Updated LCD iMac?
![[kevin]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar.php?gravatar_id=b007052f3e8b398bff8c93623f59a052&size=50&default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2Fb007052f3e8b398bff8c93623f59a052.png){kind=avatar}
I've been reading the different threads about MWNY, and it's quite clear that we will see something done with the PowerMac line. I will probably be purchasing an iMac after the keynote, waiting just in case something new is announced that I need. Anyway...the different threads have speculation of speed bumps for the iMac, but nobody knows for sure. Is it unlike Apple to revise a product six months after introducing the entirely new design? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
<strong>I've been reading the different threads about MWNY, and it's quite clear that we will see something done with the PowerMac line. I will probably be purchasing an iMac after the keynote, waiting just in case something new is announced that I need. Anyway...the different threads have speculation of speed bumps for the iMac, but nobody knows for sure. Is it unlike Apple to revise a product six months after introducing the entirely new design? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
No thats exactly what Apple does. Updates in the iMac line have gone like this in the past:
5 months, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, 7 months, 5 months, 6 months, 6 months. Don't believe me? Check out <a href="http://www.apple-history.com"; target="_blank">www.apple-history.com</a>
So yeah, I am currently favoring 2 waves of logic. One is (and the most likely) that a speed bumped iMac will appear at MWNY, with a 100-150 Mhz bump, keeping the 100 Mhz system bus. This would make the line 800/900 or 850/950 or some variation on that. Also possible to see a Combo drive standard on the low end. If this doesn't come, then its possible Apple will wait until Seybold and update the iMac with a 133 system bus and take it to 866/933. I don't see a 133 bus happening after 6 months of a BRAND new product though, so don't get your hopes up yet.
So yeah, you're good to wait until MWNY, and will most likely be pleased.
And if Powermacs are going to 1.5 GHz like some people here claim to have heard whispered about, then a 1 GHz iMac seems like a sure thing.
<strong>If Powermacs are bumped so that 1 GHz is the low end, then I don't see why iMacs can't be bumped to 1 GHz. There's no reason to putz around at 950 Mhz when 1GHz is attainable.
And if Powermacs are going to 1.5 GHz like some people here claim to have heard whispered about, then a 1 GHz iMac seems like a sure thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not as sure as you'd think. First off, a Ghz iMac with a 100 Mhz system bus would not be able to take advantage of the chip. It'd be almost pointless.
If the iMac went to a 133 bus then its more than likely, assuming a 1.5 Ghz tower (hypothetical), to see a Ghz iMac. But I don't know if they'd bump the bus quite yet, thus my guess that if the bump comes at MWNY, it'll be on the 100 bus at 900/950. And besides....nothing is EVER a sure thing with Apple.
1Ghz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1399
1GHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1699
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>
<strong>
Not as sure as you'd think. First off, a Ghz iMac with a 100 Mhz system bus would not be able to take advantage of the chip. It'd be almost pointless.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh and shipping a dual 1Ghz on 133Mhz bus isn't?
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: applenut ]</p>
256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1699 <hr></blockquote>
The current high-end iMac carries a 60 gig drive. Highly doubtful that anyone will see that go back to 40.
<strong>Here are the two models you'll see:
1Ghz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
CD-RW drive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1399
1GHz PowerPC G4
256MB SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA drive
SuperDrive
Geforce 4MX w/64MB
$1699
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Two models of the same speed chip without a higher/lower one? Nope. Won't happen. You'll never convince me otherwise. And yes....a 133 bus on a Dual Ghz Powermac is insane, but LESS insane than 100 Mhz, PLUS the Powermac has L3 cache which makes up a LOT.
<strong>
Two models of the same speed chip without a higher/lower one? Nope. Won't happen. You'll never convince me otherwise. And yes....a 133 bus on a Dual Ghz Powermac is insane, but LESS insane than 100 Mhz, PLUS the Powermac has L3 cache which makes up a LOT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
no. it's been shown that a dual 533 saturates the 133Mhz PowerMac bus while using altivec. 1ghz is starved no matter how much L3 cache it has.
133MHz bus? Yes, I just didn't state it.
L3 cache? No.
Your right. 1.2GHz on the high end.
<strong>The price difference comes from the addition of the SuperDrive.
133MHz bus? Yes, I just didn't state it.
L3 cache? No.
Your right. 1.2GHz on the high end.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.2 Ghz? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Good one. 400 Mhz jump on the brand new iMac? HAHA. And even a 1Ghz G4 without L3 cache is insane. applenut is right, a Dual 533 can saturate it without L3. Imagine a Ghz or 1.2 Ghz G4 with no L3.
BTW Applenut I never claimed the Powermacs weren't currently instruction-and-memory starved...they are. Badly. But what I was saying is that the L3 cache allows the chip to scale higher with some performance gain.
<strong>
BTW Applenut I never claimed the Powermacs weren't currently instruction-and-memory starved...they are. Badly. But what I was saying is that the L3 cache allows the chip to scale higher with some performance gain.</strong><hr></blockquote>
doesn't matter what you claimed about the powermacs. you claimed apple wouldn't go to 1Ghz on the iMac simply because it would not be able to feed it fast enough with the 100Mhz bus but the fact is Apple has had no problem do exactly that to the PowerMacs for a year now.
<strong>
doesn't matter what you claimed about the powermacs. you claimed apple wouldn't go to 1Ghz on the iMac simply because it would not be able to feed it fast enough with the 100Mhz bus but the fact is Apple has had no problem do exactly that to the PowerMacs for a year now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thats not the only reason I don't think the iMac will go to 1 Ghz. I also think that the 200 Mhz jump is fairly large with a computer thats still selling well. The Powermacs NEED a huge jump to continue selling, because they are maxed out and their audience, pros, know it. Consumers buying iMacs, though, don't know what kind of bus they are running, nor do they care. As long as consumers are buying the machine at its current speed/bus config, they will sell it that way. So add a 900-950 model and they'll sell well again. It's economics. People have no idea about the bus. I don't see Apple completely skipping over 900 Mhz to 1 Ghz for no reason. They'll sell 800s until demand poops out, then sell 900s until demand poops out, THEN do a Ghz model.
I also said that if Apple waits until Seybold for the update, its more likely to see a 133 bus and Ghz chip, because it will have been longer, and the consumers that WOULD have been happy with a 900/950 will now be demanding a Ghz-level machine, which Apple would pair with a 133 bus. So my reasoning is not 100 bus=no Ghz, its MWNY = no Ghz and 100 bus, Seybold = Ghz and 133 bus.
Rarely does Apple not follow the laws of Economics, and when they err, its usually on the other side. Like the Cube....people weren't willing to pay what Apple asked, so it failed. I doubt Apple will throw out a new machine causing demand to over run supply again...that would look poor to investors and make the stock shoot down.
Most of the time, we see the the low end version of a brand new revision as the same as the previous high end revision, but with a few "luxury" features traded out for across-the-board features. Example: iBooks used to be 500 MHz and 600 MHz, with either CD-ROM or Combo, and 8 MB VRAM across the board. Now the low end is a 600 MHz with the across-the-board feature of 16 MB VRAM, but with the "luxury" of the combo drive dropped in favor of the standard CD-ROM. Or the 733 MHz PowerMac, which went from high end to low end and also lost its Super Drive and L3 cache. Or the 800 MHz PowerMac, which also went from high end to low end and lost its Super Drive, L3 cache, and second processor.
Based on actual history, not just what I want to see, I'd say an iMac bump would look more like this:
800 MHz
CD-RW drive
256 MB RAM
40 GB HD
GeForce 2MX 32 MB
$1299
800 MHz
Combo drive
256 MB RAM
60 GB HD
GeForce 4MX 64 MB
$1599
1 GHz
Super Drive
512 MB RAM
60 GB HD
GeForce 4MX 64 MB
$1899
The higher end ones stay higher in price, while the low end simply adds MHz and 128 MB RAM to the current low end ones, at the original price. Also, currently, the RAM increases from low to middle, now it increases from middle to high. The HD size increases currently from middle to high, now it's low to middle. And we get better graphics cards in the two higher end ones (while we may get GF4s across the board, we won't still see GF2s across the board). Architecture should remain the same (no extra bus, or L3 cache, or AGP, unless we see one of those updated in the new PMs). Generally the low end iMac matches up well against the low end PM, so that's another good indicator of future performance.
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001787"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001787</a>;
And even if they were, why is that reason for Apple not to give them a decent speed bump? What, it's better to wait until a product is so under-speced that it's not even selling, and only then update it? That strategy will keep Apple on top for sure.
<strong>iMacs are NOT selling well:
<a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001787"; target="_blank">http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=001787</a>;
And even if they were, why is that reason for Apple not to give them a decent speed bump? What, it's better to wait until a product is so under-speced that it's not even selling, and only then update it? That strategy will keep Apple on top for sure.
New article...I hadn't read it yet--thanks for the link. ALL the more reason why it'll be updated at MWNY with less improvement than a later Seybold intro. And I'm not saying what would be Apple's BEST plan, I'm just reading straight out of Econ and Apple's history. Last summer could Apple have given us something better than the Quicksilvers they did? Sure. Why didn't they? They knew they could sell them with 867/ Dual 800. But now the Powermac is SOO OLD that it needs a huge update. Which is why I'm so grossly optimistic about the new Powermacs.
The new iMac is SOO new that looks still matter as much as anything. Maybe I'm grossly underestimating the iMac update (not impossible) and maybe that counter-balances my Powermac feelings. I HOPE they introduce a Ghz iMac with a 133 bus. It'd sure make marketing it a lot easier and make my life easier, but all I'm saying is I'm not expecting quite as much from the iMac as I am from the PowerMac.
History proves this. Apple released dual processor powermacs on 100 MHz system bus....and obviously that bus wasn't fast enough for the CPUs. Furthermore, they released the dp macs before OS X, before the OS could even take advantage of them.
I say 1 GHz iMacs are a good chance. If the Powermacs are bumped up to 1.4-1.5 GHz, then I say 1 GHz iMacs are an 85% probability.
The only reason 1GHz sounds too fast for an iMac is because Mac users haven't had time to get used to the fact that Apple has finally reached the gigahertz barrier.
While 1GHz on a Mac is still looked at in awe, 1GHz on a PC is yesterday's hardware. If Apple releases 1.5GHz PowerMacs at MWNY, as they're expected too, 1GHz will all of the sudden look well suited for a consumer Macintosh.
Yes, it's hard to believe, but Apple looks to finally join PCs in the 1GHz+ realm.
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>
I would say this pretty much points to an decent iMac bump, but what?s even better is that the iMac has been chewing into pro sales since it was released, so Apple has to be planning on jacking-up the specs of the towers pretty good as well (and based on the rumors on this board, it sounds likely).
Either way, I'm getting a new pro-machine after MWNY...
I think it's the display that's causing it.
I certanly wouldn't buy a 1024x768 non upgradable computer for that price. If they just seperated the display and offered 15" and 17" bundles... Then I'd pay attention.
Otherwise stick a 1400x1080 15" display on that arm.