handles?
does it look like the El Capitan?
Curvey?
Boxy?
and did they keep the door??
(please say yes)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, I just saw a picture of it from a poster, but here is everything I could tell you with any reasonable accuracy:
1. overall it looked smaller than my G4. Could just be the way the photo was taken.
2. it did have handles
3. front looks like metal
4.there is still a door on the side. (it is open in the pic. i saw.
5. it is curvey but refined from current. It reminds me of the eMac. VS. iMac (old) in terms of evolution.
A contact at ClubMac just called me and asked if I wanted anything off their specials list.
"No I'm going to wait and see what comes out in the next six months" I said,
"You should see something in the next week or so" he pronounced.
Grain of salt,
Apply here.
<strong>
Original quote from KidRed:
"I usually see that the most people who bitch and moan about Apple slow speeds and poor quality machines with crappy specs either are running machines 5 yers old and therefore can't comment because they don't use Apple's current machines which are plenty fast for a lot of shit, or aren't in the market to buy shit. Whether Apple releases a G7 at 5ghz next week, most of the whiners wouldn't be buying because they aren't in the market to do so."
(Shakes head.)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why shake your head? KidRed's point is quite valid. You're one of the most frequent bashers of Apple's performance lineup. Yet, I'm quite confident you have no first hand experience with a dual 1GHZ G4. Otherwise, you would complain so much about Apple's performance.
[quote]<strong>
Got an iBook. Well, it's my wife's. Despite 384 megs of ram...it don't handle 300 dpi Photoshop files at all well without being 'out of memory'...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great! This completely validates KidRed's point. Your basis for Apple's poor performance is from using Photoshop on an iBook (the slowest machine Apple sells). Based on your memory errors, I'll bet that you're not even using OS X, but using OS 9 and probably don't know how to set the memory allocation for the application manually.
[quote]<strong>
Am I in the market for an out of date machine? Nope.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's your definition of out of date? You are the typical type that likes to complain about the lack of DDR, yet completely dismisses the use of L3 cache and cannot possibly quantify the performance difference that DDR will add to real applications (not theoretical bandwidth) without the L3 cache, etc. In short, I doubt your definition of "up to date" will ever be satisfied based on what you believe "up to date" means. For most people, "up to date" means the latest offering.
[quote]<strong>
If Apple could do a 1.5 G4 at say £1,200 inc Vat. I'd think about that. But £2,400? Even for a dual processor...that's alot of money. Especially with a generational leap around the corner ie some kind of G5 on Rio.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Great... Even if Apple produces a machine to your liking, you'll complain about the price and use that as an excuse to not upgrade. Then you'll use the "something better is around the corner" excuse. Guess what, something better will always be around the corner. Personally, I'd rather have the last version of the G4 than the first version of the G5. I intend to upgrade after MWNY, despite what may come out in January of next year.
[quote]<strong>
I really don't mind the premium. I didn't when I bought my last tower. Back then? Apple were competitive. Now? They're...well...it aint even funny. (Says through choked disbelief...y'know...at facing the 'reality' of where Apple's specs currently are...)
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't think a dual 1.3 - 1.5 GHZ G4 is competitive with a P4 2.5 GHZ or Athlon 2100+, etc.? I'd be willing to bet you otherwise...
Steve
<strong>4. While I believe (and hope) that a 1.4-1.6 G4 is possible and probable next week, no one seems to have mentioned that a 1GHZ-1.5GHZ jump is really a 500 Mhz increase. That is larger than any speed increase Apple has ever made. EVER! (I think...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Looking towards Cupertino, then closing my eyes, face lifting heavenward, aging Apple rainbow-logo keychain clenched firmly in my right hand:
I do believe! I do believe! I do believe!
Quick! Where are all of the naysayers!? I'm getting too excited, and I can feel my credit card twitching in my back pocket.
The guy who thinks 'power'Macs are competitive when most objective Mac people think otherwise and realise the shortcomings of the current 'power'Macs. Gee, wonder why people are debating the cpu so much? The lack of DDR? The single pumped bus? The lack of monitor or high end graphic card included? For twice the price of an Athlon system that can whup its ass?
My 'loyalty' to the Mac platform (stretched by poor hardware specs over the last year or so...)doesn't mean I'm going to shell out £2,500 for a beautiful but aged specced 'tower'.
But I know who you like to compare like with like...so how about you show me one benchmark where the latest dual Athlon crumples before the majestic power of the dual G4$?
Or perhaps we'll show how competitive Apple are on their 'cheapest' Tower and see how that compares with a competitive PC?
Like for like...Apple are competing worse now in the tower market than they did years ago... We don't get crappy rage cards anymore...but we pay a full premium to get access to Mac versions of Geforce Titaniums...
In a saturated market...Dell still thumps Apple! And Apple have 95% to go at!
The Stevie-guy who likes to think that the ponderous dual Gig G4 is a match for the latest Athlon single cpu machine half its price. And even if it was (in your fantasy land...) Mac users have to pay twice as much to get 'hanging in there performance?' We have to get two G4s to 'almost' beat 1 Athlon? What a pathetic loser argument.
Gee, well, if I don't know how to set my memory allocation then you can't read PC prices or use a dictionary because in no way are Apple's 'power'Macs in any way competitive at the moment with any comparable machine in their price brackets. Not on:
Price.
Memory.
Bus.
Graphic card.
Monitor included?
1.5 G4$? Catch up.
I'll buy when we have something like a next generation CPU/memory system on something like Hypertransport or Rio.
If you can waste your money on current machines...then do so. It's your choice afterall.
There is no way Apple is hosing my cheque book with antiquated tech'. And with our most optimistic or 'realistic' predictions...Apple will still be behind.
Lemon Bon Bon
This is getting really old.
Words. I guess it's 'which ones you use', eh?
'Apple's Year' implies something really special is going to happen. A 'bumped' G4 isn't special.
Well, not to me it isn't.
I'd like to see Apple move to the next generation of PPC cpu. The symbolic 'G5'...with high speed memory and bus...don't care who makes it.
Last year we thought it'd be January 2002 for the G5. Yeesh. How wrong we were...it looks like late next year if Moki's hints ring true.
At current tower prices, the G5 would make Apple competitive again. In terms of marketability re: its Mhz and in terms of raw power to go with those high end apps they've bought. With Jaguar, a G5 system makes sense. Jaguar shouldn't be a crutch for aged glorified G3/G4s.
The only special thing Apple have done re: hardware this year is the LCD iMac. But bar the superdrive and superb styling...aged spec. Bus, memory, graphics and cpu poor for the price. Boost these to Geforce 4mx, 1 gig - 1.2 gig with DDR and improved bus with 17 inch LCD for top and hey. Not bad. Great for an iMac. Not for your 'Pentium' killing machine.
Boost the iMacs. Give the Towers the next gen' they desperately need. I'll buy. I'm sure others will too. In droves. But a stop gap machine?
You talk to me about this being 'Apple's year'?
I say it belongs to Jaguar which is really what the Mac is truly about.
But the hardware specs suck. They will do until we see a G5. Maybe next year will be 'Apple's Year' on the hardware front.
Raise your glass to 'Jaguar'.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: illume Gallery ]</p>
Jaguar may well be it. But Apple won't get the numbers they're after (10%...Steve Jobs wants to double market share...) unless it is 'compelling.'
Define 'compelling' for this years Mac show? I'll leave it up to you guys.
For me? If no G5 then Special Edition 1 gig G4, 17 inch LCD iMac with better bus, memory and Geforce 4mx.
If no bump then cut the damned prices. Under a grand at old imac prices? With only the top iMac over a grand. I'd buy!
What frustrates me most about Apple is when they are so close...in many respects. Just price the damn thing to go. Even in a rough economy...people know a bargain when the see one.
Lemon Bon Bon
[ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Lemon Bon Bon ]</p>