snoopy, do you mean like a base that can accept various "display assemblies" rather than stand-alone displays? . . .
I'm not sure what you are asking. I am proposing some kind of simple method to firmly attach the LCD display to the top of the desktop Mac. It would not slide around, and you could carry the unit without fear of the monitor falling off. The attachment scheme would have to be unobtrusive, so the desktop computer and the monitors can be sold as stand-alone components, for those who do not want an AIO. The monitor connectors could be whatever Apple chooses. When the two units are attached together, an extremely short jumper cable can be used to connect them. The short jumper could be provided free when someone buys both desktop Mac and LCD display together. Otherwise it would be sold as an inexpensive accessory.
With regards to an iMac where you were able to fit interchangeable proprietary 'heads':
. . . I'd be surprised if they offered us that much unrestricted choice. Maybe the top of the range base unit could accept the entire range of displays - the 15", 17" & 19" flat panels. Whilst the entry level machine could only support the 15". That way they could say that the top of the range machine gave you the 'choice' when actually all they were trying to do was pressure you into buying that top of the range machine with that big hard disk etc. etc.
Whoa! I'm not suggesting something so all encompassing. I'm thinking about a low-end product where there is one, or maybe two, low cost LCD monitors that could attach. The better Apple displays should not be compromised in any way for this low-end product. I don't want to make any suggestions about the attachment method, except that I believe the engineers can figure out something that is simple, cheap and unobtrusive when either of the two parts is sold separately.
I run a video editing and digital media company and all I am currently using is an 800mhz 17'' iMac with 1gig of RAM and a 200gig firewire hard drive. Final Cut, DVD PRO 2 and After Effects all run without a hitch.
I don't imagine needing to update my system for at least 3-5 years unless media takes a sudden unexpected turn to, as yet, undiscovered essential technology. The question for me is why would I ever need another tower?
iMacs are powerful and beautiful, just like my girlfriend.
I run a video editing and digital media company and all I am currently using is an 800mhz 17'' iMac with 1gig of RAM and a 200gig firewire hard drive. Final Cut, DVD PRO 2 and After Effects all run without a hitch.
I don't imagine needing to update my system for at least 3-5 years unless media takes a sudden unexpected turn to, as yet, undiscovered essential technology. The question for me is why would I ever need another tower?
iMacs are powerful and beautiful, just like my girlfriend.
There are a couple reasons someone in your position might want a tower instead of an iMac.
1) A PowerMac can use more DDR SDRAM.
2) If as you say "media takes a sudden unexpected turn to an as yet undiscovered essential technology" you will be able to upgrade your PowerMac tower for less than the price of a new iMac. (For example, many of the current digital video editing programs don't require the fastest processor, but they run MUCH better with a top-of-the-line graphics/video card and lots of RAM. Likewise, three years ago few people expected Firewire 800 ... now it's standard. Two years from now you may require firewire 1600 ports on your computer if you want to use the newest gizmos ... that means you need a PCI slot to upgrade.)
3) If anything happens to the monitor in your all-in-one computer, you're screwed. If something happens to the monitor on a PowerMac, you just go buy a replacement monitor.
There are a couple reasons someone in your position might want a tower instead of an iMac.
To have the ultimate flexibility you seek, you should be able to upgrade the motherboard too. Motherboard technology is the key to upgradeability, not just cards.
Processor technology changes, bus technology changes, memory technology changes, slot technology changes, interfaces change all the time. You must be able to upgrade the motherboard to take advantage of this.
Apple will never make a "white box" or "barebones" PC.
There are a couple reasons someone in your position might want a tower instead of an iMac.
1) A PowerMac can use more DDR SDRAM.
2) If as you say "media takes a sudden unexpected turn to an as yet undiscovered essential technology" you will be able to upgrade your PowerMac tower for less than the price of a new iMac. (For example, many of the current digital video editing programs don't require the fastest processor, but they run MUCH better with a top-of-the-line graphics/video card and lots of RAM. Likewise, three years ago few people expected Firewire 800 ... now it's standard. Two years from now you may require firewire 1600 ports on your computer if you want to use the newest gizmos ... that means you need a PCI slot to upgrade.)
3) If anything happens to the monitor in your all-in-one computer, you're screwed. If something happens to the monitor on a PowerMac, you just go buy a replacement monitor.
I agree with you about the monitor, in fact you're right about everything.
By getting a faster Mac my productivity would take a slight upward turn due to processing.
Thing is that as the current one does everything I could ever conceive needing it for I still reckon my 3-5 year upgrade schedule will hold. Monitor withstanding of course.
When I was at film school (eight years ago) we were using Avid Media 100 running on insanely slow ageing Macs. The school still uses those same machines because they still do the job just fine.
I'm no Luddite and love shiny new things but I think that current technology should be wringed of its full potential before it is sent off to silicone heaven by the user.
I agree with you about the monitor, in fact you're right about everything.
By getting a faster Mac my productivity would take a slight upward turn due to processing.
Thing is that as the current one does everything I could ever conceive needing it for I still reckon my 3-5 year upgrade schedule will hold. Monitor withstanding of course.
When I was at film school (eight years ago) we were using Avid Media 100 running on insanely slow ageing Macs. The school still uses those same machines because they still do the job just fine.
I'm no Luddite and love shiny new things but I think that current technology should be wringed of its full potential before it is sent off to silicone heaven by the user.
OF COURSE!
The question isn't if older computers can get the job done ... of course they can. The question I'm addressing is will you be maximzing your workflow/productivity and will you still be able to do everything you need to two or three years from now?
I still have a PowerBook G3 with a 500MHz processor. I also have a new(er) PowerMac g4 with a 1.25GHz processor. The old PowerBook is still VERY useful. I was using it for my main computer until I got the new G4 PowerMac this year. That said, I am MUCH more productive on the PowerMac than I am on the PowerBook ... and I'll be able to upgrade the PowerMac for just a couple hundred if hardware requirements change in the next few years.
Don't get me wrong. The AIOs (eMacs and iMacs) are still great machines. It's just that they have certain limitations that towers don't. If hardware requirements change in a few years and you need different ports, more than 1GB of RAM, or a bigger graphics/video card, you'll have no choice but to buy a new computer. If you have a tower, you can either choose to buy a new computer or you can choose to buy just the components you need. I don't want to have to buy a new computer just because I need a better graphics/video card or a larger/faster hard drive.
As an owner of a current iMac (17", 1.2GHz, 512MB), I can say I'm really quite happy with it. Although, of course, I wish it had been a bit cheaper and , in particular, that Apple didn't make you pay for a SuperDrive in order to get a 17" screen. But it does have some advantages that make a big difference to me:
1) small desktop footprint, and
2) few cables (could be fewer with Bluetooth mouse and keyboard).
I don't have a lot of room for a big desk, so I really appreciate being able to have computing and writing/paper coexist in a very small area. While I like the aesthetics of the machine, it's these benefits that really make it worth it for me. Whatever Apple does for iMac3, I think it's essential that these aspects are maintained.
As for expandability, as a not very intensive user (internet, word processing, and PIM stuff mostly), I've always replaced computers rather than upgrading, i.e. by the time I need to upgrade (at least 2 years and probably more after purchase) replacing the machine is a better deal. At that point it's not just a video card that or RAM that needs upgrading. I think many people are like this.
Finally, I don't feel a laptop is a viable substitute for my needs. The screens are just too small. For writing in particular, I work best with two word processor windows open side by side. The iMac's 17" widescreen is perfect for this. (In any case, my institution doesn't make any provision for network access by laptops, so one would be virtually useless for me there, where I'd most like to use it. )
Bottom line: I think a cheaper version of AIO iMac is something Apple should continue to produce, and I'm certain that a cheaper pricepoint would result in a substantial improvement in sales. That said, I can't see why there couldn't be room for a headless, limited expansion model in Apple's lineup. If apple can somehow kill those two birds with one stone with the iMac3, as some have suggested, so much the better.
If as you say "media takes a sudden unexpected turn to an as yet undiscovered essential technology" you will be able to upgrade your PowerMac tower for less than the price of a new iMac.
On the other side, though, new technologies tend to take a while to be adopted. If FireWire 1600 comes out tomorrow, there will not suddenly be millions of forsaken FireWire 400 users wandering in the technological wilderness. FW 800 is here, and it's absolutely mandatory for... what? It sounds like womblingfree isn't exactly George Lucas pushing the tech envelope as far as it'll go in order to make really bad films, so the question is, can you buy something like an iMac and be assured that you can wring a useful life out of it before new technologies become mainstream and pervasive? And I think the answer is yes.
You're also underestimating the cost of upgrading. It's much cheaper on the PC side than on the Mac side. On our side of the fence it becomes hard to justify upgrades pretty quickly, mostly because as another poster noted you can't just swap out the motherboard, but also because Mac-specific parts (such as aftermarket CPU upgrades) are both more complicated to design and build and sold into a much smaller market.
I think a modicum of expansion wouldn't hurt, though it'd be a pain in the arse to integrate into the current iMac design.
So long as Apple sticks to industry standard I/O (PCI, PCI-X, AGP, PCI-Express) then engineering "upgrades" for the mac will be no more difficult than making them for the typical PC. The only sticking point is the CPU, that will always be more expensive to upgrade than the standardized sockets of AMD/Intel CPU families. Fine, this may be more to the point of a real consumer headless machine.
I think that there's a place for AIO, but it MUST be a heck of a lot cheaper than it currently is. If they need to move away from the current ddesign to get the price down, then I wouldn't waste too much time crying over the sunflower, kiss it good bye and let's have a true LCD "iMac"
It's pretty clear that the iMac belongs in the 1K price range. A little lower for budget buyers, and a little higher for people who want "extras" but the essential machine with most of main features (large screen, DVD burning) ought to be around a 1000USD by early next year for it to be competitive.
As it stands, Apple has some work to do get the price down nearly 800USD in the next 4-5 months while bumping specs (especially the meagre standard RAM and HDD allotments.)
My thought is that even if you don't know you'll need an extra slot, you never know. I didn't think i would need one, but I ended up putting an IDE RAID card in. I could also go for updating my graphics card to something more modern.
But, let's say joe smoe is looking at buying a compter and he sees that he can't add any cards to the iMac, he might say this "I don't need to add anything to my computer right now, but what if something new comes out and i don't want to buy a whole new computer? i better get that Dell for the same price because I can expand it and I can use my old screen. I remember when USB 2 came out, i was SOL with my iMac, while all my tower friends were adding USB 2.0 cards to their computer. I'm not falling for that again."
Thats why. Granted, we have firewire, and who cares about USB, but you get the point.
Unlikely. they were just updated in september. That would be under a four month cycle.
Well, what, it was just a speed bump, right? No new processor. No new form factor.
At least the iBook got a new processor. I could see the iMacs getting renewed at MWSF. If you don't see the prices coming down on the current models in the next couple weeks, though, chances get slimmer; I assume they'll want to try to get inventory down at some point before releasing too significant an update.
I too just sold an Apple portable on eBay and am holding the money for a new Mac. You can bet your arse I'm waiting until the end of the first week in January to do anything.
Hard to believe this once-adored product is now so widely ignored (if not outright hated).
Not true. Hated on this forum != hated in real life. I know quite a few people who absolutely love the form of the current iMac. All I dislike about it is that there is no G5 and no high end video card. Fix the price/performance and you would have a winning product again.
People on this forum tend to think of themselves as the Mac intelligentsia. If they were right, then the cube would have sold well. AIO is a valid way to go for Apple and the iMac is a good product that just needs a rev.
Besides, we all remember how pathetic the last G4 tower rev was before the G5's came out, don't we? Does that seem familiar to anyone when they look at the last iMac rev?
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
snoopy, do you mean like a base that can accept various "display assemblies" rather than stand-alone displays? . . .
I'm not sure what you are asking. I am proposing some kind of simple method to firmly attach the LCD display to the top of the desktop Mac. It would not slide around, and you could carry the unit without fear of the monitor falling off. The attachment scheme would have to be unobtrusive, so the desktop computer and the monitors can be sold as stand-alone components, for those who do not want an AIO. The monitor connectors could be whatever Apple chooses. When the two units are attached together, an extremely short jumper cable can be used to connect them. The short jumper could be provided free when someone buys both desktop Mac and LCD display together. Otherwise it would be sold as an inexpensive accessory.
Originally posted by Messiah
With regards to an iMac where you were able to fit interchangeable proprietary 'heads':
. . . I'd be surprised if they offered us that much unrestricted choice. Maybe the top of the range base unit could accept the entire range of displays - the 15", 17" & 19" flat panels. Whilst the entry level machine could only support the 15". That way they could say that the top of the range machine gave you the 'choice' when actually all they were trying to do was pressure you into buying that top of the range machine with that big hard disk etc. etc.
Whoa! I'm not suggesting something so all encompassing. I'm thinking about a low-end product where there is one, or maybe two, low cost LCD monitors that could attach. The better Apple displays should not be compromised in any way for this low-end product. I don't want to make any suggestions about the attachment method, except that I believe the engineers can figure out something that is simple, cheap and unobtrusive when either of the two parts is sold separately.
I don't imagine needing to update my system for at least 3-5 years unless media takes a sudden unexpected turn to, as yet, undiscovered essential technology. The question for me is why would I ever need another tower?
iMacs are powerful and beautiful, just like my girlfriend.
g
Originally posted by womblingfree
I run a video editing and digital media company and all I am currently using is an 800mhz 17'' iMac with 1gig of RAM and a 200gig firewire hard drive. Final Cut, DVD PRO 2 and After Effects all run without a hitch.
I don't imagine needing to update my system for at least 3-5 years unless media takes a sudden unexpected turn to, as yet, undiscovered essential technology. The question for me is why would I ever need another tower?
iMacs are powerful and beautiful, just like my girlfriend.
There are a couple reasons someone in your position might want a tower instead of an iMac.
1) A PowerMac can use more DDR SDRAM.
2) If as you say "media takes a sudden unexpected turn to an as yet undiscovered essential technology" you will be able to upgrade your PowerMac tower for less than the price of a new iMac. (For example, many of the current digital video editing programs don't require the fastest processor, but they run MUCH better with a top-of-the-line graphics/video card and lots of RAM. Likewise, three years ago few people expected Firewire 800 ... now it's standard. Two years from now you may require firewire 1600 ports on your computer if you want to use the newest gizmos ... that means you need a PCI slot to upgrade.)
3) If anything happens to the monitor in your all-in-one computer, you're screwed. If something happens to the monitor on a PowerMac, you just go buy a replacement monitor.
There are a couple reasons someone in your position might want a tower instead of an iMac.
To have the ultimate flexibility you seek, you should be able to upgrade the motherboard too. Motherboard technology is the key to upgradeability, not just cards.
Processor technology changes, bus technology changes, memory technology changes, slot technology changes, interfaces change all the time. You must be able to upgrade the motherboard to take advantage of this.
Apple will never make a "white box" or "barebones" PC.
Originally posted by rustedborg
There are a couple reasons someone in your position might want a tower instead of an iMac.
1) A PowerMac can use more DDR SDRAM.
2) If as you say "media takes a sudden unexpected turn to an as yet undiscovered essential technology" you will be able to upgrade your PowerMac tower for less than the price of a new iMac. (For example, many of the current digital video editing programs don't require the fastest processor, but they run MUCH better with a top-of-the-line graphics/video card and lots of RAM. Likewise, three years ago few people expected Firewire 800 ... now it's standard. Two years from now you may require firewire 1600 ports on your computer if you want to use the newest gizmos ... that means you need a PCI slot to upgrade.)
3) If anything happens to the monitor in your all-in-one computer, you're screwed. If something happens to the monitor on a PowerMac, you just go buy a replacement monitor.
I agree with you about the monitor, in fact you're right about everything.
By getting a faster Mac my productivity would take a slight upward turn due to processing.
Thing is that as the current one does everything I could ever conceive needing it for I still reckon my 3-5 year upgrade schedule will hold. Monitor withstanding of course.
When I was at film school (eight years ago) we were using Avid Media 100 running on insanely slow ageing Macs. The school still uses those same machines because they still do the job just fine.
I'm no Luddite and love shiny new things but I think that current technology should be wringed of its full potential before it is sent off to silicone heaven by the user.
Originally posted by womblingfree
I agree with you about the monitor, in fact you're right about everything.
By getting a faster Mac my productivity would take a slight upward turn due to processing.
Thing is that as the current one does everything I could ever conceive needing it for I still reckon my 3-5 year upgrade schedule will hold. Monitor withstanding of course.
When I was at film school (eight years ago) we were using Avid Media 100 running on insanely slow ageing Macs. The school still uses those same machines because they still do the job just fine.
I'm no Luddite and love shiny new things but I think that current technology should be wringed of its full potential before it is sent off to silicone heaven by the user.
OF COURSE!
The question isn't if older computers can get the job done ... of course they can. The question I'm addressing is will you be maximzing your workflow/productivity and will you still be able to do everything you need to two or three years from now?
I still have a PowerBook G3 with a 500MHz processor. I also have a new(er) PowerMac g4 with a 1.25GHz processor. The old PowerBook is still VERY useful. I was using it for my main computer until I got the new G4 PowerMac this year. That said, I am MUCH more productive on the PowerMac than I am on the PowerBook ... and I'll be able to upgrade the PowerMac for just a couple hundred if hardware requirements change in the next few years.
Don't get me wrong. The AIOs (eMacs and iMacs) are still great machines. It's just that they have certain limitations that towers don't. If hardware requirements change in a few years and you need different ports, more than 1GB of RAM, or a bigger graphics/video card, you'll have no choice but to buy a new computer. If you have a tower, you can either choose to buy a new computer or you can choose to buy just the components you need. I don't want to have to buy a new computer just because I need a better graphics/video card or a larger/faster hard drive.
1) small desktop footprint, and
2) few cables (could be fewer with Bluetooth mouse and keyboard).
I don't have a lot of room for a big desk, so I really appreciate being able to have computing and writing/paper coexist in a very small area. While I like the aesthetics of the machine, it's these benefits that really make it worth it for me. Whatever Apple does for iMac3, I think it's essential that these aspects are maintained.
As for expandability, as a not very intensive user (internet, word processing, and PIM stuff mostly), I've always replaced computers rather than upgrading, i.e. by the time I need to upgrade (at least 2 years and probably more after purchase) replacing the machine is a better deal. At that point it's not just a video card that or RAM that needs upgrading. I think many people are like this.
Finally, I don't feel a laptop is a viable substitute for my needs. The screens are just too small. For writing in particular, I work best with two word processor windows open side by side. The iMac's 17" widescreen is perfect for this. (In any case, my institution doesn't make any provision for network access by laptops, so one would be virtually useless for me there, where I'd most like to use it.
Bottom line: I think a cheaper version of AIO iMac is something Apple should continue to produce, and I'm certain that a cheaper pricepoint would result in a substantial improvement in sales. That said, I can't see why there couldn't be room for a headless, limited expansion model in Apple's lineup. If apple can somehow kill those two birds with one stone with the iMac3, as some have suggested, so much the better.
Originally posted by rustedborg
If as you say "media takes a sudden unexpected turn to an as yet undiscovered essential technology" you will be able to upgrade your PowerMac tower for less than the price of a new iMac.
On the other side, though, new technologies tend to take a while to be adopted. If FireWire 1600 comes out tomorrow, there will not suddenly be millions of forsaken FireWire 400 users wandering in the technological wilderness. FW 800 is here, and it's absolutely mandatory for... what? It sounds like womblingfree isn't exactly George Lucas pushing the tech envelope as far as it'll go in order to make really bad films, so the question is, can you buy something like an iMac and be assured that you can wring a useful life out of it before new technologies become mainstream and pervasive? And I think the answer is yes.
You're also underestimating the cost of upgrading. It's much cheaper on the PC side than on the Mac side. On our side of the fence it becomes hard to justify upgrades pretty quickly, mostly because as another poster noted you can't just swap out the motherboard, but also because Mac-specific parts (such as aftermarket CPU upgrades) are both more complicated to design and build and sold into a much smaller market.
Originally posted by Amorph
[B It sounds like womblingfree isn't exactly George Lucas pushing the tech envelope as far as it'll go in order to make really bad films[/B]
I'd like to have seen Attack of the Clones produced on an iMac and directed by Lars Von Trier. Now THAT would be a good movie
So long as Apple sticks to industry standard I/O (PCI, PCI-X, AGP, PCI-Express) then engineering "upgrades" for the mac will be no more difficult than making them for the typical PC. The only sticking point is the CPU, that will always be more expensive to upgrade than the standardized sockets of AMD/Intel CPU families. Fine, this may be more to the point of a real consumer headless machine.
I think that there's a place for AIO, but it MUST be a heck of a lot cheaper than it currently is. If they need to move away from the current ddesign to get the price down, then I wouldn't waste too much time crying over the sunflower, kiss it good bye and let's have a true LCD "iMac"
It's pretty clear that the iMac belongs in the 1K price range. A little lower for budget buyers, and a little higher for people who want "extras" but the essential machine with most of main features (large screen, DVD burning) ought to be around a 1000USD by early next year for it to be competitive.
As it stands, Apple has some work to do get the price down nearly 800USD in the next 4-5 months while bumping specs (especially the meagre standard RAM and HDD allotments.)
We'll see.
Hard to believe this once-adored product is now so widely ignored (if not outright hated).
But, let's say joe smoe is looking at buying a compter and he sees that he can't add any cards to the iMac, he might say this "I don't need to add anything to my computer right now, but what if something new comes out and i don't want to buy a whole new computer? i better get that Dell for the same price because I can expand it and I can use my old screen. I remember when USB 2 came out, i was SOL with my iMac, while all my tower friends were adding USB 2.0 cards to their computer. I'm not falling for that again."
Thats why. Granted, we have firewire, and who cares about USB, but you get the point.
I'm bankin on Jan at the EXPO.
What are your thoughts?
Originally posted by Dr_Holistic
So I just sold my Powerbook over ebay and was curious when people would predict the new iMac update would occur...
I'm bankin on Jan at the EXPO.
What are your thoughts?
Unlikely. they were just updated in september. That would be under a four month cycle.
Originally posted by Flounder
Unlikely. they were just updated in september. That would be under a four month cycle.
Well, what, it was just a speed bump, right? No new processor. No new form factor.
At least the iBook got a new processor. I could see the iMacs getting renewed at MWSF. If you don't see the prices coming down on the current models in the next couple weeks, though, chances get slimmer; I assume they'll want to try to get inventory down at some point before releasing too significant an update.
I too just sold an Apple portable on eBay and am holding the money for a new Mac. You can bet your arse I'm waiting until the end of the first week in January to do anything.
Originally posted by pscates
Wow, how the mighty little jellybean has fallen.
Hard to believe this once-adored product is now so widely ignored (if not outright hated).
Not true. Hated on this forum != hated in real life. I know quite a few people who absolutely love the form of the current iMac. All I dislike about it is that there is no G5 and no high end video card. Fix the price/performance and you would have a winning product again.
People on this forum tend to think of themselves as the Mac intelligentsia. If they were right, then the cube would have sold well. AIO is a valid way to go for Apple and the iMac is a good product that just needs a rev.
Besides, we all remember how pathetic the last G4 tower rev was before the G5's came out, don't we? Does that seem familiar to anyone when they look at the last iMac rev?
prices
1.4 GHz G4, 512 MB RAM, 60 GB HD, ATI Radeon 9000 Pro $ 1299
1.25 GHz G4, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB HD, any video cheap card $ 999