Umm... I had the same question as schrumpl, actually.
I too was disappointed that the 17-incher stayed at 800 MHz. I attribute this to the Power Macs keeping the iMac line pinned until they can manage a boost.
I doubt Apple will leave the iMac at 800MHz for one year -- which is what waiting till MWSF would entail (if you allow for the announcement-shipping differential).
I'm expecting to see a bump this fall. In fact, I'm delaying my purchase for that reason. I'd be really happy with 1GHz on a 133MHz bus, which I think is quite reasonable. If the bump is less... then I might have to wait longer.
Curse the Power Macs! Curse this strategy of cripping the consumer machines because the pro line can't cut the muster!
Anyway, I don't think it's too early to speculate about an iMac update. We're not early, the Power Macs (and thus the iMacs) are behind!
I was thinking about getting the new 17" iMac as well. But, aside from the G4 which really should be 1GHz (but isn't for the obvious reasons), you can not easily upgrade the cheap HD and weak graphics card - so I am holding back for now.
Also, I wish there was an option for a combo drive. I have no use for a Super Drive which cripples the CDRW speeds and the DVD burning is just too slow right now. I really wouldn't use it.
For $1999, the 17" iMac should have:
1GHz G4
80GB 7200rpm HD
256MB RAM (up to 1GB option)
24X or better Combo Drive (Super Drive Option)
nVidia Ti200 or better 64MB Graphics Card
Even these specs won't blow you away, but it's certainly more bang for your buck. This hardware is readily available and is not expensive - so why not use it? My theory is, if you can not offer faster processors and bus speeds, etc - then make up for it in areas where you *can* offer faster hardware (like speedy HDs and video cards).
That kinda speaks to what I've been gently screaming for a year or two: it would be NICE if Apple designed their stuff to be a tad more customizable and able-to-be-configured to the customer's liking.
EVERYONE is digging on the 17" widescreen iMac and it's resolution. But not everyone wants to spend $1999 and have the SuperDrive or that particular video card.
Like the era of the colors, you get "locked" into certain features based on colors (can't get a Sage CD-ROM)...or couldn't get a Ruby DVD or whatever.
They dangle a cool 17" widescreen in front of you (which everyone wants), BUT offer it in ONE model, with ONE specific set of specs and for ONE price only.
I'd love for Apple - just to shut me up - to try a yearlong experiment in "build your Mac the way you want it" approach from the online store (RAM, hard drive, optical drive and video card in EVERY Mac - consumer, pro, laptop, desktop - was up to the customer's needs/budget).
If you weren't into games/graphics and didn't need a lot of hard drive space, you should be able to get a speedy, stripped down TiBook that matches your needs with a basic video card and a 20GB hard drive or whatever.
Conversely, you could trick out your new LCD iMac with a 120GB hard drive, top-of-the-line video card and whatever else you desired and were willing to pay for.
Comments
I too was disappointed that the 17-incher stayed at 800 MHz. I attribute this to the Power Macs keeping the iMac line pinned until they can manage a boost.
I doubt Apple will leave the iMac at 800MHz for one year -- which is what waiting till MWSF would entail (if you allow for the announcement-shipping differential).
I'm expecting to see a bump this fall. In fact, I'm delaying my purchase for that reason. I'd be really happy with 1GHz on a 133MHz bus, which I think is quite reasonable. If the bump is less... then I might have to wait longer.
Curse the Power Macs! Curse this strategy of cripping the consumer machines because the pro line can't cut the muster!
Anyway, I don't think it's too early to speculate about an iMac update. We're not early, the Power Macs (and thus the iMacs) are behind!
Also, I wish there was an option for a combo drive. I have no use for a Super Drive which cripples the CDRW speeds and the DVD burning is just too slow right now. I really wouldn't use it.
For $1999, the 17" iMac should have:
1GHz G4
80GB 7200rpm HD
256MB RAM (up to 1GB option)
24X or better Combo Drive (Super Drive Option)
nVidia Ti200 or better 64MB Graphics Card
Even these specs won't blow you away, but it's certainly more bang for your buck. This hardware is readily available and is not expensive - so why not use it? My theory is, if you can not offer faster processors and bus speeds, etc - then make up for it in areas where you *can* offer faster hardware (like speedy HDs and video cards).
EVERYONE is digging on the 17" widescreen iMac and it's resolution. But not everyone wants to spend $1999 and have the SuperDrive or that particular video card.
Like the era of the colors, you get "locked" into certain features based on colors (can't get a Sage CD-ROM)...or couldn't get a Ruby DVD or whatever.
They dangle a cool 17" widescreen in front of you (which everyone wants), BUT offer it in ONE model, with ONE specific set of specs and for ONE price only.
I'd love for Apple - just to shut me up - to try a yearlong experiment in "build your Mac the way you want it" approach from the online store (RAM, hard drive, optical drive and video card in EVERY Mac - consumer, pro, laptop, desktop - was up to the customer's needs/budget).
If you weren't into games/graphics and didn't need a lot of hard drive space, you should be able to get a speedy, stripped down TiBook that matches your needs with a basic video card and a 20GB hard drive or whatever.
Conversely, you could trick out your new LCD iMac with a 120GB hard drive, top-of-the-line video card and whatever else you desired and were willing to pay for.