I don't think adc is holding back any specs for potential new contrast or response times. I think apple is just milking their displays as long as possible. I hope they ditch adc just for convenience and go to dvi, but that's a whole other thread.
As far as imacs go, I hope they ditch the 15", and go 17" and 20" only. They also need to decide what market they're after. The original imac offered quite good performance and a relatively cheap price; the lcd imacs have somewhat strayed from this.
I don't think adc is holding back any specs for potential new contrast or response times. I think apple is just milking their displays as long as possible. I hope they ditch adc just for convenience and go to dvi, but that's a whole other thread.
As far as imacs go, I hope they ditch the 15", and go 17" and 20" only. They also need to decide what market they're after. The original imac offered quite good performance and a relatively cheap price; the lcd imacs have somewhat strayed from this.
I'd like:
17"
1.6 G5
64 - 128 vram
256 - 1.25 ram
1399 - 1499
20"
1.8 G5
128 vram
512 - 1.5 ram
1799 - 1899
The 15" does need to go. I do wish Apple had the PB 17" widescreen for individual sale. They could ditch the other out of date 17". I was hoping for awhile that Apple would release a 15" widescreen like that in the PB, but I have given up on that so oh well.
As for 128 vram, that would only come as a BTO option, I can't see Apple giving so much to use, and it would mirror the PB's they just released. I also want to see the iMac entry level machine at $1299 or less. Maybe they can have two 17" models, SuperDrive and ComboDrive.
I too would like to see a cheap iMac, even if it meant giving up a superdrive. However, there will be a time soon where all macs will come with superdrives as a standard. Just look at the ibooks if there is any doubt. Superdrives are necessary for the digital hub concept, even if you don't have a video camera you can use it for slideshows and the like. The downside is that some may not want the superdrives, but that's how technology is, features increase and price points stay roughly the same.
I can see keeping combo drives an option on portables, but desktops should really have them standard.
This nonsense that the G5 iMac needs to wait for a G5 PB is just that, NONSENSE.
Well, I am still sort of in the camp where I think the iMac should go headless.
I know that Jobs will not likely do this thus the entry level price will be higher.
I just think the consumer should be given choice of displays.
I am just not sure of a 15" iMac. 15" LCD's are just kind of lacking nowadays. But I guess they would need to have a cheaper model.
Making the lowend model a G4 is dumb beacuase an eMac will look more attractive next to it and be a few hundered cheaper to boot.
Its a balance act. They need to make them a good value but not make them look like the Powermacs are overpriced.
A headless iMac just makes the entry level price cheaper and make the fine line wider between the iMac and the Power Mac.
That is just it, they need to eliminate the 15" altogether. The iMac is an AOI, if Apple where to chop of the head, I do not want it called an iMac. Apple needs something else in their product line without an attached monitor.
Well, since the eMac is filling out the $999 slot, I propose this for iMacs:
15" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
17" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
20" widescreen (as current model)
Pretty much the same config across all three: slot-load 8x SuperDrives standard, 256MB/512MB/1GB RAM standard, ATi RADEON 9700 chipset (like the PowerBooks), 80/100/120GB HDDs. And a smaller base, at least on the bottom two. The release of the bigger-screen iMacs makes the 15" look pudgy and weird.
I'm going to punt the G4/G5 question. Sure, I'd like a G5. But I'm trying to keep my expectations somewhat realistic (or I wouldn't have any iMacs shipping with 256MB RAM...).
The message? This is the center of your digital hub - no optional equipment or additional purchases required. Someone in marketing can give that idea a little more snap.
Well, since the eMac is filling out the $999 slot, I propose this for iMacs:
15" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
17" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
20" widescreen (as current model)
Pretty much the same config across all three: slot-load 8x SuperDrives standard, 256MB/512MB/1GB RAM standard, ATi RADEON 9700 chipset (like the PowerBooks), 80/100/120GB HDDs. And a smaller base, at least on the bottom two. The release of the bigger-screen iMacs makes the 15" look pudgy and weird.
I'm going to punt the G4/G5 question. Sure, I'd like a G5. But I'm trying to keep my expectations somewhat realistic (or I wouldn't have any iMacs shipping with 256MB RAM...).
The message? This is the center of your digital hub - no optional equipment or additional purchases required. Someone in marketing can give that idea a little more snap.
If this is the Center of the Digital Hub, then no 15", all have 512MB RAM, all have 128MB VRAM. low cost model will be a combo drive and 17" screen. As for the base, when you see the 15" with it, it really does look pudgy. Especially after drooling over 20 inches of Steve and Apple goodness.
If this is the Center of the Digital Hub, then no 15", all have 512MB RAM, all have 128MB VRAM. low cost model will be a combo drive and 17" screen. As for the base, when you see the 15" with it, it really does look pudgy. Especially after drooling over 20 inches of Steve and Apple goodness.
128MB VRAM for what? Bragging rights? Maybe the 20" model can ship with that, or have it as an option Ã* la 17" PowerBook, but what in real, practical terms is wrong with a Radeon 9700 with 64MB RAM, given that all it has to do is drive one 15" or 17" display?
No combo drive. If it's not a SuperDrive, it's not a no-apologies Digital Hub solution. If the 15" PowerBook screen is enough for professional work (which it is) then it's certainly enough to run iLife/Mail/iChat/Safari. The budget-conscious could downgrade to a combo drive as a BTO option, perhaps, but I think Apple should really push the iMac as one-stop shopping for a Digital Hub. Buy a standard config, pull it out of the box, plug it in, and you have everything you need right there. Period.
I'd go for 512MB across the board too, as I said in my post, but I downgraded the low end in recognition of the fact that Apple always lowballs RAM, at least in the low- and mid-range models.
But the basic idea I'm going for is that the principal differentiator in the iMac line is the screen, with the RAM and the HDD coming along for the ride. That's what people will notice, after all, because it's the most conspicuous feature - we already refer to the iMacs by their screen sizes.
128MB VRAM for what? Bragging rights? Maybe the 20" model can ship with that, or have it as an option Ã* la 17" PowerBook, but what in real, practical terms is wrong with a Radeon 9700 with 64MB RAM, given that all it has to do is drive one 15" or 17" display?
No combo drive. If it's not a SuperDrive, it's not a no-apologies Digital Hub solution. If the 15" PowerBook screen is enough for professional work (which it is) then it's certainly enough to run iLife/Mail/iChat/Safari. The budget-conscious could downgrade to a combo drive as a BTO option, perhaps, but I think Apple should really push the iMac as one-stop shopping for a Digital Hub. Buy a standard config, pull it out of the box, plug it in, and you have everything you need right there. Period.
I'd go for 512MB across the board too, as I said in my post, but I downgraded the low end in recognition of the fact that Apple always lowballs RAM, at least in the low- and mid-range models.
But the basic idea I'm going for is that the principal differentiator in the iMac line is the screen, with the RAM and the HDD coming along for the ride. That's what people will notice, after all, because it's the most conspicuous feature - we already refer to the iMacs by their screen sizes.
I really feel that the 15" PB screen is nicer than the iMac 15" screen, but I still feel that neither is good for Pro work.
As for the 128 MB VRAM, as I said earlier, I want them to power a second monitor with extended desktop, I hate mirroring for the most part. There is the occasional projector I want to use in mirror, but at that point I am using my PB anyway.
Uhm, a 15 inch screen is most certainly fine for a consumer digital hub.
I agree. This should be on the entry level with specifications low enough to be able to sell it for $999. Lots of people LOVE the design of the iMac but won't pay $1299 for any computer.
I would like to see an brand new MacOffice/Appleworks package included in the price. ilife keeps consumers happy (and has its business uses). but Apple needs to lower the cost of entry (swith) for SOHO etc users. Give away the best Office app on the planet so they don't have to buy MS Office on top of the cost of the computer.
I really feel that the 15" PB screen is nicer than the iMac 15" screen, but I still feel that neither is good for Pro work.
Well, you can explain that to all the pros working away on 15" PowerBooks.
Quote:
As for the 128 MB VRAM, as I said earlier, I want them to power a second monitor with extended desktop, I hate mirroring for the most part. There is the occasional projector I want to use in mirror, but at that point I am using my PB anyway.
This fails my plausibility criterion: Apple is not going to reintroduce spanning to the consumer lines, and they're certainly not going to design in anticipation of a firmware hack, so they'll ship a GPU sufficient to power the OS and applications (and games) on the built-in monitor. Mirroring is pretty much a freebie.
In those terms, a 64MB 9700 connected to the motherboard via PCI Express would be a much bigger deal than a 128MB 9700 connected via any sort of AGP, because PCIe allows for lots of GPU->RAM bandwidth, which means that the OS can use it to do much more work (all of Quartz on GPU, anyone?).
At any rate, we'll see. For the record, I'm not predicting that the next iMac revision will have a GPU connected to the board via PCI Express. It would be really nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
Another way of looking at it is to compare the iMac to the current Power Mac G4 offering.
1.25 PowerPC G4 vs. 1.25 Power PC G4 (tie)
1MB L3 cache vs. 256k cache (G4 wins)
256 DDR333 SDRAM vs. 256MB DDR333 SDRAM (tie)
80GB Ultra ATA drive vs. 80GB Ultra ATA drive (tie)
SuperDrive vs. SuperDrive (tie)
64MB ATI Radeon 9000 Pro vs. 64MB NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 Ultra (tie)
1,680 x 1,050px vs. 1,680 x 1,050px (tie)
20" widescreen vs. 20" widescreen (tie)
$2,798 vs. $2,199 (iMac wins)
This comparison shows that save the smaller cache size, the current iMac is $599 cheaper than the equivalently spec'd Power Mac G4. Is 768k of L2 cache really worth $599?
My iMac currently has 1GB of RAM, and 8x SuperDrive and a 200GB 7,200rpm hard disk installed - so it's more expandable than the iBooks...
The iMac will always be an overpriced machine meant to lure in people who base their purchases on what a computer looks like, not how good it actually is.
<snip>
I thought with Macs, how good the computer looks is a large part of how good it is!
...This comparison shows that save the smaller cache size, the current iMac is $599 cheaper than the equivalently spec'd Power Mac G4. Is 768k of L2 cache really worth $599?
My iMac currently has 1GB of RAM, and 8x SuperDrive and a 200GB 7,200rpm hard disk installed - so it's more expandable than the iBooks...
From Low End Mac:
Quote:
The June 2003 models are essentially the same as the G4/1.25 GHz dual processor (2002) with a 25% faster system bus, except that one version comes with only a single CPU. Unlike other 2003 Power Macs, these have the ability to boot into OS_9, use plain old AirPort instead of AirPort Extreme, and don't include a FireWire 800 port.
Apple also doubled the level 3 cache to 2_MB per processor on the dual CPU version.
... and the current G4 Power Mac is how old? Yes the "current" model was released in June 2003, however they started shipping 1.25 Ghz G4 PowerMacs in August 2002. So the main system is going on 2 years old, with an updated case. To me that just shows how poorely priced the current G4 PowerMac is, not how "competatively" priced the iMac 20" is.
Comments
That it actually materializes before the sun burns out.
As far as imacs go, I hope they ditch the 15", and go 17" and 20" only. They also need to decide what market they're after. The original imac offered quite good performance and a relatively cheap price; the lcd imacs have somewhat strayed from this.
I'd like:
17"
1.6 G5
64 - 128 vram
256 - 1.25 ram
1399 - 1499
20"
1.8 G5
128 vram
512 - 1.5 ram
1799 - 1899
Originally posted by sworthy
I don't think adc is holding back any specs for potential new contrast or response times. I think apple is just milking their displays as long as possible. I hope they ditch adc just for convenience and go to dvi, but that's a whole other thread.
As far as imacs go, I hope they ditch the 15", and go 17" and 20" only. They also need to decide what market they're after. The original imac offered quite good performance and a relatively cheap price; the lcd imacs have somewhat strayed from this.
I'd like:
17"
1.6 G5
64 - 128 vram
256 - 1.25 ram
1399 - 1499
20"
1.8 G5
128 vram
512 - 1.5 ram
1799 - 1899
The 15" does need to go. I do wish Apple had the PB 17" widescreen for individual sale. They could ditch the other out of date 17". I was hoping for awhile that Apple would release a 15" widescreen like that in the PB, but I have given up on that so oh well.
As for 128 vram, that would only come as a BTO option, I can't see Apple giving so much to use, and it would mirror the PB's they just released. I also want to see the iMac entry level machine at $1299 or less. Maybe they can have two 17" models, SuperDrive and ComboDrive.
I can see keeping combo drives an option on portables, but desktops should really have them standard.
This nonsense that the G5 iMac needs to wait for a G5 PB is just that, NONSENSE.
Well, I am still sort of in the camp where I think the iMac should go headless.
I know that Jobs will not likely do this thus the entry level price will be higher.
I just think the consumer should be given choice of displays.
I am just not sure of a 15" iMac. 15" LCD's are just kind of lacking nowadays. But I guess they would need to have a cheaper model.
Making the lowend model a G4 is dumb beacuase an eMac will look more attractive next to it and be a few hundered cheaper to boot.
Its a balance act. They need to make them a good value but not make them look like the Powermacs are overpriced.
A headless iMac just makes the entry level price cheaper and make the fine line wider between the iMac and the Power Mac.
Originally posted by msantti
Well, the iMacs need to go G5 ASAP.
This nonsense that the G5 iMac needs to wait for a G5 PB is just that, NONSENSE.
Well, I am still sort of in the camp where I think the iMac should go headless.
I know that Jobs will not likely do this thus the entry level price will be higher.
I just think the consumer should be given choice of displays.
I am just not sure of a 15" iMac. 15" LCD's are just kind of lacking nowadays. But I guess they would need to have a cheaper model.
Making the lowend model a G4 is dumb beacuase an eMac will look more attractive next to it and be a few hundered cheaper to boot.
Its a balance act. They need to make them a good value but not make them look like the Powermacs are overpriced.
A headless iMac just makes the entry level price cheaper and make the fine line wider between the iMac and the Power Mac.
That is just it, they need to eliminate the 15" altogether. The iMac is an AOI, if Apple where to chop of the head, I do not want it called an iMac. Apple needs something else in their product line without an attached monitor.
15" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
17" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
20" widescreen (as current model)
Pretty much the same config across all three: slot-load 8x SuperDrives standard, 256MB/512MB/1GB RAM standard, ATi RADEON 9700 chipset (like the PowerBooks), 80/100/120GB HDDs. And a smaller base, at least on the bottom two. The release of the bigger-screen iMacs makes the 15" look pudgy and weird.
Prices? $1199 / $1499 / $1799 ? Maybe? I'm probably being optimistic.
I'm going to punt the G4/G5 question. Sure, I'd like a G5. But I'm trying to keep my expectations somewhat realistic (or I wouldn't have any iMacs shipping with 256MB RAM...).
The message? This is the center of your digital hub - no optional equipment or additional purchases required. Someone in marketing can give that idea a little more snap.
Originally posted by Amorph
Well, since the eMac is filling out the $999 slot, I propose this for iMacs:
15" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
17" widescreen (PowerBook screen)
20" widescreen (as current model)
Pretty much the same config across all three: slot-load 8x SuperDrives standard, 256MB/512MB/1GB RAM standard, ATi RADEON 9700 chipset (like the PowerBooks), 80/100/120GB HDDs. And a smaller base, at least on the bottom two. The release of the bigger-screen iMacs makes the 15" look pudgy and weird.
Prices? $1199 / $1499 / $1799 ? Maybe? I'm probably being optimistic.
I'm going to punt the G4/G5 question. Sure, I'd like a G5. But I'm trying to keep my expectations somewhat realistic (or I wouldn't have any iMacs shipping with 256MB RAM...).
The message? This is the center of your digital hub - no optional equipment or additional purchases required. Someone in marketing can give that idea a little more snap.
If this is the Center of the Digital Hub, then no 15", all have 512MB RAM, all have 128MB VRAM. low cost model will be a combo drive and 17" screen. As for the base, when you see the 15" with it, it really does look pudgy. Especially after drooling over 20 inches of Steve and Apple goodness.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
If this is the Center of the Digital Hub, then no 15", all have 512MB RAM, all have 128MB VRAM. low cost model will be a combo drive and 17" screen. As for the base, when you see the 15" with it, it really does look pudgy. Especially after drooling over 20 inches of Steve and Apple goodness.
128MB VRAM for what? Bragging rights?
No combo drive. If it's not a SuperDrive, it's not a no-apologies Digital Hub solution. If the 15" PowerBook screen is enough for professional work (which it is) then it's certainly enough to run iLife/Mail/iChat/Safari. The budget-conscious could downgrade to a combo drive as a BTO option, perhaps, but I think Apple should really push the iMac as one-stop shopping for a Digital Hub. Buy a standard config, pull it out of the box, plug it in, and you have everything you need right there. Period.
I'd go for 512MB across the board too, as I said in my post, but I downgraded the low end in recognition of the fact that Apple always lowballs RAM, at least in the low- and mid-range models.
But the basic idea I'm going for is that the principal differentiator in the iMac line is the screen, with the RAM and the HDD coming along for the ride. That's what people will notice, after all, because it's the most conspicuous feature - we already refer to the iMacs by their screen sizes.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Uhm, a 15 inch screen is most certainly fine for a consumer digital hub.
Walk into a GoodWill store or some other place that sells donated merchandise and you will see 15" CRT's till the cow's come home.
I have yet to see a 17" CRT. I can pick them up for $5-$7.50 a piece.
As soon as LCD prices drop I will see old 17" and 19" ones in that same price range. But this will not happen until the 17" LCD's are sub $250.
Originally posted by Amorph
128MB VRAM for what? Bragging rights?
No combo drive. If it's not a SuperDrive, it's not a no-apologies Digital Hub solution. If the 15" PowerBook screen is enough for professional work (which it is) then it's certainly enough to run iLife/Mail/iChat/Safari. The budget-conscious could downgrade to a combo drive as a BTO option, perhaps, but I think Apple should really push the iMac as one-stop shopping for a Digital Hub. Buy a standard config, pull it out of the box, plug it in, and you have everything you need right there. Period.
I'd go for 512MB across the board too, as I said in my post, but I downgraded the low end in recognition of the fact that Apple always lowballs RAM, at least in the low- and mid-range models.
But the basic idea I'm going for is that the principal differentiator in the iMac line is the screen, with the RAM and the HDD coming along for the ride. That's what people will notice, after all, because it's the most conspicuous feature - we already refer to the iMacs by their screen sizes.
I really feel that the 15" PB screen is nicer than the iMac 15" screen, but I still feel that neither is good for Pro work.
As for the 128 MB VRAM, as I said earlier, I want them to power a second monitor with extended desktop, I hate mirroring for the most part. There is the occasional projector I want to use in mirror, but at that point I am using my PB anyway.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Uhm, a 15 inch screen is most certainly fine for a consumer digital hub.
I agree. This should be on the entry level with specifications low enough to be able to sell it for $999. Lots of people LOVE the design of the iMac but won't pay $1299 for any computer.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
I really feel that the 15" PB screen is nicer than the iMac 15" screen, but I still feel that neither is good for Pro work.
Well, you can explain that to all the pros working away on 15" PowerBooks.
As for the 128 MB VRAM, as I said earlier, I want them to power a second monitor with extended desktop, I hate mirroring for the most part. There is the occasional projector I want to use in mirror, but at that point I am using my PB anyway.
This fails my plausibility criterion: Apple is not going to reintroduce spanning to the consumer lines, and they're certainly not going to design in anticipation of a firmware hack, so they'll ship a GPU sufficient to power the OS and applications (and games) on the built-in monitor. Mirroring is pretty much a freebie.
In those terms, a 64MB 9700 connected to the motherboard via PCI Express would be a much bigger deal than a 128MB 9700 connected via any sort of AGP, because PCIe allows for lots of GPU->RAM bandwidth, which means that the OS can use it to do much more work (all of Quartz on GPU, anyone?).
At any rate, we'll see. For the record, I'm not predicting that the next iMac revision will have a GPU connected to the board via PCI Express. It would be really nice, but I'm not holding my breath.
Originally posted by Luca
1.0 GHz vs. 1.07 GHz (iBook wins)
256 kb L2 vs. 512 kb L2 (iBook wins)
1024x768 vs. 1024x768 (Tie)
Combo Drive vs. Combo Drive (Tie)
256 MB RAM vs. 256 MB RAM (Tie)
80 GB 7200 RPM vs. 30 GB 4200 RPM (iMac wins)
32 MB GeForce 4MX vs. 32 MB Radeon 9200 (iBook wins)
$1299 vs. $1099 (iBook wins)
Bulky vs. Tiny and light (iBook wins)
Another way of looking at it is to compare the iMac to the current Power Mac G4 offering.
1.25 PowerPC G4 vs. 1.25 Power PC G4 (tie)
1MB L3 cache vs. 256k cache (G4 wins)
256 DDR333 SDRAM vs. 256MB DDR333 SDRAM (tie)
80GB Ultra ATA drive vs. 80GB Ultra ATA drive (tie)
SuperDrive vs. SuperDrive (tie)
64MB ATI Radeon 9000 Pro vs. 64MB NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 Ultra (tie)
1,680 x 1,050px vs. 1,680 x 1,050px (tie)
20" widescreen vs. 20" widescreen (tie)
$2,798 vs. $2,199 (iMac wins)
This comparison shows that save the smaller cache size, the current iMac is $599 cheaper than the equivalently spec'd Power Mac G4. Is 768k of L2 cache really worth $599?
My iMac currently has 1GB of RAM, and 8x SuperDrive and a 200GB 7,200rpm hard disk installed - so it's more expandable than the iBooks...
Originally posted by Luca
<snip>
The iMac will always be an overpriced machine meant to lure in people who base their purchases on what a computer looks like, not how good it actually is.
<snip>
I thought with Macs, how good the computer looks is a large part of how good it is!
J.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Walk into a GoodWill store or some other place that sells donated merchandise and you will see 15" CRT's till the cow's come home.
...till the cow's what comes home?
Originally posted by Messiah
...This comparison shows that save the smaller cache size, the current iMac is $599 cheaper than the equivalently spec'd Power Mac G4. Is 768k of L2 cache really worth $599?
My iMac currently has 1GB of RAM, and 8x SuperDrive and a 200GB 7,200rpm hard disk installed - so it's more expandable than the iBooks...
From Low End Mac:
The June 2003 models are essentially the same as the G4/1.25 GHz dual processor (2002) with a 25% faster system bus, except that one version comes with only a single CPU. Unlike other 2003 Power Macs, these have the ability to boot into OS_9, use plain old AirPort instead of AirPort Extreme, and don't include a FireWire 800 port.
Apple also doubled the level 3 cache to 2_MB per processor on the dual CPU version.
... and the current G4 Power Mac is how old? Yes the "current" model was released in June 2003, however they started shipping 1.25 Ghz G4 PowerMacs in August 2002. So the main system is going on 2 years old, with an updated case. To me that just shows how poorely priced the current G4 PowerMac is, not how "competatively" priced the iMac 20" is.