The way Apple is pushing the iBook with all the ads etc. and not really bothering with the iMac I can't help but wonder if the new LCD iMac is actually the iBook, if you get what I'm saying.
<strong>Hey, M$ is making the X Box now. Who says a computer isn't that far behind?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe... y'all don't get it. Look further ahead.
XBOX OS is based on NT kernel and DirectX for all the multimedia stuff. You have to think ahead.. think .Net
High speed broadband... .Net... you don't NEED a special version of Office for XBox... you can just use it whenever you want through central server and you only for what you use, or a monthly/yearly subscription.
Think of all sorts of other apps that can be used that way too.
Basically, XBOX has the potential to become an MS Terminal while the bulk of the apps, etc are all hosted by MS or whomever wants to provide .Net enabled apps.
In this way MS tells developers to offer their apps in this new way and you will have people buy .Net servers to host the apps. Plus the fact that .Net will host all your personal data, you wont even have to bother with credit cards or whatnot... its just charged to your bill automatically.
Welcome to utopia (from MS pov) and to hell (if you actually have a mind of your own)
<strong>Basically, XBOX has the potential to become an MS Terminal while the bulk of the apps, etc are all hosted by MS or whomever wants to provide .Net enabled apps.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not only will they be able to control your information, reap in larger amounts of money through the licensing scheme, and make the developers buy .Net servers and server software, but they'll also be rendering warez pretty much useless, impossible, or at least really, really difficult and easy to be found out.
I'm really starting to think that Microsoft products hypnotize you somehow. Who in their right mind would want to use something remotely close to that?!
Not only will they be able to control your information, reap in larger amounts of money through the licensing scheme, and make the developers buy .Net servers and server software, but they'll also be rendering warez pretty much useless, impossible, or at least really, really difficult and easy to be found out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is both a good aspect and a bad aspect.
Imagine now you buy Norton Utilities for, say, 69$. But you only use it 2-3 times (say you are a normal, newbie user). In .Net scenario If you ask for disk repair / system diagnostics through .Net (or whatever) you would intead only be charged maybe, .50$ per use... maybe a bit more. Then you could buy a "5 get 1 free" pack, etc etc. So in the end, for the end user everything COULD actually be cheaper. You even always have the latest version available, etc.
That is for mr/mrs newbie who just want an appliance, and thats it. Obviously doesnt work with people like us who like to make bootable CDs, hack the hell out of everything etc...
It will be a while before we succumb to take in what we are fed... but the vast majority of people just want a normal computer to do basic things.
PS Maybe we should start a new thread for .Net and the X-Box and other subvesive MS strategies... hmm, actually good thread title
I don't like LCD monitors. It's okay on my ibook, but I'm not doing major work on it. My iMac replacement will be a G4 (G5?) and I'll be looking for the discontinued clear 17" CRT. I don't like how sensitive LCD's are to viewing angles, it makes editing Photos very difficult.
[quote]It may drive the price up accordingly Amorph
<hr></blockquote>
...and that was a side comment. You missed the bombshell: No video. No OpenGL animation. No movies. No games. Not unless the monitor is, for all intents and purposes, a Mac. Not an embedded client. A Mac. In that case, the problem's already solved, because the current AirPort already supplies plenty of bandwidth between one Mac and another. If you want the embedded, XTerm-style solution, you have to forgo almost all kinds of real-time data (something low-bandwidth like MIDI might still work...).
AirPort will need to get several hundred times faster and a lot less prone to disruption in order to fully replace a monitor cable. There's no way it's going to happen any time soon. There are microwave antennae available now that could handle that load, but they're big, hungry things that would cook you in your sleep.
want to know what the LCD iMac will look like? look no further than the old Studio Display. not the current ones, but the old one. Remember is was kinda dark blue.
Think something like that.
Keyboard and mouse attatch near the side/back of the unit.
[quote]Graphics card upgradability in consumer machines pales in comparison to the biggest thorn in the side of iMac sales to non-Apple-fanatic consumers - the small and completely non-upgradable 15" CRT display. 15 godddamm inches has cost Apple hundreds of thousands of unit sales over the last 12-18 months! <hr></blockquote>
Oh, I thought the assumption was that it is going to have an LCD anyway. My reasoning behind upgradeable graphics is that of all the cards consumers would likely swap in, it would be a graphics card. The only thing I remember that went in the 'Mezz' slot on the first iMac was a graphics accelerator. That would sort of take away from the original concept though.
<strong>You missed the bombshell: No video. No OpenGL animation. No movies. No games. Not unless the monitor is, for all intents and purposes, a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kinda sorta not really. For OpenGL you'd just need a fast video card and some to store all the textures locally. For movies you'd just need enough ram to buffer the clip, which would be much easier if the video card had hardware decoding (hmm... wasn't Raycer working on that?). Now it may well be that the easiest way to do all this is to make a little comp, but it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as I think you think it would. If all of the rendering/decoding was handled by the video curcuitry, then you wouldn't need a CPU. Since nothing other than video information is stored locally and computers can boot from ROM, there'd be no need for a hard drive. So relatively speaking, there's not much to this.
I think the motherboard of such a device would consist of an AirPort slot, USB (for user input), an AGP slot, memory, and whatever curcuitry is needed for everything to talk to each other. I suppose we could add a FireWire port so people could use removable media if they weren't near the actual computer. I'm probably forgetting something, but I'm still pretty sure that this would be at most maybe $100 more than the cost of the monitor + video card + airport card.
Even if it wouldn't be this cheap & easy, as long as the actual computer has a good video card and there's a way to connect this wireless monitor to it, do we really care if we can't play UT on it? Personally, I'd *love* to be able to just pull a cable out of my monitor a then be able to take it downstairs so I can work on my java homework and watch TLC at the same time. Why not just get a laptop then? Because I can't give a laptop desktop capabilities just by plugging it into to something.
[quote] I don't like LCD monitors. It's okay on my ibook, but I'm not doing major work on it. My iMac replacement will be a G4 (G5?) and I'll be looking for the discontinued clear 17" CRT. I don't like how sensitive LCD's are to viewing angles, it makes editing Photos very difficult. <hr></blockquote>
I've been sitting in front of an apple 17inch LCD for a few days, doing brochures, magazines, photo-editing and web sites and i can say without a doubt that i love it more than my Sony 21inch CRT. IT's bright, text is crisp, and unless you want to sit directly beside it, the viewing angle is outstanding. Im using it in a room with a lot of sunlight and even that's less of a problem on the lcd than the Sony.
<strong>I've been sitting in front of an apple 17inch LCD for a few days, doing brochures, magazines, photo-editing and web sites and i can say without a doubt that i love it more than my Sony 21inch CRT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I have an almost-two-year-old Cinema Display, and while the colors aren't 100% perfect, they're very good, the crispness is to die for, and there are NO viewing angle issues whatsoever. (I also have a TiBook, and unfortunately it does have viewing angle issues, so I certainly know what you're talking about.)
The (old) idea of LCD i mac is not so stupid dispite the prize problem.
Steve jobs like the innovation, LCD i mac will be a way to do a entirely new design based upon the all in one. Perhaps he can make an all in one flexible design (who knows ?)
Apple is only manufactaring at this time LCD screen, despite the prize problem. Steve Jobs credo is : the digital hub, lcd screen are digital not cathodic screen. So it won't be a big surprise if he make this choice. When the I mac came, Apple use only USB, he stop SCSI for the i mac line, he stop the floppy. So you can be sure he will stopped the Cathodic screen if he think it is the future. The goal of Apple is not to be cheap but to be affordable.
I am sure that junuary 2002 will be an interesting event ...
If Apple is going to show a new imac, it will have an LCD including a low cost model without any screen but VGA. The low cost model is no real imac, ok, but cheap. Maybe an option to built in the imac screen later.
Can u amagine how heavy, and bulky a iMac with and LCD screen would be ? Also I can't see an LCD or larger CRT monitor in the iMac for a while. You should have bought a Cube - esssencially a iMac with a G4 processor with the option of an LCD screen. Stop whining.
Comments
Maybe they will just let the iMac fizz out?
<strong>Hey, M$ is making the X Box now. Who says a computer isn't that far behind?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hehe... y'all don't get it. Look further ahead.
XBOX OS is based on NT kernel and DirectX for all the multimedia stuff. You have to think ahead.. think .Net
High speed broadband... .Net... you don't NEED a special version of Office for XBox... you can just use it whenever you want through central server and you only for what you use, or a monthly/yearly subscription.
Think of all sorts of other apps that can be used that way too.
Basically, XBOX has the potential to become an MS Terminal while the bulk of the apps, etc are all hosted by MS or whomever wants to provide .Net enabled apps.
In this way MS tells developers to offer their apps in this new way and you will have people buy .Net servers to host the apps. Plus the fact that .Net will host all your personal data, you wont even have to bother with credit cards or whatnot... its just charged to your bill automatically.
Welcome to utopia (from MS pov) and to hell (if you actually have a mind of your own)
ZO
<strong>Basically, XBOX has the potential to become an MS Terminal while the bulk of the apps, etc are all hosted by MS or whomever wants to provide .Net enabled apps.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not only will they be able to control your information, reap in larger amounts of money through the licensing scheme, and make the developers buy .Net servers and server software, but they'll also be rendering warez pretty much useless, impossible, or at least really, really difficult and easy to be found out.
<strong>
Not only will they be able to control your information, reap in larger amounts of money through the licensing scheme, and make the developers buy .Net servers and server software, but they'll also be rendering warez pretty much useless, impossible, or at least really, really difficult and easy to be found out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is both a good aspect and a bad aspect.
Imagine now you buy Norton Utilities for, say, 69$. But you only use it 2-3 times (say you are a normal, newbie user). In .Net scenario If you ask for disk repair / system diagnostics through .Net (or whatever) you would intead only be charged maybe, .50$ per use... maybe a bit more. Then you could buy a "5 get 1 free" pack, etc etc. So in the end, for the end user everything COULD actually be cheaper. You even always have the latest version available, etc.
That is for mr/mrs newbie who just want an appliance, and thats it. Obviously doesnt work with people like us who like to make bootable CDs, hack the hell out of everything etc...
It will be a while before we succumb to take in what we are fed... but the vast majority of people just want a normal computer to do basic things.
PS Maybe we should start a new thread for .Net and the X-Box and other subvesive MS strategies... hmm, actually good thread title
<hr></blockquote>
...and that was a side comment. You missed the bombshell: No video. No OpenGL animation. No movies. No games. Not unless the monitor is, for all intents and purposes, a Mac. Not an embedded client. A Mac. In that case, the problem's already solved, because the current AirPort already supplies plenty of bandwidth between one Mac and another. If you want the embedded, XTerm-style solution, you have to forgo almost all kinds of real-time data (something low-bandwidth like MIDI might still work...).
AirPort will need to get several hundred times faster and a lot less prone to disruption in order to fully replace a monitor cable. There's no way it's going to happen any time soon. There are microwave antennae available now that could handle that load, but they're big, hungry things that would cook you in your sleep.
Think something like that.
Keyboard and mouse attatch near the side/back of the unit.
oh, and it'll be G4 Apollo.
Oh, I thought the assumption was that it is going to have an LCD anyway. My reasoning behind upgradeable graphics is that of all the cards consumers would likely swap in, it would be a graphics card. The only thing I remember that went in the 'Mezz' slot on the first iMac was a graphics accelerator. That would sort of take away from the original concept though.
<strong>
= Golden Convergence (any other Robert Morgan fans out there?)
= Thin-client network computing (any other Larry Ellison fans... ehhhh, never mind
= Digital Hub (any other Steve Jobs fans out there?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
What ever happened to RKM?
<strong>You missed the bombshell: No video. No OpenGL animation. No movies. No games. Not unless the monitor is, for all intents and purposes, a Mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kinda sorta not really. For OpenGL you'd just need a fast video card and some to store all the textures locally. For movies you'd just need enough ram to buffer the clip, which would be much easier if the video card had hardware decoding (hmm... wasn't Raycer working on that?). Now it may well be that the easiest way to do all this is to make a little comp, but it wouldn't be nearly as expensive as I think you think it would. If all of the rendering/decoding was handled by the video curcuitry, then you wouldn't need a CPU. Since nothing other than video information is stored locally and computers can boot from ROM, there'd be no need for a hard drive. So relatively speaking, there's not much to this.
I think the motherboard of such a device would consist of an AirPort slot, USB (for user input), an AGP slot, memory, and whatever curcuitry is needed for everything to talk to each other. I suppose we could add a FireWire port so people could use removable media if they weren't near the actual computer. I'm probably forgetting something, but I'm still pretty sure that this would be at most maybe $100 more than the cost of the monitor + video card + airport card.
Even if it wouldn't be this cheap & easy, as long as the actual computer has a good video card and there's a way to connect this wireless monitor to it, do we really care if we can't play UT on it? Personally, I'd *love* to be able to just pull a cable out of my monitor a then be able to take it downstairs so I can work on my java homework and watch TLC at the same time. Why not just get a laptop then? Because I can't give a laptop desktop capabilities just by plugging it into to something.
<strong>What ever happened to RKM?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some kind of disease, I heard. Of course, it also could have been the shame/bankruptcy after AAPL lost 50% in one day a year ago.
...and hasn't recovered...hiss...
Alex
- Pook
I've been sitting in front of an apple 17inch LCD for a few days, doing brochures, magazines, photo-editing and web sites and i can say without a doubt that i love it more than my Sony 21inch CRT. IT's bright, text is crisp, and unless you want to sit directly beside it, the viewing angle is outstanding. Im using it in a room with a lot of sunlight and even that's less of a problem on the lcd than the Sony.
Oh how i wish i had the dollars for an ACD,
<strong>I've been sitting in front of an apple 17inch LCD for a few days, doing brochures, magazines, photo-editing and web sites and i can say without a doubt that i love it more than my Sony 21inch CRT.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I have an almost-two-year-old Cinema Display, and while the colors aren't 100% perfect, they're very good, the crispness is to die for, and there are NO viewing angle issues whatsoever. (I also have a TiBook, and unfortunately it does have viewing angle issues, so I certainly know what you're talking about.)
Alex
Steve jobs like the innovation, LCD i mac will be a way to do a entirely new design based upon the all in one. Perhaps he can make an all in one flexible design (who knows ?)
Apple is only manufactaring at this time LCD screen, despite the prize problem. Steve Jobs credo is : the digital hub, lcd screen are digital not cathodic screen. So it won't be a big surprise if he make this choice. When the I mac came, Apple use only USB, he stop SCSI for the i mac line, he stop the floppy. So you can be sure he will stopped the Cathodic screen if he think it is the future. The goal of Apple is not to be cheap but to be affordable.
I am sure that junuary 2002 will be an interesting event ...
Can u amagine how heavy, and bulky a iMac with and LCD screen would be ? Also I can't see an LCD or larger CRT monitor in the iMac for a while. You should have bought a Cube - esssencially a iMac with a G4 processor with the option of an LCD screen. Stop whining.